Compare performance (110 HP vs 150 HP), boot space and price (21,800 £ vs 26,400 £ ) at a glance. Find out which car is the better choice for you – Suzuki S-Cross or VW T-Roc?
All details on performance, efficiency, range and trunk space can be found in the technical comparison below – including user reviews for both models.
The automotive market is brimming with intriguing options, especially when it comes to compact SUVs. Today, we delve into a comparison between the Suzuki S-Cross and the Volkswagen T-Roc, both of which have made significant strides in 2024. Each SUV carries distinct features, but which one better aligns with the desires of modern drivers? Let's explore the technical aspects and innovations of both vehicles.
The Suzuki S-Cross boasts a robust and muscular design, measuring 4300mm in length, 1785mm in width, and standing 1580mm tall. Its five-door configuration offers practicality for families or those needing extra space. On the other hand, the VW T-Roc presents a slightly smaller footprint with a length of 4236mm and a width of 1819mm, but it comes in various heights, ranging from 1527mm to 1584mm depending on the variant. The T-Roc's slick design prioritizes a sporty appearance, appealing particularly to younger consumers.
When it comes to engine options, the Suzuki S-Cross offers two variants: a Full Hybrid and a Petrol Mild Hybrid (MHEV), with power outputs of 116 and 129 HP respectively. The S-Cross features both Front-Wheel Drive and All-Wheel Drive configurations, delivering a 0-100 km/h acceleration range of 9.5 seconds. In contrast, the VW T-Roc flaunts a broader array of powertrains. Its offerings include petrol engines generating 115 to 300 HP and diesel options reaching up to 1968cc. With various settings for performance, the T-Roc achieves acceleration as impressive as 4.9 seconds for its highest-performing variant. This extensive range allows drivers to choose a model that best fits their driving style.
Fuel consumption is a critical factor for many buyers, and here the S-Cross boasts an edge in efficiency, with figures ranging from 5.1 to 5.8 L/100km. Its hybrid tech significantly lowers CO2 emissions, with ratings around 116 to 130 g/km. Meanwhile, the T-Roc's consumption varies based on its engine options, ranging from 4.7 to 8.5 L/100km, and CO2 emissions can climb up to 194 g/km—reflecting the potential trade-off for the higher performance variants.
Both SUVs are designed with 5 occupant capacity in mind, but the T-Roc offers a more customizable interior. The trunk space slightly favors the T-Roc as well, providing 445L compared to the S-Cross's 430L. Technologically, both models come equipped with modern infotainment systems, though the T-Roc's high-end trims include a digital cockpit that enhances user experience. The S-Cross, while innovative with its infotainment, may not match VW's level of technological sophistication.
Safety is paramount for any vehicle, and both the Suzuki S-Cross and VW T-Roc come equipped with comprehensive safety features. The S-Cross offers advanced driver-assistance systems such as adaptive cruise control and lane keep assist, while the VW T-Roc competes fiercely with a robust suite of drivers’ aids including automatic emergency braking and pedestrian detection. Both models are built with a focus on keeping occupants safe, but VW's reputation for engineering may give it a slight edge in perceived safety technology.
Ultimately, the choice between the Suzuki S-Cross and the Volkswagen T-Roc may hinge on the driver's specific needs. If you prioritize fuel efficiency and hybrid technology, the S-Cross could be your ideal partner. However, if performance and cutting-edge technology are at the top of your list, the T-Roc stands ready to impress. Both vehicles exemplify the capabilities of modern compact SUVs, yet the decision comes down to individual tastes and driving preferences.
When it comes to price and running costs, the biggest differences usually appear. This is often where you see which car fits your budget better in the long run.
Suzuki S-Cross is visibly cheaper – starting at 21,800 £ , while the VW T-Roc costs 26,400 £ . That’s a price difference of around 4,676 £.
Fuel consumption also shows a difference: the Suzuki S-Cross uses 5.3 L/100km and is marginally more efficient than the VW T-Roc with 5.5 L/100km. The difference is about 0.2 L/100km.
Power, torque and acceleration are the classic benchmarks for car enthusiasts – and here, some clear differences start to show.
When it comes to engine power, the VW T-Roc offers markedly more power – delivering 150 HP compared to 110 HP. That’s roughly 40 HP more horsepower.
There’s also a difference in torque: the VW T-Roc delivers very slightly more torque with 250 Nm compared to 235 Nm. That’s about 15 Nm more.
Cabin size, boot volume and payload all play a role in everyday practicality. Here, comfort and flexibility make the difference.
Both vehicles offer seating for 5 people.
In terms of curb weight, Suzuki S-Cross is somewhat lighter – 1,280 kg compared to 1,465 kg. The difference is around 185 kg.
Looking at boot space, the Suzuki S-Cross offers noticeably more boot space – 430 L compared to 284 L. That’s a difference of about 146 L.
When it comes to payload, the VW T-Roc carries noticeably more – 515 kg compared to 405 kg. That’s a difference of about 110 kg.
The VW T-Roc is barely ahead in the objective data comparison.
This result only shows which model scores more points on paper – not which of the two cars feels right for you.
The Suzuki S-Cross is a neatly packaged crossover that puts everyday practicality ahead of showy theatrics, offering a comfortable cabin and predictable handling that suit family life and weekend errands alike. It’s not a headline-grabber, but its sensible packaging, low-key charm and reputation for reliability make it a shrewd choice for buyers who prefer smart value over flash.
details
The VW T‑Roc feels noticeably more grown‑up than before, with a much nicer cabin, sensible physical controls and a calm, well‑insulated ride that makes long trips comfortable. It’s compact and city‑friendly with practical rear seating, but the sloping roofline reduces rear headroom and tempting options can quickly push the price up, so buyers after maximum space or a sporty feel may want to consider alternatives.
details
Costs and Consumption |
|
|---|---|
|
Price
21,800 - 34,200 £
|
Price
26,400 - 38,600 £
|
|
Consumption L/100km
5.3 - 5.8 L/100km
|
Consumption L/100km
5.5 - 6.3 L/100km
|
|
Consumption kWh/100km
-
|
Consumption kWh/100km
-
|
|
Electric Range
-
|
Electric Range
-
|
|
Battery Capacity
-
|
Battery Capacity
-
|
|
co2
119 - 138 g/km
|
co2
126 - 143 g/km
|
|
Fuel tank capacity
-
|
Fuel tank capacity
-
|
Dimensions and Body |
|
|---|---|
|
Body Type
SUV
|
Body Type
SUV
|
|
Seats
5
|
Seats
4 - 5
|
|
Doors
-
|
Doors
-
|
|
Curb weight
1,280 - 1,385 kg
|
Curb weight
1,465 - 1,539 kg
|
|
Trunk capacity
430 L
|
Trunk capacity
284 L
|
|
Length
-
|
Length
-
|
|
Width
1,785 mm
|
Width
1,811 - 1,828 mm
|
|
Height
-
|
Height
-
|
|
Max trunk capacity
-
|
Max trunk capacity
-
|
|
Payload
395 - 405 kg
|
Payload
368 - 515 kg
|
Engine and Performance |
|
|---|---|
|
Engine Type
Petrol MHEV
|
Engine Type
Petrol, Petrol MHEV
|
|
Transmission
Manuel, Automatic
|
Transmission
Manuel, Automatic
|
|
Transmission Detail
Manual Gearbox, Automatic Gearbox
|
Transmission Detail
Manual Gearbox, Dual-Clutch Automatic
|
|
Drive Type
Front-Wheel Drive, All-Wheel Drive
|
Drive Type
Front-Wheel Drive
|
|
Power HP
110 HP
|
Power HP
115 - 150 HP
|
|
Acceleration 0-100km/h
-
|
Acceleration 0-100km/h
8.9 - 12.3 s
|
|
Max Speed
-
|
Max Speed
-
|
|
Torque
235 Nm
|
Torque
200 - 250 Nm
|
|
Number of Cylinders
4
|
Number of Cylinders
3 - 4
|
|
Power kW
81 kW
|
Power kW
85 - 110 kW
|
|
Engine capacity
1,373 cm3
|
Engine capacity
999 - 1,498 cm3
|
General |
|
|---|---|
|
Model Year
2025
|
Model Year
2,024 - 2,025
|
|
CO2 Efficiency Class
D, E
|
CO2 Efficiency Class
E, D
|
|
Brand
Suzuki
|
Brand
VW
|
Deutschland
France
Nederland
Great Britain
Sverige
Danmark
Suomi
Italia
Polska
España