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 General Motors-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 6-cylinder, 24-valves 230hp 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. 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, 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 13% more metal.

I don't like generalizing things when it comes to reliability, although it does seem that Suzuki is significantly less fault-prone, 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 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 1.4 seconds less than its competitor. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 200 kilometers per hour, 17km/h more 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 25% 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. 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 more than 12.000 different ones in our database.