Well, these are two pretty similar cars we have here! It's only details that could potentially make the difference. Considering they both belong to the suv segment and utilize the same 5-door suv body style and the 4 x 4 wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. The first one has a Rover-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 6-cylinder, 24-valves 177hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 6-cylinder, 24-valves 144hp engine designed by Suzuki.

The fact that the Suzuki got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, isn't really an advantage, taken the poor 3-star rating it received. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. Furthermore, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the British car offers a considerable difference of 14% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Suzuki presents an order of magnitude better choice, at least on all of the models level. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Land Rover with an average rating of 3.8, and models under the Suzuki badge with 4.5 out of 5. Independent research findings rank Freelander as average reliability-wise, and Grand Vitara is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the British car rank it on average as 5.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.5 out of 5.

Suzuki is a bit more agile, reaching 100km/h in 0.2 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 175 kilometers per hour, 7km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy an obvious choice would be the Japanese car, averaging around 10.2 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (28 mpg), in combined cycle. That's 22% difference compared to the British car!

Suzuki is apparently more reliable, not too much, but just enough. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In this case though, it seems that both cars show similar levels of passenger protection all together, so that won't break a tie. But one thing that actually could is the performance, with Suzuki offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! All together, there's not much more to say, in this case I wouldn't even consider anything but Suzuki. In any case that's my personal view, built upon all the data available to me. What should decide here though is the way you feel about the two vehicles, and I hope you'll find my guidelines useful in the process. In case you have two minutes to spare I invite you to define your needs, desires and budget and see which car would be chosen by the virtual adviser™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.