Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Suzuki Vitara fuel consumption

Of all Suzuki Vitara modifications produced from 1988 to 2021 real fuel consumption according to user ratings is approximately 13% higher compared to advertised consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 17% higher, but for diesel engines is approximately 9% higher.

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

YearGasoline carsDiesel cars
All carmakersSuzuki VitaraAll carmakersSuzuki Vitara
1990+5%+6% +5%-
Show all years
1991+4%+8% +4%-
1992+5%+8% +2%-
1993+5%+8% +3%-
1994+6%+8% +3%-
1995+5%+6% +2%-
1996+4%+6% +2%-
1997+3%+6% +3%-
1998+3%+6% +4%-
1999+3%+10% +5%-
2014+26%+30% +30%+27%
2015+27%+30% +33%+27%
2016+28%+30% +36%+27%
2017+28%+30% +38%+27%
2018+28%+21% +39%+27%
2019+28%+15% +37%-
2020+27%+15% +37%-
2021+26%+14% +37%-

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

2018

Suzuki Vitara 2018 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines39.8 MPG
5.9 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines34.8 MPG
6.8 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+15%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Suzuki Vitara 2018 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.2 liters per 100 km or 4% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Suzuki Vitara with automatic transmission consumes around 0.5 litres per 100 km or 8% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

The best fuel economy in its class of all the modifications has one with 1.6 petrol engine and manual transmission (Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.6 117 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.0 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.0 BOOSTERJET 112 HP manual 44.4 MPG
5.3 l/100km
38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km+15%
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.0 BOOSTERJET 112 HP 4x4 manual 41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km
35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km+16%
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.0 BOOSTERJET 112 HP 4x4 automatic 39.2 MPG
6.0 l/100km
34.6 MPG
6.8 l/100km+13%
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.0 BOOSTERJET 112 HP automatic 41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km
34.6 MPG
6.8 l/100km+19%
1.4 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.4 BOOSTERJET 129 HP manual 36.8 MPG
6.4 l/100km
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.4 BOOSTERJET 129 HP 4x4 manual 36.8 MPG
6.4 l/100km
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.4 140 HP automatic 39.9 MPG
5.9 l/100km
34.1 MPG
6.9 l/100km+17%
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.4 4WD 140 HP automatic 37.9 MPG
6.2 l/100km
32.2 MPG
7.3 l/100km+18%
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.4 BOOSTERJET 140 HP 4x4 manual 38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km
34.6 MPG
6.8 l/100km+11%
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.4 BOOSTERJET 140 HP manual 40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km
34.6 MPG
6.8 l/100km+17%
1.6 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.6 117 HP manual 40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km
37.3 MPG
6.3 l/100km+9%
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.6 117 HP automatic 39.2 MPG
6.0 l/100km
33.1 MPG
7.1 l/100km+18%
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.6 4WD 117 HP manual 37.9 MPG
6.2 l/100km
35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km+8%
Suzuki Vitara 2018 1.6 4WD 117 HP automatic 37.3 MPG
6.3 l/100km
31.4 MPG
7.5 l/100km+19%
2014 - 2018

Suzuki Vitara 2014 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines43.1 MPG
5.5 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines33.1 MPG
7.1 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+30%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines57.4 MPG
4.1 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines45.2 MPG
5.2 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *+27%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Suzuki Vitara 2014 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 Vitara with automatic transmission consumes around 0.5 litres per 100 km or 7% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Suzuki Vitara advertised fuel economy is significantly above average, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is significantly above average.
The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 1.6 diesel engine and manual transmission (Suzuki Vitara 2014 1.6 DDiS 120 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Suzuki Vitara with 1.6 petrol engine and manual transmission (Suzuki Vitara 2015 1.6 117 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.4 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Vitara 2014 1.4 BOOSTERJET 140 HP 4x4 manual 43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km
34.1 MPG
6.9 l/100km+28%
Suzuki Vitara 2015 S 1.4 140 HP automatic 45.2 MPG
5.2 l/100km
31.4 MPG
7.5 l/100km+44%
Suzuki Vitara 2015 S 1.4 4WD 140 HP automatic 42.8 MPG
5.5 l/100km
31.4 MPG
7.5 l/100km+36%
1.6 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Vitara 2015 1.6 117 HP manual 44.4 MPG
5.3 l/100km
36.2 MPG
6.5 l/100km+23%
Suzuki Vitara 2015 1.6 4WD 117 HP manual 42.0 MPG
5.6 l/100km
34.1 MPG
6.9 l/100km+23%
Suzuki Vitara 2015 1.6 4WD 117 HP automatic 41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km
32.7 MPG
7.2 l/100km+26%
Suzuki Vitara 2014 1.6 VVT 120 HP automatic 42.8 MPG
5.5 l/100km
32.7 MPG
7.2 l/100km+31%
1.6 liter diesel engine
Suzuki Vitara 2014 1.6 DDIS 120 HP 4x4 manual 56.0 MPG
4.2 l/100km
44.4 MPG
5.3 l/100km+26%
Suzuki Vitara 2014 1.6 DDiS 120 HP manual 58.8 MPG
4.0 l/100km
46.1 MPG
5.1 l/100km+28%
1988 - 2005

Suzuki Vitara 1988 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines24.9 MPG
9.4 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines24.4 MPG
9.6 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+5%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines26.7 MPG
8.8 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines29.8 MPG
7.9 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *insignificant

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Suzuki Vitara 1988 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.4 liters per 100 km or 5% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars from other manufacturers, the Suzuki Vitara fuel economy is one of the worst. 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 Vitara 1988 1.6 i 80 HP 4x4). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Suzuki Vitara with 1.6 petrol engine and manual transmission (Suzuki Vitara 1991 1.6 Villager 16V 97 HP 4x4), but despite this 70% of other similar cars have better fuel economy figures.

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.6 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Vitara 1988 1.6 i 80 HP 4x4 manual 27.7 MPG
8.5 l/100km
26.1 MPG
9.0 l/100km+6%
Suzuki Vitara 1988 1.6 i 80 HP 4x4 automatic 27.7 MPG
8.5 l/100km
Suzuki Vitara 1991 1.6 Villager 16V 97 HP 4x4 manual 28.0 MPG
8.4 l/100km
25.6 MPG
9.2 l/100km+10%
Suzuki Vitara 1991 1.6 Villager 16V 97 HP 4x4 automatic 24.2 MPG
9.7 l/100km
1.9 liter diesel engine
Suzuki Vitara 1997 Villager 1.9 Turbo D 75 HP 4x4 manual 26.7 MPG
8.8 l/100km
27.0 MPG
8.7 l/100km-1%
2.0 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Vitara 1995 2.0 Villager V6 136 HP 4x4 manual 22.2 MPG
10.6 l/100km
22.0 MPG
10.7 l/100km+1%
Suzuki Vitara 1995 2.0 Villager V6 136 HP 4x4 automatic 21.6 MPG
10.9 l/100km
2.0 liter diesel engine
Suzuki Vitara 1996 Villager 2.0 Turbo D 71 HP 4x4 automatic 25.3 MPG
9.3 l/100km
Suzuki Vitara 1994 2.0 TDI 83 HP 4x4 manual 25.3 MPG
9.3 l/100km
Suzuki Vitara 1994 2.0 TDI 83 HP 4x4 automatic 25.3 MPG
9.3 l/100km
Suzuki Vitara 1997 Villager 2.0 Turbo D 87 HP 4x4 manual 30.2 MPG
7.8 l/100km
Suzuki Vitara 1997 Villager 2.0 Turbo D 87 HP 4x4 automatic 28.3 MPG
8.3 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.