Suzuki Grand Vitara II (JT) vs Chevrolet Niva: specs side by side
Quick comparison from catalog data - no editorial review of this pair yet.
Suzuki · 2005–2015
Grand Vitara II (JT)
- Power
- 103 kW140 PS
- Kerb mass
- -
Photo: Dinkun Chen / Wikimedia Commons, CC BY-SA 4.0
Chevrolet · 2002–2020
Niva
- Power
- 90 kW122 PS
- Kerb mass
- 1,410 kg
Photo: Throwawayacc222 / Wikimedia Commons, CC0
At a glance
Who suits what, worked out from the catalog figures of the versions above.
- Family Grand Vitara II (JT) Boot: 398 l vs 320 l
In plain words
Suzuki Grand Vitara II (JT) has more power: 103 kW (140 PS) against 90 kW (122 PS) for Chevrolet Niva. Suzuki Grand Vitara II (JT) has the bigger boot: 398 l against 320 l. Chevrolet Niva is the older design (from 2002); Suzuki Grand Vitara II (JT) arrived in 2005. On the catalog figures, the Suzuki Grand Vitara II (JT) is the pick for family. Our catalog has no kerb mass for the Suzuki Grand Vitara II (JT) yet, so some checks above leave it out.
Size and weight
| Grand Vitara II (JT) | Niva | |
|---|---|---|
| Width | 1,810 mm71.3 in | 1,770 mm69.7 in −40 mm −1.6 in −2.2% |
| Height | 1,695 mm66.7 in | 1,652 mm65.0 in −43 mm −1.7 in −2.5% |
| Boot | 398 l14.1 cu ft | 320 l11.3 cu ft −78 l −2.8 cu ft −19.6% |
| Fits a standard garage? | No data | Yes |
Difference vs Grand Vitara II (JT) (±). 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 II (JT) | Chevrolet Niva | |
|---|---|---|
| General | ||
| Version | 2.0 · 103 kW (140 PS) | 1.8 Z18XE · petrol · 90 kW (122 PS) |
| Production years | 2005–2015 | 2002–2020 |
| Body | SUV | 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. | 103 kW (140 PS) 138 hp Better | 90 kW (122 PS) 121 hp |
| Power, all versions | 78–124 kW (106–169 PS) 105–166 hp | 59–90 kW (80–122 PS) 79–121 hp |
| Power per tonne | No data | 64 kW/t 78 hp/ton calculated |
| Engine and transmission | ||
| Fuel | No data | Petrol |
| Engine | 2,000 cc 2.0 l | 1,800 cc 1.8 l |
| Engine code | No data | Z18XE |
| Gearbox | 5-speed manual | No data |
| Drive | No data | All-wheel drive |
| Dimensions and weight | ||
| Length | No data | 4,048 mm 159.4 in |
| Width | 1,810 mm 71.3 in | 1,770 mm 69.7 in |
| Height | 1,695 mm 66.7 in | 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. | No data | 1,410 kg 3,109 lb |
| Boot Why it matters: A bigger boot fits more luggage, shopping or a pram. | 398 l 14.1 cu ft Better | 320 l 11.3 cu ft |
These cars do not differ in the data we have.
Equal rows hidden (2): Body, Class.
Better marks the stronger figure - only for measurable specs (power, torque, 0–100 km/h, consumption, boot, weight).