I figured out that the timer is completely off, by around 2 seconds. If you look at the actual times shown by youtube in the video, the 1.6 reaches 100 kph in 10, the 1.4 in 9 seconds. That is still very good, but not the 8 and 7 seconds respectively that is shown by the timer. Can you please put a disclaimer in the description to make sure people are aware?
To me it seems like an unfare race, the vitara s shifts terrible, and it looks like the regular vitara is an automatic gearbox? shifts smooth and no speed is lost during the shifts. Please upload a new and better video, i think we will see the sport is pretty fast.
The 1.4 is a turbo and turbo engines are often harder to shift if you're not used to it. When you suddenly remove the load (pressing the clutch in), the turbine loses momentum and you don't have full power right away when releasing the clutch. So the rpm needle seems to hesitate a bit longer after shifting up with the turbo engine.
That 1.4T is waaay different...much faster feeling...I tried. This comparison is not good example of capability of engine....there is only 20 HP diff between these 2 engines...and in this rapid (red line) acceleration there is smaller difference (because smaller HP gap) than in real life, when you drive 70km/h on 3rd and you want to drive pass someone...if you have 1,4T you do it soooooo much quicker...so much (because HUGE torque gap 60Nm)!! So 1,6l engine is not bad...old engine, reliable. 1,4T is modern fun engine...and superb fuel effectivity.
+steelee OK, if you will drive to mall and back 1.6 is "not much slower". If you like driving, you want to drive like little hot hatch sometimes - 1.4T is awesome. 1.6 is just normal engine. So if you like cars (and you do not have like 30k for some 2.0T engines) this vitara S is superb. If you want to buy family car to drive to mall, trip 1.6 is just OK.
Interesting comparison, though the times are quite unbelievable, especially for the 1.6. Practical motoring in Australia have clocked the 1.4 at 8.4s and the 1.6 at 9.4s for 0-100 kph, but this is considerably faster than that. It makes no sense to me that Suzuki would underreport their car's performance figures to such an extent, although they have been known to do that in the past... Also, I believe at higher speeds there is a 10 kph discrepancy between what the speedo shows and the actual speed as tracked by the GPS. This can be seen in the original videos. Would it be possible for you guys to do another video with more professional measurements (gps speed tracker) so we can see the actual numbers? I think all prospective vitara owners would really appreciate it.
I was wondering about this - but I think the answer is that they're aware that some people would be put off by acceleration claims more usually associated with a warm hatch. They'll think the car will be a handful or that it will use a lot of fuel - so Suzuki wind back the claims to what they think the target market wants to hear. Either that... Or the test car has been optimised in some manner - like a remap and blueprinted engine. But I doubt that as it's been reported widely, and they can't all have been special test cars. Speedos always over-report speed (typically by around 10 percent) which explains why the car seems slightly faster here than in tests where timing gear is used.
+vavoom It only seems like that. That's because you can only hear the audio from the 1.4 S in the first part of the video. And you can't hear the 1.6 shifting at first. They are about equal.
+ApexAutomagazine Sound doesn't matter. Just look at the speedeometer, in 1.4 it almost stops during gear shifts, it even goes back at one moment (maybe because of traffic). There is no such hesitation in 1.6, it goes up almost uniformly.
+vavoom Guess it's due to traffic. But you do get a good sense of the speed difference (which is only slightly by the way) for the most part of the video.
I have tested both versions and in my opinion difference is not just slight. At 0-50 km/h both cars are almost the same, but at higher speeds 1.4 is much more willing for cooperation ;)
@APEX.....LOL....so you know nothing..."there is not much difference":-D there is HUGE difference in engine feeling in real life...HUGE...totaly different car with each engine! Do nt believe that people...try vitara with 1,6 and vitara s with 1,4T..you will feel that too;-)
Difference is very minor because the guy in the vitara S shifts terrible and is losing speed every gearshift. Plus to me it seems like the regular vitara is an automatic gearbox
Sorry for the mistake...both of them are starting at 5second donw at the video...so if the youtube vid. sec. counter is right, then the turbo reaches 100km/h at 9sec. and the normal is at 10 sec. Is that correct?:D
I think it is a combination of allgrip and the very light weight of the cars. If you put the allgrip selector into sport mode, it changes the mapping of the engine, giving it more power and torque, essentially making it the same as the engine in the Swift Sport. The cars weigh just a bit more than 1.1 tons, about the same as a Fiesta ST hot hatch. I suspect in normal testing Suzuki aren't allowed to use the Sport setting, so the cars are considerably slower, but here the Sport setting was used, so they both shoot out like rockets. Very impressive.
This SUV its one of the cars i am looking for my next car. but the automatic .In some talkchats, people say that the real acceleration is faster than official number,, but why ?? .. do you have the number for the automatic version of each one ? tnks alot
Just the comparison I was looking for. The 1.6 manual FWD Vitara is advertised as 11.5 seconds which sounds off when you look at that engine's toque curve and weight of the vehicle. My current car is over 300 kg heavier and only has 4 Nm more torque which peaks 400 rpm sooner. Official specs are 10.7, 11.2 or 11.3, depending on where you look though, which is bizarre. I can get 11 seconds without even trying hard. Maybe the official the acceleration is with half of the allowed cargo weight? In this video it's 10.7 (between tire squeal and 105 on the needle which should be actual 100 kph) and that's with sloppy shifting: ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-M_OLzZxJM14.html Anyway, very glad I found this video. I like the immediate response from an NA engine more than the sudden surge of a turbo. And with my driving style, I'm way more economical on a 2 Liter Mazda than on a 1 Liter Turbo Hyundai, especially at higher speeds. Looks like the 1.6 Petrol is for me then. Hope the wind noise at speed isn't as bad as everyone says.
I prefer naturally aspirated engines because of their high revving abilities, that's why I owned a Suzuki Swift Sport with the 1.6 liter engine with 136 hp (a little more optimised than the Vitara one). However the next generation of the Swift Sport will receive the same 1.4 Turbo engine of the Vitara S. I think Suzuki will optimise it to 160 hp (instead of the 140hp of the vitara S). And with the light platform of the Suzuki Baleno I think the next Swift Sport will be very quick! Unfortunately It's very likely the next Swift Sport will not be a high revving car... :/ Wait and see.
This has the same engine and suspension as the Swift Sport (I mean the 1,6). However they detuned the engine to just 120 ps to meet emissions and fuel consumption regulations. There is a trick though with the allgrip models. If you select sport mode (as they have probably done here), it changes not only the throttle response, but the engine mapping as well, giving it much more power and torque in the mid-range (essentially making it into a slightly heavier and taller swift sport, but with 4wd), that is I think the explanation for the very impressive performance seen here. They cannot use this setting in normal mode as it would not meet euro6 emissions standards, but this is a nice way of circumventing that and giving better performance. It is basically a chip tuning on the sly.
@@deathxxx1231 If you love the naturally aspirated and high revving engines, take the 2011-2016 Swift Sport. But if you love the torque at low revs, take the turbo one (since 2018).
