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 suv body style within the same 'SUV' 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 MG). The first one has a Suzuki-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 129hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 3-cylinder, 12-valves 156hp engine designed by General Motors.

The fact that the MG 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. 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, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. On the other hand, taking kerb weight as an important factor into account, the British car offers a marginal difference of 5% more metal.

Reliability is not the best thing to consider on the make level, but it is worth mentioning 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 4.6, and models under the MG badge with 5.0 out of 5. Unfortunatelly, I don't have enough insight that would allow me to comment in more details on the specific models level. That apart, owners of different cars powered by the same engine as the Japanese car rank it on average as 3.0 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. In addition to that it accelerates all the way to 195 kilometers per hour, 86km/h more than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Japanese car, averaging around 5.8 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (49 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 22% difference compared to the British car.

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 British car offers much better overall protection, which launches it ahead of the other contender. From there things take a different direction, with Suzuki outracing its opponent in any situation possible, making it better choice for boy racers. 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. Anyway, that's the most objective conclusion I could've came up with and it's based solely on the information found on this website. Aspects such as design, practicality, brand value and driving experience are there for you to measure them out. 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™, out of 12.000+ vehicles we currently have in our database.