Volvo S60 II · Facelift 2013
Car comparison
Volvo S60 II · Facelift 2013 1.6 T4vsSuzuki Kizashi 2.4
Compare specs, acceleration, fuel consumption, dimensions, practicality, and estimated running costs side by side.
New comparisonSuzuki Kizashi
2.4
Comparison overview
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Best choices
Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 1.6 T4
- Fastest top speed225 km/h140 mph
- Most powerful180 hp134 kW
- Highest torque240 Nm177 lb-ft
- Best power-to-weight120 hp/t90 kW/t8.3 kg/hp
- Lowest combined fuel consumption5.8 L/100 km40.6 mpg US48.7 mpg UK
- Lowest city consumption7.3 L/100 km32.2 mpg US38.7 mpg UK
- Lowest highway consumption4.9 L/100 km48.0 mpg US57.6 mpg UK
- Best estimated range1,164 km723 mi
- Best performance score46/100
- Best economy score91/100
Suzuki Kizashi 2.4
- Quickest 0-100 km/h7.8 s
- Lightest1,494 kg3,294 lb
- Largest trunk461 L
- Best overall score56/100
- Best practicality score78/100
Specification comparison
| Model | VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | SuzukiKizashi2.4 |
|---|---|---|
| Power | 180hp134kW | 178hp133kW |
| Torque | 240Nm177lb-ft | 230Nm170lb-ft |
| Curb weight | 1,495kg3,296lb | 1,494kg3,294lb |
| Gross weight | 2,020kg4,453lb | 2,000kg4,409lb |
| Top speed | 225 km/h 140 mph | 215 km/h 134 mph |
| To 99% top speed | 73.4s99% target: 223 km/h / 138 mph Calculated | 63.9s99% target: 213 km/h / 132 mph Calculated |
| 0-100 km/h | 8.3s | 7.8s |
| 0-200 km/h | 33.5s Calculated | 35.9s Calculated |
| 0-60 mph | 7.9s Calculated | 7.4s Calculated |
| Fuel consumption | 5.8L/100 km40.6mpg US48.7mpg UK | 7.9L/100 km29.8mpg US35.8mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption city | 7.3L/100 km32.2mpg US38.7mpg UK | 10.6L/100 km22.2mpg US26.6mpg UK |
| Fuel consumption highway | 4.9L/100 km48mpg US57.6mpg UK | 6.3L/100 km37.3mpg US44.8mpg UK |
| Quarter mile | 16.0s Calculated | 15.7s Calculated |
| Power-to-weight | 120hp/t90kW/t55hp/1000 lb Calculated | 119hp/t89kW/t54hp/1000 lb Calculated |
| Torque-to-weight | 161Nm/t107lb-ft/ton Calculated | 154Nm/t103lb-ft/ton Calculated |
| Estimated range | 1,164km723mi Calculated | 797km496mi Calculated |
| Displacement | 1,596cc97cu in | 2,393cc146cu in |
| Length | 4,635mm182in | 4,650mm183in |
| Width | 1,865mm73in | 1,820mm72in |
| Height | 1,484mm58in | 1,470mm58in |
| Wheelbase | 2,776mm109in | 2,700mm106in |
| Front track | 1,588mm63in | 1,565mm62in |
| Rear track | 1,585mm62in | 1,575mm62in |
| Ground clearance | 136mm5in | 135mm5in |
| Trunk volume | 380L | - |
| Max trunk volume | - | 461L |
| Doors | 4 | 4 |
| Seats | 5 | 5 |
| Fuel tank | 68L | 63L |
| CO2 emissions | - | 183g/km |
Performance charts
Use the estimates as comparison hints and verify exact figures before making decisions.
Dyno simulation
Estimated stock-style power and torque curves by engine speed.
- Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 1.6 T4: Power / Torque
- Suzuki Kizashi 2.4: Power / Torque
| Vehicle | Peak power RPM | Peak torque RPM | Max engine speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | 5,700 rpm | 1,600-5,000 rpm | 6,150 rpm |
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 | 6,500 rpm | 4,000 rpm | 6,750 rpm |
Acceleration curve
Estimated speed over time for selected vehicles.
| Metric | VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | SuzukiKizashi2.4 |
|---|---|---|
| Acceleration checkpoints | ||
0-60 mph 0-97 km/h | 7.9 s | 7.4 s |
0-100 km/h 0-62 mph | 8.3 s | 7.8 s |
0-200 km/h 0-124 mph | 33.5 s | 35.9 s |
| Top speed | 225 km/h 140 mph | 215 km/h 134 mph |
| Drag race simulation | ||
60 ft 18 m | 2.8 s | 2.8 s |
330 ft 101 m | 7.2 s | 7.0 s |
1/8 mile 201 m | 10.6 s | 10.4 s |
1000 ft 305 m | 13.6 s | 13.2 s |
1/4 mile 402 m | 16.0 s | 15.7 s |
Trap speed 1/4 mile 402 m | 150 km/h 93 mph | 151 km/h 94 mph |
Power comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power. Higher is better · hp / kW
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | 180 hp 134 kW |
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 | 178 hp 133 kW |
Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 1.6 T4 has 2 hp more than Suzuki Kizashi 2.4.
The biggest power difference is between Suzuki Kizashi 2.4 and Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 1.6 T4: 2 hp (1 kW).
Torque comparison
Bar comparison chart for Torque. Higher is better · Nm / lb-ft
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | 240 Nm 177 lb-ft |
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 | 230 Nm 170 lb-ft |
Curb weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Curb weight. Lower is better · kg / lb
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | 1,495 kg 3,296 lb |
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 | 1,494 kg 3,294 lb |
Top speed without limiter comparison
Bar comparison chart for Top speed without limiter. Higher is better · km/h / mph
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | 225 km/h 140 mph |
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 | 215 km/h 134 mph |
0-100 km/h comparison
Bar comparison chart for 0-100 km/h. Lower is better · seconds
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | 8.3 s |
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 | 7.8 s |
Although Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 1.6 T4 has more power, Suzuki Kizashi 2.4 is quicker from 0-100 km/h.
The biggest 0-100 km/h difference is between Suzuki Kizashi 2.4 and Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 1.6 T4: 0.5 s.
Fuel consumption comparison
Bar comparison chart for Fuel consumption. Lower is better · L/100 km / mpg US / mpg UK
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 mpg UK |
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 | 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 mpg UK |
The biggest fuel consumption difference is between Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 1.6 T4 and Suzuki Kizashi 2.4: 2.1 L/100 km.
Power-to-weight comparison
Bar comparison chart for Power-to-weight. Higher is better · hp/t / kW/t
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | 120 hp/t 90 kW/t 8.3 kg/hp |
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 | 119 hp/t 89 kW/t 8.4 kg/hp |
Estimated range comparison
Bar comparison chart for Estimated range. Higher is better · km / mi
| Vehicle | Value |
|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | 1,164 km 723 mi |
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 | 797 km 496 mi |
Performance spider chart
Radar chart comparing normalized performance and fuel-consumption scores.
| Vehicle | Power | Acceleration | Top speed |
|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | 180 hp 134 kW | 8.3 s | 225 km/h 140 mph |
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 | 178 hp 133 kW | 7.8 s | 215 km/h 134 mph |
Most attractive quadrant
Scatter chart with performance score on the X axis and practicality score on the Y axis.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Practicality score | ||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 |
|
| ||||||||||||||
Performance vs fuel economy
Cars closer to the top-right corner combine stronger performance with better fuel economy scores.
| Vehicle | Performance score | Fuel economy score | ||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 |
| 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 mpg UK | ||||||
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 |
| 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 mpg UK | ||||||
Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 1.6 T4 is closest to the top-right balance target for performance and fuel economy.
Acceleration vs fuel consumption
Cars closer to the lower-left corner offer a better mix of quick acceleration and low fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Fuel consumption, L/100 km | 0-100 km/h, s |
|---|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 mpg UK | 8.3 s |
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 | 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 mpg UK | 7.8 s |
Power-to-weight vs fuel consumption
The shaded area favors higher power-to-weight with lower combined fuel consumption.
| Vehicle | Power-to-weight, hp/t | Fuel consumption, L/100 km |
|---|---|---|
| VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | 120 hp/t 90 kW/t 8.3 kg/hp | 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 mpg UK |
| SuzukiKizashi2.4 | 119 hp/t 89 kW/t 8.4 kg/hp | 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 mpg UK |
Detailed score breakdown
| Vehicle | VolvoS60 IIFacelift 20131.6 T4 | SuzukiKizashi2.4 | ||||||||||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Power | 180 hp 134 kW | 178 hp 133 kW | ||||||||||||||||
| Torque | 240 Nm 177 lb-ft | 230 Nm 170 lb-ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Acceleration | 8.3 s | 7.8 s | ||||||||||||||||
| Top speed | 225 km/h 140 mph | 215 km/h 134 mph | ||||||||||||||||
| Lightness | 1,495 kg 3,296 lb | 1,494 kg 3,294 lb | ||||||||||||||||
| Fuel consumption | 5.8 L/100 km 40.6 mpg US 48.7 mpg UK | 7.9 L/100 km 29.8 mpg US 35.8 mpg UK | ||||||||||||||||
| Practicality |
|
| ||||||||||||||||
| Range score | 1,164 km 723 mi | 797 km 496 mi | ||||||||||||||||
| CO2 score | - | 183 g/km | ||||||||||||||||
| Trunk score | 380 L 13.4 cu ft | 461 L 16.3 cu ft | ||||||||||||||||
| Power-to-weight score | 120 hp/t 90 kW/t 8.3 kg/hp | 119 hp/t 89 kW/t 8.4 kg/hp | ||||||||||||||||
| Overall | Fixed score | Fixed score |
Fuel cost and annual usage
Estimate running costs from combined consumption, your annual distance, and the fuel price in your local currency.
Enter the fuel price in your local currency, for example €/L, $/gal, £/L or any other local currency.
LC = Local Currency
| Vehicle | Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 1.6 T4 | Suzuki Kizashi 2.4 |
|---|---|---|
| Consumption | 5.8 L/100 km40.6 mpg US48.7 mpg UK | 7.9 L/100 km29.8 mpg US35.8 mpg UK |
| Cost / 100 km | 10.15 LC100 km | 13.83 LC100 km |
| Cost / 100 mi | 16.33 LC100 mi | 22.25 LC100 mi |
| Annual fuel used | 870 L230 US gal191 UK gal | 1,185 L313 US gal261 UK gal |
| Annual fuel cost | 1,523 LC/year | 2,074 LC/year |
Head-to-head comparisons
Volvo S60 II Facelift 2013 1.6 T4
- Has 2 hp more
- Has 10 Nm more
- Has 10 km/h (6 mph) higher top speed
- Uses 2.1 L/100 km less fuel
- Has 1 hp/t better power-to-weight
- Has 366 km (228 mi) more estimated range
Pros
- Highest top speed
- Most powerful
- Highest torque
- Lowest combined fuel consumption
- Best power-to-weight ratio
- Best estimated range
Cons
- Slowest 0-100 km/h
- Heaviest
- Smallest trunk
Suzuki Kizashi 2.4
- Is 1 kg lighter
- Is 0.5 s quicker from 0-100 km/h
- Has 81 L more trunk volume
Pros
- Quickest 0-100 km/h in this comparison
- Lightest
- Largest trunk
Cons
- Lowest power
- Highest combined fuel consumption
- Lowest top speed
Choose cars to compare
Popular comparisons























