Suzuki Grand Vitara vs Chevrolet Niva: 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
Chevrolet · 2002–2020
Niva
- Power
- 90 kW122 PS
- 0–100 km/h
- -
- Top speed
- -
- Kerb mass
- 1,410 kg
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
Categories won: Grand Vitara I (FT/GT) 1 Niva 1
- City Niva Length: 4,048 mm vs 4,700 mm
- Performance Grand Vitara I (FT/GT) Power per tonne: 93 kW/t vs 64 kW/t
In plain words
Suzuki Grand Vitara has more power: 116 kW (158 PS) against 90 kW (122 PS) for Chevrolet Niva. Suzuki Grand Vitara is 652 mm longer than Chevrolet Niva (4,700 mm vs 4,048 mm). Suzuki Grand Vitara is lighter by 165 kg (1,245 kg vs 1,410 kg). Suzuki Grand Vitara is the older design (from 1998); Chevrolet Niva arrived in 2002. Suzuki Grand Vitara is still in production; Chevrolet Niva is not. On the catalog figures, the Chevrolet Niva is the pick for city; the Suzuki Grand Vitara is the pick for performance. Our catalog has no 0–100 km/h for the Chevrolet Niva yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Race Stats side by side
Each figure is a 0–100 score from the catalog numbers, the same as on the 1CARS Race cards. PI is the overall performance index (100–999) and its class D–S.
| Stat | Grand Vitara I (FT/GT) | Niva |
|---|---|---|
| PI | B · 543 | C · 450 |
| Power | 48 | 36 |
| Grip | 65 | 34 |
| Handling | 80 | 61 |
| Top speed | 27 | 31 |
| Launch | 22 | 33 |
| Reliability | 91 | - |
Grip and handling are estimates from drive type, weight, height and body (hover a figure to see where it comes from). 1CARS Race
Who wins a race?
Quarter-mile (402 m) drag from a standing start, dry road, no reaction time - the 1CARS Race physics on the catalog figures of these versions.
- 1 Niva1.8 Z18XE · petrol · 90 kW (122 PS) 17.05 sat 128 km/h
- 2 Grand Vitara I (FT/GT)Grand Vitara I (FT/GT) · 116 kW (158 PS) 17.98 sat 118 km/h · +0.93 s
Size and weight
| Grand Vitara I (FT/GT) | Niva | |
|---|---|---|
| Length | 4,700 mm185.0 in | 4,048 mm159.4 in −652 mm −25.7 in −13.9% |
| Kerb weight | 1,245 kg2,745 lb | 1,410 kg3,109 lb +165 kg +364 lb +13.3% |
| Fits a standard garage? | No data | Yes |
Difference vs Grand Vitara I (FT/GT) (±). Garage check: a standard single garage takes a car up to about 5.0 m (16 ft 5 in) long and 1.9 m (6 ft 3 in) wide (width as listed in the catalog; some makers include the mirrors). Leave about 0.6 m (2 ft) to open the doors.
Full specifications
| Suzuki Grand Vitara | Chevrolet Niva | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | Grand Vitara I (FT/GT) · 116 kW (158 PS) | 1.8 Z18XE · petrol · 90 kW (122 PS) |
| Production years | 1998–2005 | 2002–2020 |
| Body | SUV, Convertible | SUV |
| Class | SUV / crossover | SUV / crossover |
| Country | Japan | No data |
| 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 | 90 kW (122 PS) 121 hp |
| Power, all versions | 64–135 kW (87–184 PS) 86–181 hp | 59–90 kW (80–122 PS) 79–121 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 Better | 64 kW/t 78 hp/ton calculated |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | No data | Petrol |
| Engine | 6 cyl | 1,800 cc 1.8 l |
| Engine code | No data | Z18XE |
| Gearbox | automatic | No data |
| Drive | Four-wheel drive (4×4) | All-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | 4,700 mm 185.0 in | 4,048 mm 159.4 in |
| Width | No data | 1,770 mm 69.7 in |
| Height | No data | 1,652 mm 65.0 in |
| Wheelbase | No data | 2,450 mm 96.5 in |
| Kerb weight Why it matters: A lighter car is usually more agile and uses less energy. | 1,245 kg 2,745 lb Better | 1,410 kg 3,109 lb |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | No data | 320 l 11.3 cu ft |
| 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).