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 small family car segment and utilize the same 4-door sedan body style and the front wheel drive system, it all comes up to the specific petrol engine choice they offer. The first one has a Mazda-engineered powertrain under the hood, a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 88hp unit, while the other one gets its power and torque from a 4-cylinder, 16-valves 96hp engine designed by Suzuki.

The fact that the Suzuki got tested by the European New Car Assessment Programme (Euro NCAP), while the other contender didn't, doesn't actually do much for it, as it's still a lousy 2-star coffin on wheels. Still, apart from the official crash test results there are other things we need to be aware of. Both vehicles belong to the small family car segment, which is generally classifying them somewhere in the middle safety-wise, but it doesn't do much to help us decide between the two. Furthermore, when it comes to weight, a factor that most people underestimate, the Korean car offers a considerable difference of 11% 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, at least on all of the models level. That's the official data, while our visitors describe reliability of KIA with an average rating of 4.6, and models under the Suzuki badge with 4.5 out of 5. Unfortunatelly, I don't have enough insight that would allow me to comment in more details on the specific models level. Above it all, drivers of cars with the same engine as the Korean car rank it on average as 3.0, while the one under the competitor's bonnet gets 4.0 out of 5.

Suzuki is undoubtly more agile, reaching 100km/h in 2.6 seconds less than its competitor. Still, it lacks the power to win the top speed competition, topping at 175 kilometers per hour, 5km/h less than the other car. When it comes to fuel economy the winner has to be the Japanese car, averaging around 7.3 liters of fuel per 100 kilometers (39 mpg), in combined cycle. We can't ignore that 8% difference compared to the Korean 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 Korean car offers significantly better overall protection, taking the lead here. From there things take a different direction, with Suzuki being considerably quicker, thus putting more smile on driver's face. 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. 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™, among thousands of similar, yet so different vehicles.