Suzuki Grand Vitara vs Ford Escape: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Suzuki · 1998–2005
Grand Vitara I (FT/GT)
- Power
- 116 kW158 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- 12.4 s
- Top speed
- 170 km/h
- Kerb mass
- 1,245 kg
Ford · 2013
Escape
- Power
- 93 kW126 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- -
- Top speed
- -
- Kerb mass
- -
In plain words
Suzuki Grand Vitara has more power: 116 kW (158 PS) against 93 kW (126 PS) for Ford Escape. Suzuki Grand Vitara is the older design (from 1998); Ford Escape arrived in 2001. Suzuki Grand Vitara is still in production; Ford Escape is not. Our catalog has no 0–100 km/h for the Ford Escape yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Full specifications
| Suzuki Grand Vitara | Ford Escape | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | Grand Vitara I (FT/GT) · 116 kW (158 PS) | 2.0 · petrol · 93 kW (126 PS) |
| Production years | 1998–2005 | 2013 |
| Body | SUV, Convertible | SUV |
| Class | SUV / crossover | SUV / crossover |
| Country | Japan | United States |
| Performance | ||
| Power Why it matters: More power means stronger acceleration and easier overtaking, especially with a full load. | 116 kW (158 PS) 156 hp Better | 93 kW (126 PS) 125 hp |
| Power, all versions | 64–135 kW (87–184 PS) 86–181 hp | 93–186 kW (126–253 PS) 125–249 hp |
| 0–100 km/h Why it matters: A shorter 0–100 km/h time means quicker getaways and safer merging onto fast roads. | 12.4 s | No data |
| Top speed Why it matters: Top speed hints at how relaxed the car is at motorway speeds, even if you never reach it. | 170 km/h 106 mph | No data |
| Power per tonne | 93 kW/t 113 hp/ton calculated | No data |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | No data | Petrol |
| Engine | 6 cyl | 2,000 cc · 4 cyl 2.0 l |
| Gearbox | automatic | No data |
| Drive | Four-wheel drive (4×4) | No data |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,700 mm 185.0 in | No data |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | 1,245 kg 2,745 lb | No data |
| Economy and running costs | ||
| Fuel consumption Why it matters: Lower consumption cuts running costs and CO₂ emissions on every trip. | 10.9 l/100 km 21.6 mpg US | No data |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (1): Class.
Better marks the stronger figure - only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).