Ssangyong Tivoli vs. Suzuki Vitara: A detailed showdown

The comparison concerns well-equipped variants, but these are the ones that most often reach customers. Their prices are still highly competitive. They share many features, and the only fundamental differences are in drive and equipment.

Both cars stand out with meagre failure rates (in practice, they are entirely reliable), potentially enormous durability, and low maintenance costs because they are still relatively simple constructions. Such cars are especially sought after by experienced, older individuals who buy them for years, which is why SsangYong offers a five-year warranty. At the same time, Vitara might not have any at all.

Though no one officially admits it, the guests in the showrooms of both brands are usually retirees and at least middle-aged people. Such individuals often mention the Tivoli when asking about the Vitara, and others visiting a SsangYong showroom have frequently already been to a Suzuki dealer. Though they are not sales hits, this comparison will answer many questions.

The bodies of the SsangYong Tivoli and Suzuki Vitara have different styles, but the overall shape is precisely the same. While practically crossovers in the B segment, they look like small SUVs as opposed to popular ones like the Renault Captur or the Toyota Yaris Cross. This look appeals to conservative buyers.

They differ slightly in dimensions, favouring the Tivoli in every aspect. It is about 4 cm longer, 3.5 cm wider, and 1.3 cm taller, but the most significant difference is a 10 cm longer wheelbase. This does not translate into more interior space in any way. Subjectively, the Suzuki offers more room, but the differences are so minor that they can be considered insignificant.

More importantly, the Suzuki's back seat is more comfortable because it is slightly higher. The Vitara also offers a slightly better range of steering wheel and seat adjustments in the front, although the backrest angle is adjusted in steps. I find the Japanese model more comfortable, but these are highly individual matters.

Both cars are known for their very low-quality interior materials, which are complex and feel cheap. Even the previous generation Dacia Duster didn't look bad compared to these.

The Suzuki's doors are so light that sometimes they need to be closed twice. The Tivoli, which feels a bit more solid, can improve this level slightly. In the most luxurious Wild trim tested, the car looks nice, and the leather upholstery with orange inserts does not deviate much from the standards in this segment. I think even the lower versions of the Tivoli feel like higher-end cars compared to the top-tier Vitara. In the small Suzuki, only the seats look good.

In practice, both models perfectly meet average needs. They are not too big but offer enough interior space and good ergonomics. The multimedia is somewhat outdated and awkward to use but manageable with practice. Classical gauges are another advantage for older people who don't want many dashboard gadgets. Unfortunately, after its last facelift, SsangYong proposes to touch climate control. It works fine but may not please everyone.

The Korean car still wins with nicer multimedia, good navigation maps, and CarPlay, which displays images on the instrument panel, for example, when using Google Maps.

Moving on to the trunk, here as well, on paper, the Tivoli has an advantage. According to VDA standards, its trunk has a capacity of 425 liters, while the Vitara's trunk has a capacity of 370 liters. However, this space is reduced to 285 liters in the hybrid version.

Measurements showed that the Suzuki's trunk floor is longer. The distance from the curtain to the tailgate is also greater. The Vitara loses 4 cm in width and 12 cm in height (to the curtain). Therefore, the Vitara has no chance in the version I received for testing.

The problem with Suzuki is the current configurability of the car. Previously, the Vitara had manual, automatic, and front—or all-wheel drive options. To have an automatic transmission, you must choose the Strong Hybrid version with a naturally aspirated 1.5L engine. The more comparable 1.4 BoosterJet is only available with a manual transmission. Both engine variants are available in 2WD and 4WD.

In SsangYong, it's easier because the customer decides on the transmission and drive type. The only choice is the 1.5L Turbo gas engine or an LPG version. Although those who argue that only a comparison with the 1.4 Turbo Vitara makes sense with similar power and construction, today's customers often care more about an automatic transmission than power. That's why I picked it, even though the Suzuki has 2WD, and the SsangYong has 4WD.

The power differences are evident right from the start. The 163-hp Tivoli engine is very lively, almost too much. Especially after driving the Vitara, it feels overly aggressive. In terms of performance, it crushes its test rival and most other market competitors. The dynamics in every rpm range and gear are satisfactory, and the six-speed automatic transmission works perfectly with the engine. Next to it, the Vitara is simply a "slug" with a modest 116 hp. And it's frustrating.

For those unfamiliar with automatic transmissions, the Suzuki hybrid will be more annoying than the Toyota hybrid. There's no whining, but there's jerking. You have to learn to drive it and understand that it's not an automatic transmission with a manual shift function but a manual transmission with an automatic shift function. The Suzuki transmission becomes your favorite feature once you accept and understand it. I convinced two people during the test and fell in love with it myself.

However, it's unsuitable for conservative drivers—neither an auto nor a manual sounds good. But the Vitara excels in fuel consumption. While the Tivoli beats it in performance, the Suzuki makes up for it at the pump.

Although the Tivoli's fuel tank is 3 litres larger, you'll get about 501 km, while the Vitara's 47-litre tank lasts about 700-800 km. Below are my measurements, but the last two figures require some commentary.

In the mixed cycle, I considered fuel consumption that best reflects the reality of my car use. Half of the distance is in so-called city driving, and the average fuel consumption is a combination of low, medium, and high speeds (50%) and city driving (50%).

With this usage, the Vitara's average fuel consumption is 6.5 L/100 km, while the Tivoli requires nearly 10 L/100 km. I also did a night test drive on a country road through towns, resulting in a maximally smooth ride with an average speed of 63 km/h. The result speaks for itself. The Vitara used as much fuel as a hybrid or even a good gasoline engine of this size should. In contrast, the SsangYong's engine proved it couldn't be economical even in such highly favorable conditions.

While the Tivoli's engine is significantly more dynamic, the differences are not as noticeable in normal road conditions, especially in this vehicle class. Forced to its maximum effort, the SsangYong still can't be called "economical," making its engine overly fuel-hungry and potentially annoying for daily use.

Considering the segment, how these cars are used, and their intended use, the Suzuki has the better drivetrain. However, that requires reading a footnote and being careful with the transmission, as it's not for everyone. You shouldn't buy the Strong Hybrid variant without a test drive, and if you already did, before returning the car to the dealer, it's worth reading the following test.

Getting into the Tivoli was undoubtedly more pleasant daily, as it offers a better interior feel and vastly superior performance. However, regarding driving characteristics and experience, the Suzuki made me smile more.

Despite poor interior materials, high noise levels, and mediocre dynamics, it felt like a more mature car. It is simply a decent, cheap car.

Despite its seemingly more solid construction and premium-oriented finishing, the SsangYong was even noisier inside (cabin soundproofing). However, the audio played more quietly (too quiet, as in almost every model of this brand). Irritatingly loud turn signals are another purely acoustic factor against the Tivoli.

The Tivoli's suspension is better with 16-inch wheels and thicker tires, but in the Wild spec, the thin "slabs" stretched on 18-inch rims can't even come close to the Vitara's comfort levels. The Vitara's driving properties are, in my opinion, unmatched in this segment, giving the Korean car a formidable rival.

Thus, Tivoli's only real advantage over the Vitara is its drivetrain. The engine is more dynamic, the transmission is automatic, and the four-wheel drive doesn't overheat as quickly as in the Vitara. And that's also conditional on you not caring much about fuel consumption. Considering the car in all aspects, only a larger trunk gives the Tivoli significant superiority over the Vitara. In other areas, the Japanese model is better.

If you plan to drive a lot, the Vitara is undoubtedly a much more economical car. And it doesn't matter whether you choose the hybrid or the classic 1.4 Turbo gasoline version.

The Tivoli in the basic version is a cheaper car, costing $22,100 with a manual transmission, while the lowest-priced Vitara (according to the price list) costs $23,900. To make these cars comparable in operating costs (fuel), you would need to equip the SsangYong with an LPG installation for $1,600, totaling $23,700.

A $100 difference is negligible, but the essential Vitara equipment is better than the base Tivoli, which lacks even dual-axis steering column adjustment. Therefore, Suzuki's base offer is better, considering the significantly lower fuel consumption.

If you aim to spend around $35,000-$37,000, the SsangYong becomes more attractive, offering more equipment elements. Features such as dual-zone climate control or ventilated seats, which you won't get in the Suzuki for an extra charge, are available here. Plus, you get to configure the drivetrain as you wish. So, if you want to buy a crossover for about $24,500, go for the Suzuki. The more money you allocate for a car, the more attractive the SsangYong becomes.