Suzuki Swift 2017 vs Toyota Aygo 2014
| Gearbox: | Automatic | Automatic | |
|---|---|---|---|
| Engine: | 1.2 Petrol | 1.0 Petrol | |
| Camshaft drive: | Timing chain | Timing chain | |
Performance | |||
| Power: | 90 HP | 69 HP | |
| Torque: | 118 NM | 95 NM | |
| Acceleration 0-100 km/h: | 12.6 seconds | 15.5 seconds | |
|
Suzuki Swift is more dynamic to drive. Suzuki Swift engine produces 21 HP more power than Toyota Aygo, whereas torque is 23 NM more than Toyota Aygo. Thanks to more power Suzuki Swift reaches 100 km/h speed 2.9 seconds faster. | |||
Fuel consumption | |||
| Fuel consumption (l/100km): | 4.4 | 4.2 | |
| Real fuel consumption: | 5.8 l/100km | 5.4 l/100km | |
|
The Toyota Aygo is a better choice when it comes to fuel economy. By specification Suzuki Swift consumes 0.2 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Aygo, which means that if you drive 15,000 km in a year, the Suzuki Swift could require 30 litres more fuel. By comparing actual fuel consumption based on user reports, Suzuki Swift consumes 0.4 litres more fuel per 100 km than the Toyota Aygo. | |||
| Fuel tank capacity: | 37 litres | 35 litres | |
| Full fuel tank distance: | 840 km in combined cycle | 830 km in combined cycle | |
| 860 km on highway | 920 km on highway | ||
| 630 km with real consumption | 640 km with real consumption | ||
Drive type | |||
| Wheel drive type: | All wheel drive (AWD, 4x4) | Front wheel drive (FWD) | |
Engines | |||
| Average engine lifespan: | 350'000 km | 280'000 km | |
| Engine resource depends largely on regular maintenance and the quality of the oils and fuels used, but under equal conditions the average life of a Suzuki Swift engine could be longer. | |||
| Engine production duration: | 12 years | 20 years | |
| Engine spread: | Installed on at least 2 other car models, including Suzuki Baleno, Suzuki Ignis | Installed on at least 5 other car models, including Toyota Yaris, Citroen C1, Peugeot 107, Peugeot 108 | |
| In general, the longer and for more car models an engine is produced, the better its serviceability and availability of spare parts. Toyota Aygo might be a better choice in this respect. | |||
Dimensions | |||
| Length: | 3.84 m | 3.46 m | |
| Width: | 1.74 m | 1.62 m | |
| Height: | 1.52 m | 1.46 m | |
|
Suzuki Swift is larger. Suzuki Swift is 39 cm longer than the Toyota Aygo, 12 cm wider, while the height of Suzuki Swift is 6 cm higher. | |||
| Trunk capacity: | 265 litres | 168 litres | |
| Trunk max capacity: with rear seats folded down |
579 litres | no data | |
|
Suzuki Swift has more luggage capacity. Suzuki Swift has 97 litres more trunk space than the Toyota Aygo. | |||
| Turning diameter: | 9.6 meters | 10.2 meters | |
| The turning circle of the Suzuki Swift is 0.6 metres less than that of the Toyota Aygo, which means Suzuki Swift can be easier to manoeuvre in tight streets and parking spaces. | |||
| Gross weight (kg): | 1`405 | no data | |
| Safety: | |||
| Toyota Aygo scores higher in safety tests. The Toyota Aygo scores significantly higher in active safety technologies (stability control, lane assist, automatic braking, etc.) tests. | |||
| Quality: | above average | average | |
| Suzuki Swift has fewer problems. According to annual technical inspection data Toyota Aygo has serious deffects in 15 percent more cases than Suzuki Swift, so Suzuki Swift quality is probably better | |||
| Average price (€): | 11 200 | 8200 | |
| Pros and Cons: |
Suzuki Swift has
|
Toyota Aygo has
| |