1999 Renault Clio vs. 2011 Suzuki Equator
To start off, 2011 Suzuki Equator is newer by 12 year(s). Which means there will be less support and parts availability for 1999 Renault Clio. In addition, the cost of maintenance, including insurance, on 1999 Renault Clio would be higher. With that said, vehicle weight also plays an important factor in acceleration. 2011 Suzuki Equator weights approximately 130 kg more than 1999 Renault Clio.
Because 2011 Suzuki Equator is rear wheel drive (RWD), it offers better handling in dry conditions; in addition, if you are looking to drift, it will be much easier to do with 2011 Suzuki Equator. However, in wet, icy, snow, or gravel driving conditions, 1999 Renault Clio, being front wheel drive (FWD), will offer much better control with better grip. With that said, do keep in mind that many other factors such as speed and the wear on your tires can also have significant impact on traction and control.
Compare all specifications:
| 1999 Renault Clio | 2011 Suzuki Equator | |
| Make | Renault | Suzuki |
| Model | Clio | Equator |
| Year Released | 1999 | 2011 |
| Body Type | Hatchback | Pickup |
| Engine Position | Front | Front |
| Horse Power | 0 HP | 262 HP |
| Fuel Type | Gasoline | Gasoline |
| Drive Type | Front | Rear |
| Number of Seats | 5 seats | 5 seats |
| Number of Doors | 3 doors | 5 doors |
| Vehicle Weight | 935 kg | 1065 kg |
| Vehicle Length | 3780 mm | 5600 mm |
| Vehicle Width | 1650 mm | 1860 mm |
| Vehicle Height | 1430 mm | 1790 mm |
| Wheelbase Size | 2770 mm | 3560 mm |
| Fuel Consumption | 5.8 L/100km | 11.8 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption City | 9.6 L/100km | 15.7 L/100km |
| Fuel Consumption Overall | 7.2 L/100km | 7.2 L/100km |
| Fuel Tank Capacity | 50 L | 80 L |
