Last post on Jan 14, 2012 at 11:29 AM
You are in the Suzuki Grand Vitara/Vitara
What is this discussion about?
Suzuki Grand Vitara, SUV
#799 of 1048 Re: One year later..... [xostnot]
Jun 26, 2007 (12:24 am)
Hi again xostnot, nice to hear from you too. Unfortunately, I saw the current edition of Consumer Reports (auto issue), on the news stand today. I don't dare let pass from my finger tips here, what they said about the new GV's reliability rating, as obviously someone here would accuse me of making it all up.
So not to offend anyone, let me just focus on what their data says re: prior years, (bear with me here), specifically the 2001 to 2004 Grand Vitara's and XL--7 models. What does it show? Literally a patchwork quilt of widely varying specific quality issues, from year to year. Using common sense, (ooops, that should get me into trouble here too?), the data shows that you'd be better off buying a used 2002, vs. a 2004, reliability wise, when I'd honestly thought by '04 they'd have the bugs worked out, right? What does this have to do with the new GV? Let me help at least one individual [again] here. When the quality control issues keep cropping up and are not resolved in subsequent model years, and especially when and if nothing is said about it, well then hey, what you see is what you get, again, and again, and again. And again, and, (etc), seems too bad it's beyond the grasp of some here as to why it just might be important to do a squeeky wheel act, vs. aping and ostrich. Lots of sand down there in the southwest, I guess...
The bigger motor, (3.2l), if it ever shows up down there under the hood of them, (please, please), is not a raw power thing. Why?, guess what, it, would have to be more fuel efficient. than the 2.7, and what pray tell would be wrong with wanting that, yesterday?
Again, look at all the Suzuki SUV data in the current Consumer Reports, see, (gasp) the truth about the predicted reliability of the new GV, look at the older historic data, and see what "it" might tell you, and make up your own mind about weather or not it just might be possible there is, [for a long time now], AMPLE REASON for Suzuki to begin investing FAR more capital into quality control.... Quite right, though I kick the tires on 'em at the local dealership regularly, having my other two Suzuki vehicles serviced, regrettabley until they at least address the mileage issue, (and more, I would hope!), they've lost me, perhaps for good....
#800 of 1048 Re: Tire Wear after 15,000 km. Can someone help me? [allie9]
Jun 26, 2007 (5:02 am)
That problem has been reported a couple of times. I even think that there is a TSB in Canada about it: the problem is related with rear wheel alignment. They are suppose to correct it under warranty, and eared that some had their tires replaced under warranty as well.
#801 of 1048 Re: Tire Wear after 15,000 km. Can someone help me? [bm000092]
Jun 26, 2007 (6:50 am)
I just had my tires rotated on my 06 GV, quite surprised at the tire wear on the front, but the service guy said that was typical on 4X4's.
Where can I research current (and past) techical service bulletins and recalls for Suzuki? I found this link:
But you have to pay for each TSB !? Seems to me if there is a known issue with a vehicle under warranty, Suzuki should alert the owner.
Besides that and a few hiccups with this new vehicle, I'm a happy owner.
#802 of 1048 Re: Tire Wear after 15,000 km. Can someone help me? [denverleigh]
Jun 26, 2007 (7:27 am)
Alignment/O.E. tire quality? Thanks for adding to the discussion. It expresses some of the good news which naturally we'd all like to be hearing here. Just "a few hiccups". But what I continue to wait for is to see Suzuki reliability in market wide measurement reports, (like Consumer Reports, and their first one just issued re: the new Grand Vitara), to show steady incremental improvement over time. Generically, going back thru the data mentioned however, it appears to be dejavu, (more of the same). With the quantum leap in Suzuki's proven marketing abilities now, and yes, their great advancement in general product design, why isin't it finally time for reliability to catch up? Put another way, would we be having this discussion if the badge on the butt read: Toyota or Honda? That's my sole point, and it's a point I take no pleasure is having, (mostly in vain?), attempted to make to new to the breed owners. Specifically, if you want to own them long term, be prepared yourself to demand more when more is needed from Suzuki. It is needed, the odd blind cheerleader notwithstanding....
#803 of 1048 Re: Tire Wear after 15,000 km. Can someone help me? [denverleigh]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Jun 26, 2007 (8:08 am)
You can get TSB summaries from the Edmunds Maintenance Guide (maybe that's all the Pitstop has unless you pay?). The NHTSA has the summary listings too and occasionally they'll have full text of something.
TSBs are advisory in nature and the dealer doesn't have to perform them if they don't think the problem exists. So take your service manager donuts or something.
You, Your Vehicle and the Technical Service Bulletin
#804 of 1048 Re: Tire Wear after 15,000 km. Can someone help me? [denverleigh]
Jun 26, 2007 (10:15 am)
TSBs are not the same country to country.
My tires still look pretty good after 20k, they should last 50k, so I don't think that yours should wear more than any other types of car (4x4 or not).
#805 of 1048 Re: Tire Wear after 15,000 km. Can someone help me? [bm000092]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
Jun 26, 2007 (12:28 pm)
The Denver in the username made me assume CO and not BC - I must be automatically translating KMs to miles now.
Don't know about Canadian TSBs. Anyone know a source?
#806 of 1048 Re: Tire Wear after 15,000 km. Can someone help me? [allie9]
Jun 26, 2007 (10:44 pm)
The premature rear tirewear issue is being reported, not regularly, but occasionally. Enough that unless the mileage is high, Suzuki should replace the tires also. Most owners, including myself, are reporting very slow tire wear. It's important to rotate the tires on the schedule provided, and it's not clear everyone is doing that. The GV's rear tires are cambered in a few degrees, and without rotation they will wear out the inside edges of the rear tires early.
It takes eneregy to wear tires out, and those with the alignment problem should also be getting bad mileage. Not to mention poor handling. Besides the risk of a blowout, this is a safety risk in another sense. Fast wearing tires mean the tires are always in a bit of a skid. On slippery surfaces or cornering with marginal traction, this will greatly contribute to premature loss of control. I that sense, I believe Suzuki is remiss in not contacting owners of the new generation GV's to check them for this problem. I believe it is irresponsible for them to wait until people come back with their rear tires shot, let alone letting misaligned vehicles go off the lot to begin with. If you're in the US, it's important to report this sort of thing to the NHTSA website. Suzuki can't ignore that.
I watch closely a much more busy GV discussion site, and I don't recall anyone else reporting premature front tire wear. Not that it's impossible. Claiming it's due to the 4wd is an indictment of the service person's honesty or competence. 4wd as installed on the GV is as likely to affect tire wear as it is to affect tire pressure.
As for the reliability, Consumers Reports inconsistent stats may reflect a small data sampling. Consumer's Guide ratings for the GV changed dramatically between '06 and '07, while the vehicle did not change significantly. Anecdotal information, such as on the discussion sites, suggests Suzuki is putting out many well built GV's, some with significant problems, and the odd real lemon. Michael Karesh's Truedelta reliabilty website has stats provided by GV owners, but still the sample size is relatively small. Only Suzuki knows for sure what the real quality rating is. Presumably they kow that consistent bad ratings will hurt them eventually, as good ratings will help their sales. Maybe the new GV is so popular they're just churning them out too fast sometimes. JD power reports the number of problems per new car averages 1.25, with Suzuki worse than average at 1.5. Not enough reason to avoid a brand you like.
#807 of 1048 Same tire wear as others.
Jun 27, 2007 (9:03 am)
My wife and I both have the the new GV, I have a 2006 Black and her a 2007 RED. I have had the black one about 1.5 years now and the tire wear concerns me as well. I took off the cover to the rear 5 wheel and you can really see a difference in the tread. We live in PA up in the mountains and this last winter was the first real winter I had my GV. It goes good as long as you don't have to make any quick turns. It seems to slide a bit, but I think it is due to the tread wear. The 2007 I am also seeing the same tread wear again. Does anyone know if it is just that brand of tire. The 06 Black is only a 2 year lease and I know they are going to want new tires on it when I return it. The tires should have at least lasted 3 years. Most of the cars I have ever had always had tires last at least 3 years. Keep in mind I only have 20K on my Black GV 06. I am not too impressed with the tire wear. However my wife and I love everything else about the GV. It is a great buy and good quality for the money. Just wish they would fix the tread wear issue.
#808 of 1048 Re: Same tire wear as others. [k10whosun]
Jun 27, 2007 (12:20 pm)
If they all wear even, you shouldn't be too concern. I don't experience any excessive wear, but I don't think that they are the best durability wise. My personnal opinion is that these tires are a trade in between good grip and durability.
About winter conditions handling, well, these EOM tires are not great, I did buy winter tires just 1 week after I got my GV January 2006. With winter tires it is the best vehicle I drove in snow.