Compare two cars
Compare any two cars and get our Virtual Adviser™ opinion
Marketing
Dimensons & Outlines
Engine
Performance (manual gearbox)
Performance (automatic gearbox)
Expenses
Virtual Adviser's™ opinion
Two significantly similar cars, no doubt about that. Still, each one has something different to offer. Having both cars powered by petrol engines and utilizing the 4-door sedan body style within the same 'Small family car' segment, the only major difference here really is their wheel drive configuration (4 x 4 for the Suzuki and front in the case of the KIA). The first one has a Suzuki-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 103hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 105hp engine designed by Hyundai.
SafetyThe fact that the KIA 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. That aside, let's consider some other aspects which affect safety. Both vehicles belong to the small family car segment, which is generally classifying them somewhere in the middle safety-wise, but that fact doesn't break the tie between the two cars. Furthermore, if we'd like to consider vehicle mass in this context too, which we definitely should, the Japanese car offers a marginal difference of 4% more metal.
ReliabilityReliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning that Suzuki as a brand displays somewhat better results, when all the models are taken into account. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Suzuki with an average rating of 4.5, and models under the KIA badge with 4.6 out of 5. Independent research findings rank Liana as average reliability-wise, and Cerato is more or less at the same level.Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Japanese car rank it on average as 4.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.6 out of 5.
Performance & Fuel economyKIA is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1.5 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 186 kilometers per hour, 26km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 7.1 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (40 mpg), in combined cycle.
Verdict
Suzuki appears just a bit more reliable, although the difference is truly marginal. The most important thing when deciding between any two vehicles should always be safety, both passive and active. In my opinion, everything taken into account, the Korean car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. It all continues in the same direction, with KIA being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. To make things even better, it consumps less fuel! It's not difficult to say then that if I'd need to make a choice, it would definitely be the KIA. 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. I suggest you spend two more minutes in order to find out which car, based on your needs and budget, would be picked by the virtual adviser™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.