2009 Suzuki Grand Vitara Prestige And 2009 Volkswagen Tiguan 103 TDI Road Test Review

How Much Can I Cram In ‘em?

Suz_GVitara_V6-073 VW_Tiguan_TDI-096

Spec sheets only tell half the story though, and, although our VW didn’t flaunt quite as much standard kit as the range-topping Suzuki that didn’t mean it was out of contention. Is the Tig’s interior a nicer place to be? Is in comfortable to use in day-to-day driving and does it cope with the rigors of the suburban chores more easily than the Suzuki?

In short, can it deliver in areas that the more keenly-priced Grand Vitara simply can’t compete? Let’s see now…

Suz_GVitara_V6-053 VW_Tiguan_TDI-091

Well, ergonomically it’s pretty much a dead heat. The captain’s chair of both Tiguan and Grand Vitara offer up a commanding view of the car’s surrounds, and virtually every control falls easily to hand. The Tiguan’s dashboard is a fresher design than that of the Vitara’s however, and the VW’s metallic trim works a great deal better than the Suzuki’s cheap-looking faux-marble inserts.

The Tiguan also features deeper and more easily accessible door bins (both of which accept a 1.25-litre drink bottle), however shorter drivers may find the adjustable centre console lid fouling on their elbows during gearshifts.

An electronic parking brake button tidies up the area between the front seats and VW’s ever-so-convenient Auto-Hold function simplifies hill starts immeasurably.

Suz_GVitara_V6-070 VW_Tiguan_TDI-093

The Grand Vitara’s dash is a little simpler and slightly less-modern than the Tiguan’s, but all the controls are easily marked, easy to operate and the instruments clearly legible at all times. The plastics are hard to the touch and a bit more scratch prone than the VW’s, but the dash and other trimmings are all screwed together nice and tight – this is one solid car.

Head over to the back seats, however, and the gap starts to widen. The Suzuki’s rear pews and those of the Tiguan are on a par in terms of cushioning comfort, but both legroom and the length of the seat squab appear to be smaller on the Volkswagen.

The VW’s back seat does get twice as many cupholders as the Suzuki’s though, and rear air conditioner outlets are conspicuously absent in the Grand Vitara – an important consideration for parents of cranky and heat-sensitive children.

Suz_GVitara_V6-075

The Grand Vitara has a little party trick here though. Not only do the rear backrests fold forward, but the entire rear bench itself can be flipped hard up against the front seats, creating a flat floor that’s perfect for hauling an apartment’s worth of flat-pack furniture.

Lawnmowers, bicycles, suitcases and the weekly shopping were thrown at the Vitara’s capacious boot, and it managed to swallow them all with little complaint or fuss. The Tiguan boasts a bigger luggage area on paper, but the awkward load space created by its sloping 60/40 split back seats meant it was slightly less versatile than the Grand Vitara.

Comments

  • mark ma [reply]
    1 year ago 0 points
    Grand Vitara wrong blood
  • Glen [reply]
    11 months ago 0 points
    Good to hear that finally someone did a proper review of this kind of car including "off-road" use. So many people say that these are rarely taken off-road whereas I come from a Suzuki family where Grand Vitara's are the only 4wd :)
    There is one part of this review I did not like however; is the exterior looks. The VW to me looks plain and dull and just another european car "wanna-be 4x4" (if it was a proper 4wd i would be a little nicer) but the new Suzi is a tidy looking rig, neat lines, flat surfaces, aggressive looking headlights and a spare-tyre cover that screams sexy. :)
    Oh and the Suzi is no "soft-roader" mine is stock-standed and I have managed to beat a HiLux up a steep hill (it needed 4000rpm 1st gear low-range) and a LandCruiser in soft-sand. Just goes to show power to weight ratio matters.
    But good review - if more cars were involved it would have been more competetive and interesting - perhaps an American "soft-roader" (Cherokee)
  • Noelene [reply]
    10 months ago 0 points
    With space sapver tyres the tiguan is not an off roader more a city mum's car.
  • Jim Oleary [reply]
    6 months ago 0 points
    Fine review & the Zouk is a great little mimi 4x4 but its towing capacity is still only 850 Kg(85 Kg download on ball) Suzuki manual warns that download on ball should be 10% of trailer GVM so math makes a mockery of the claimed towing capabilities claimed ie., up to 2000 Kg.
  • DDIS [reply]
    2 months ago 0 points
    To Jim Oleary,

    Well my DDIS's ball weight is 85kg AND total down weight is 200KG, so yes it most certainly can tow up to 2 tonnes.
  • Jim OLeary [reply]
    2 months ago 0 points
    Hi DDiS,
    You got my interest. Mine has a sticker on the door & tow bar indicating a 200kg Max. download on the tow bar but 85kg download on the ball. All very confusing & a letter I recently received from Suzuki suggests they recognise a problem. Both RACQ & Caravan Manufacturers Assoc. also say max download on ball 85 & recomend max towed load 7 to 10% of load on ball so not up to 2000 or anything like it. Suzuki owners manual also says 10% figure - adds to confusion.
    Letter from local Suzuki importer suggests they hope Suzuki will clarify position in first quarter of this year.
    They claim 200kg on tow bar is for when they have situation clarified but until then 85kg & recommendation in manual stands.
    Unless they have already changed the figures & you know something I don't then the problem still exists.
  • DDIS [reply]
    2 months ago 0 points
    Are not the Towball download ratings calculated based on the vehicles GVM (in the GV's case 2,170KG) ? when the vehicle is loaded to capacity (Full fuel, passengers and their gear). .

    So when the vehicle is fully loaded to 2,170 KG's only 85KG's can be applied to the ball, as long as you don't exceed the rated hitches down weight you can reduce the GVM and increase Ball weight.

    So want to tow 1.5 tonne placing 150 KG's on the ball reduce the GVM correspondingly (Reduce it by the 150KG's not taking its initail 85KG ball weight into the equation). This may be wrong but is what I've always done.
  • Jim OLeary [reply]
    2 months ago 0 points
    Some manufacturers work on this principle which makes SENSE& publish a table of Load reduction Vs Increase of ball load allowance (eg., Nissan.)
    Have put this to Suzuki as a solution but they remain bloody minded about it & wont commit to anything without OK from Japan which seems to be something like getting blood out of a stone with a straw or perhaps with all their knowledge they still communicate with Aus by note in a bottle dropped from one of their whaling ships. So their recent letter indicates we still stuck with 85Kg until they get their act together. Sense is the operative word - 20% commom sense & 80% nonsense.

Post new comment

Want to join the discussion, or start one off?

Before you can get started, you'll need to log in to the TMR comments system via one of the services below (TMR Hub, Facebook, OpenID). If you don't have an account with any of those three, we'd recommend a TMR Hub account, so that you can take advantage of the great features that are just around the corner.

OR OR

(optional)
(not shown to others)


To comment, you must be logged in via one of the above methods.