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 Suzuki-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 6-cylinder, 24-valves 184hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 170hp engine designed by Chrysler.

The fact that the Suzuki got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, offers a slight advantage, as the 4-star rating is better than none. Moving further on, let's take a closer look at some additional safety-related facts. Both vehicles belong to the suv segment, which is generally a very good thing safety-wise, still it doesn't help us solve our dilemma, does it? Furthermore, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the Japanese car offers a considerable difference of 15% more metal.

Manufacturers have been building their reliability reputation for decades now and, generally speaking, it appears that Suzuki is significantly less fault-prone, when all the models are taken into account. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of Suzuki with an average rating of 4.5, and models under the Jeep badge with 4.0 out of 5. The same official information place Grand Vitara as average reliability-wise, and Patriot is more or less at the same level.That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the Japanese car rank it on average as 5.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.0 out of 5.

Suzuki is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 1 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 182 kilometers per hour, 1km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy an obvious choice would be the American car, averaging around 8.5 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (33 mpg), in combined cycle. That's 24% difference compared to the Japanese 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 my opinion, everything taken into account, the Japanese car beats the other contender by far, making it the best choice without even considering other things. It all continues in the same direction, with Suzuki being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. It does come at a cost though, and that's the fuel consumption... I believe that, when we take all into account, we have only one winner here - the Suzuki. 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. 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™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.