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 5-door MPV body style within the same 'MPV' 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 Opel). The first one has a Suzuki-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 92hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 80hp engine designed by Opel.

Unfortunatelly, neither of the two vehicles was submitted to the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP) testing. This makes it virtually impossible for me to pick one over the other and I'm generally against buying such cars as the safety should really always come first. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the mpv segment, which is generally a good thing 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 6% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Suzuki as a brand displays somewhat better results, all the models observed together. These are the official statistics, while our visitors describe reliability of Suzuki with an average rating of 4.5, and models under the Opel badge with 4.2 out of 5. Some independent research have also placed Wagon R as average reliability-wise, and Agila is more or less at the same level.We should definitely mention that owners of cars with the same powertrain as the Japanese car rank it on average as 4.3 out of 5, exactly the same as the other one.

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 155 kilometers per hour, exactly the same as the other car does. When it comes to fuel economy things look pretty much the same for both cars, averaging around 6.6 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (43 mpg), in combined cycle.

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 Japanese car offers slightly better overall protection and takes the lead. It all continues in the same direction, with Suzuki offering somewhat better performance, just enough to call it quicker. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... At the end, as much as I'd like to give you a winner here, it's simply a pure tie if you ask me. Nevertheless, let's not forget that people have different preferences and needs, so what really counts is your personal feel. I'm only here to help. Also, you could use the oportunity to find out which car, everything taken into account, would be the perfect choice for you in the eyes of the virtual adviser™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.