Real fuel consumption and economy logo

Suzuki Alto 1996 fuel consumption

Suzuki Alto from 1996 to 2000 real fuel consumption according to user reports is approximately 13% higher compared to advertised fuel consumption. Starting from 1996 Suzuki Alto average difference between actual owner-reported fuel consumption and stated consumption was similar to average, at 1999 difference between owner-reported and advertised fuel economy became less than industry average. For more details, see the table below.

Year-to-year deviations of actual owner-reported average fuel consumption from advertised values

YearGasoline cars
All carmakersSuzuki Alto
1996+4%insignificant
Show all years
1997+3%insignificant
1998+3%insignificant
1999+3%insignificant
2000+4%insignificant

See below for the actual consumption of generations and versions of Suzuki Alto.

1996 - 2000

Suzuki Alto 1996 fuel economy

Average advertised fuel consumption for petrol engines38.6 MPG
6.1 l/100km
Average real-world fuel consumption for petrol engines40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km
Average real gasoline consumption difference *insignificant

According to advertised fuel consumption, a Suzuki Alto 1996 with automatic transmission consumes on average 1.5 liters per 100 km or 26% more fuel than similar versions with manual gearbox.

Of all modifications the best advertised fuel economy in its class has Suzuki Alto with 1.0 petrol engine and manual transmission (Suzuki Alto 1996 1.0 54 HP).

ModificationClaimed consumptionReal consumption
1.0 liter petrol engine
Suzuki Alto 1996 1.0 54 HP manual 43.6 MPG
5.4 l/100km
Suzuki Alto 1996 1.0 54 HP manual 41.3 MPG
5.7 l/100km
40.6 MPG
5.8 l/100km+2%
Suzuki Alto 1996 1.0 54 HP automatic 32.7 MPG
7.2 l/100km

* - Difference between advertised and user reported fuel economy has been calculated taking into account only those car versions for which information is available both on the fuel consumption specified by the manufacturer and reported by users.

User-reported fuel consumption may not accurately represent all users' experiences due to variables such as driving conditions, driving style, technical condition of the vehicle, and other circumstances. Thus, it should not be relied upon as a representative indicator.