Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Suzuki Wagon R+ fuel consumption

Of all Suzuki Wagon R+ modifications produced from 1997 to 2008 real fuel consumption according to user ratings is approximately 7% higher compared to advertised consumption. For petrol engines real consumption is in average 17% higher, but for diesel engines is similar to manufacturer's stated consumption. Starting from 1997 Suzuki Wagon R+ average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was similar to average, at 1998 it was significantly higher than average, at 2004 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became less than industry average. For more details, see the table below.

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

YearGasoline carsDiesel cars
All carmakersSuzuki Wagon R+All carmakersSuzuki Wagon R+
1997+3%+3% +3%-
Show all years
1998+3%+20% +4%-
1999+3%+20% +5%-
2000+4%+19% +5%-
2001+5%+19% +6%-
2002+6%+19% +7%-
2003+6%+16% +8%insignificant
2004+7%+11% +9%insignificant
2005+8%+11% +10%insignificant
2006+9%+11% +11%insignificant

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Suzuki Wagon R+.

2003 - 2006

Suzuki Wagon R+ 2003 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines36.0 MPG
6.5 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+11%
Average advertised fuel consumption for diesel engines45.2 MPG
5.2 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for diesel engines46.1 MPG
5.1 l/100km
Average real diesel consumption difference *insignificant
ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.0 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Wagon R+ 2003 1.0 53 HP manual 38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km
1.2 liter diesel engine
Suzuki Wagon R+ 2003 1.2 1.3 Diesel 69 HP manual 45.2 MPG
5.2 l/100km
46.1 MPG
5.1 l/100km-2%
1.3 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Wagon R+ 2003 1.3 76 HP automatic 32.7 MPG
7.2 l/100km
Suzuki Wagon R+ 2003 1.3 94 HP manual 37.3 MPG
6.3 l/100km
33.6 MPG
7.0 l/100km+11%
2000 - 2003

Suzuki Wagon R+ 2000 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines36.9 MPG
6.4 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines31.4 MPG
7.5 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+19%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Suzuki Wagon R+ 2000 with automatic transmission consumes on average 0.8 liters per 100 km or 13% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Suzuki Wagon R+ with automatic transmission consumes around 0.8 litres per 100 km or 11% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Suzuki Wagon R+ advertised fuel economy is average, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is noticeably below average - at least two thirds of similar cars have lower fuel consumption.
The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 1.3 petrol engine and manual transmission (Suzuki Wagon R+ 2001 1.3 i 16V 76 HP 4x4). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Suzuki Wagon R+ with 1.3 petrol engine and manual transmission (Suzuki Wagon R+ 2000 1.3 76 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.0 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Wagon R+ 2002 1.0 53 HP manual 38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km
1.3 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Wagon R+ 2000 1.3 76 HP manual 38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km
32.2 MPG
7.3 l/100km+20%
Suzuki Wagon R+ 2000 1.3 76 HP automatic 34.1 MPG
6.9 l/100km
29.0 MPG
8.1 l/100km+17%
Suzuki Wagon R+ 2001 1.3 i 16V 76 HP 4x4 manual 33.1 MPG
7.1 l/100km
1997 - 2000

Suzuki Wagon R+ 1997 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines37.1 MPG
6.3 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines31.5 MPG
7.5 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *+20%

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Suzuki Wagon R+ 1997 with automatic transmission consumes on average 1.2 liters per 100 km or 20% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox. Based on user-reported real-world fuel consumption, this generation Suzuki Wagon R+ with automatic transmission consumes around 2.2 litres per 100 km or 33% more fuel than a version with the same engine but a manual gearbox.

Compared to similar cars of other manufacturers, the Suzuki Wagon R+ advertised fuel economy is slightly better than average, but according to available user reports on actual consumption, real fuel economy is slightly worse than average.
The best real fuel economy in its class according to user reviews of all the modifications has modification with 1.0 petrol engine and manual transmission (Suzuki Wagon R+ 1997 1.0 65 HP). However, of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Suzuki Wagon R+ with 1.2 petrol engine and manual transmission (Suzuki Wagon R+ 1998 1.2 69 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.0 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Wagon R+ 1997 1.0 65 HP manual 39.2 MPG
6.0 l/100km
37.9 MPG
6.2 l/100km+3%
Suzuki Wagon R+ 1998 1.0 i 69 HP 4x4 manual 39.2 MPG
6.0 l/100km
35.6 MPG
6.6 l/100km+10%
Suzuki Wagon R+ 1998 1.0 i 69 HP automatic 38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km
26.4 MPG
8.9 l/100km+46%
Suzuki Wagon R+ 1998 1.0 i 16V Turbo 101 HP manual 34.1 MPG
6.9 l/100km
1.2 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Wagon R+ 1998 1.2 69 HP manual 39.9 MPG
5.9 l/100km
35.1 MPG
6.7 l/100km+14%
Suzuki Wagon R+ 1998 1.2 69 HP automatic 33.1 MPG
7.1 l/100km
26.4 MPG
8.9 l/100km+25%

* - 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.