Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Suzuki Baleno fuel consumption

Of all Suzuki Baleno modifications produced from 1995 to 2019 real fuel consumption according to user ratings is approximately 8% higher compared to advertised consumption. Starting from 1995 Suzuki Baleno average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was less than industry average, at 1998 it was similar to average, at 2002 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became less than industry average. Of course, it should be noted that the gap between advertised and actual fuel economy changed quite significantly across the entire automotive industry during this period. For more details, see the table below.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline cars
All carmakersSuzuki Baleno
1995+5%insignificant
Show all years
1996+4%insignificant
1997+3%insignificant
1998+3%+4%
1999+3%+4%
2000+4%+4%
2001+5%+4%
2002+6%insignificant
2016+28%+24%
2017+28%+24%
2018+28%+24%
2019+28%+24%

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Suzuki Baleno.

2016 - 2019

Suzuki Baleno 2016 hatchback fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines53.5 MPG
4.4 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines42.5 MPG
5.5 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+24%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Suzuki Baleno 2016 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.1 liters per 100 km or 2% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Suzuki Baleno with automatic transmission consumes around 0.3 litres per 100 km or 5% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Suzuki Baleno with 1.2 petrol engine and automatic transmission (Suzuki Baleno 2016 1.2 90 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.0 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Baleno 2016 1.0 112 HP manual 52.3 MPG
4.5 l/100km
41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km+27%
Suzuki Baleno 2016 1.0 112 HP automatic 50.0 MPG
4.7 l/100km
39.2 MPG
6.0 l/100km+28%
1.2 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Baleno 2016 1.2 90 HP manual 56.0 MPG
4.2 l/100km
48.0 MPG
4.9 l/100km+17%
Suzuki Baleno 2016 1.2 90 HP automatic 56.0 MPG
4.2 l/100km
1998 - 2001

Suzuki Baleno 1998 hatchback fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines32.2 MPG
7.3 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines31.4 MPG
7.5 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+3%
ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.6 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Baleno 1998 1.6 96 HP manual 32.2 MPG
7.3 l/100km
31.4 MPG
7.5 l/100km+3%
1998 - 2001

Suzuki Baleno 1998 sedan fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines29.8 MPG
7.9 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+7%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Suzuki Baleno 1998 with automatic transmission consumes on average 1.5 liters per 100 km or 19% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox.

The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 1.6 petrol engine and manual transmission (Suzuki Baleno 1998 1.6 96 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Suzuki Baleno with 1.8 petrol engine and manual transmission (Suzuki Baleno 1998 1.8 121 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.3 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Baleno 1998 1.3 85 HP manual 35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km
32.2 MPG
7.3 l/100km+11%
1.6 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Baleno 1998 1.6 96 HP manual 32.2 MPG
7.3 l/100km
31.4 MPG
7.5 l/100km+3%
Suzuki Baleno 1998 1.6 96 HP automatic 27.0 MPG
8.7 l/100km
1.8 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Baleno 1998 1.8 121 HP manual 30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km
28.3 MPG
8.3 l/100km+8%
Suzuki Baleno 1998 1.8 121 HP automatic 25.6 MPG
9.2 l/100km
1.9 liter diesel engine
Suzuki Baleno 1999 1.9 TD 75 HP manual 33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km
1995 - 2002

Suzuki Baleno 1995 wagon fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines29.5 MPG
8.0 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines31.6 MPG
7.5 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *insignificant
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Suzuki Baleno 1995 with automatic transmission consumes on average 1.4 liters per 100 km or 18% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox.

The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 1.6 petrol engine and manual transmission (Suzuki Baleno 1995 Wagon 1.6 96 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Suzuki Baleno with 1.8 petrol engine and manual transmission (Suzuki Baleno 1995 Wagon 1.8 121 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.3 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Baleno 1995 Wagon 1.3 85 HP manual 34.1 MPG
6.9 l/100km
33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km+1%
1.6 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Baleno 1995 1.6 96 HP 4x4 manual 29.8 MPG
7.9 l/100km
29.0 MPG
8.1 l/100km+3%
Suzuki Baleno 1995 Wagon 1.6 96 HP manual 31.4 MPG
7.5 l/100km
31.8 MPG
7.4 l/100km-1%
Suzuki Baleno 1995 Wagon 1.6 96 HP automatic 27.0 MPG
8.7 l/100km
1.8 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Baleno 1995 Wagon 1.8 121 HP manual 30.5 MPG
7.7 l/100km
29.4 MPG
8.0 l/100km+4%
Suzuki Baleno 1995 Wagon 1.8 121 HP automatic 25.6 MPG
9.2 l/100km
1.9 liter diesel engine
Suzuki Baleno 1995 Wagon 1.9 TD 75 HP manual 33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.