Last post on Dec 12, 2010 at 7:33 PM
You are in the Suzuki XL-7
What is this discussion about?
Suzuki XL-7, SUV
#16 of 25 Re: Suzuki XL7's [texlady]
Nov 25, 2006 (8:43 pm)
I would trust the review at Car and Driver Test -- click here. Its basically a good design. Its so all-new that you can't compare it to the old XL-7s. I prefer the Freestyle (due to its CVT, Volvo chassis, and high MPG), but the XL-7 is a winner, too. That 3.6L engine is superb, although it would be nice if it had the Acadia/Outlook/Enclave 6-speed tranny instead of the 5-speed. The 5-speed seems to waste energy (MPG & acceleration is down) compared to the GMC Acadia. If you compute the lbs/hp figure, the XL-7 should be faster 0-60 than the Acadia, but its not the case, strangely enough, as the 5-speed must be soaking up some power. You would not be wasting your money getting an XL-7 at all, overall.
#17 of 25 Replies to above, more...
Jan 05, 2007 (12:33 pm)
I think the XL-7 is so new it would be wrong to compare it to earlier Suzukis regarding reliability. Look at Hyundai: Early cars were useless piles of junk practically as they left the assembly line. They now are among the most reliable cars extant. Japanese manufacturer's generally have better than average reliability. I think buying this car is a reasonably safe bet regarding reliability.
To me the 6-speed's advantage is way overstated above. Except for a straight up race how could it matter? In that case it probably would barely equal the difference of a slight difference in load. Besides, the Acadia/Outlook are WAY heavier (close to 1k lbs heavier) & that should exceed the difference of 1/5th more gears (20%). The fuel savings of the extra gear may not equal the difference in correct tire psi. That one seems like a red herring to me (only my opinion). Besides, the GM version of the 3.6 has about 25 more hp (275), considerably greater difference than only one extra gear. I don't know if the 6-speed mentioned is the same as that in the full-size GM SUV's & trucks, but someone who builds those vehicles told me there are reported reliability issues w/ that 6-speed (he was not happy that he may be stuck w/ that new 6-speed tranny on his next truck, the '07 Silverado).
This GM 3.6L V6, w/ variable valve timing, is one of my favorite motors. It's incredibly smooth, silky sounding, & makes great power & has great driveablity throughout. Very interesting that, in the new Acadia/Outlook, it makes more power than in the Cadillac CTS, yet uses a lower fuel grade (regular in the SUV's vs. premium in the CTS).
I'm looking forward to driving the XL-7. Looks like a great package & maybe an unbeatable value. I'm glad it's not a complete girlie-looking vehicle the way almost every car made these days seems to be.
The TV commercial w/ the girl riding the Suzuki M109R, chasing the XL7, then trading keys w/ the XL7 driver, are totally corny but may be effective. What do other members think about it?
#18 of 25 commercial
Jan 06, 2007 (5:34 pm)
I thought the commercial was the motorcycle and XL7 heading to each other.
#19 of 25 Outlook has 26 mpg highway rating
Jan 06, 2007 (7:57 pm)
Comparing to 24 mpg for XL7. And Outlook is 1000+ lbs heavier with 20+ hp more power. So I guess 6-speed transmission does make some difference.
#20 of 25 Re: Outlook has 26 mpg highway rating [guxu]
Feb 02, 2007 (7:06 am)
That 6 speed is a new tranny for GM. Would you buy the first year of anything GM made?
That Suzuki cycle chick is HOT.
#21 of 25 Re: commercial [guxu]
Feb 18, 2007 (9:21 pm)
An earlier XL7 commercial had a whole gang of super-model biker chicks stopping an XL7, while the latter commercial featured just one biker chick about to swap vehicles with someone.
#22 of 25 Re: Outlook has 26 mpg highway rating [guxu]
Feb 20, 2007 (9:24 am)
Just came back from a long trip in ours. With a strong head wind, we acheived around 20MPG, and with a moderate tailwind, around 25MPG. I was getting about 27MPG at around 55-60MPH. One I got it up to 70-75, it seems to drop to about 24-25MPG. Very happy with this result. This was with a family of 6 and all of their gear in the back. Also had a cargo carrier on the hitch. I would say that she did very well. The same scenario in my 2002 XL-7 would give me full economy number around 17-20MPG.
#23 of 25 Gas Mileage
Feb 21, 2007 (10:46 am)
I got about 16 mpg from my last tank, even though the trip computer showed 17.5 mpg
This is a FWD limited. And I am not lead-foot.
#24 of 25 Re: Gas Mileage [guxu]
Feb 21, 2007 (5:10 pm)
We get similar, but I am not overlly concerned. Most of the low numbers are due to long waits at stop lights, traffic, and drive throughs. I mitigate the econ numbers by taking less traveled routes, routes with larger spacing of traffic lights, and so on. It is also winter. My wife and I let it warm up before heading out. I have seen it fluctuate from 15-18. I expect this to get better as it warms up. My 2002 will usually do between 13-17 city during the winter. I feel that the 2007 is an improvement. BTW, I am rather easy on both.
#25 of 25 our new (to us) 2007 XL-7
Dec 12, 2010 (7:33 pm)
we got it reading 20 mpg on the fuel mileage, seeing we haven't seen that since we bought it I am lead to believe the dealership used it to transport the salesmen around to the dealerships and it was all highway, currently we are getting +/- 16 city and +/- 18 on a 130 mile thruway trips, thinking if we drove more it would go higher back to the 20 where it once was. comparing it to the ford recall special exploder we had (2 in ten) there isn't much we could do in the explorer that we can't do in the XL-7, the only troubling thing I keep reading in the reviews is someone keeps saying the 3erd row seat is hard to get into and is not meant for adults! Before we bought it while at the dealership I purposely had them show me how to tip the seconded row and set up the 3erd, then I had the sales man get in with an after you which he did and I followed he was at least 6 foot and I am 5'11" and we both got in to the 3erd row. the funny part I guess while back there he asked me "now what" and I said "well if you kiss me the deal is off, but it would be nice if you could show me how to trip that seat back up..."
the Nice part I like is how you have to use the mirrors, we installed a wide view rear-view mirror and looking out the back is pretty limited because of the small back window and all the head rest. the back window is nice when someone is right up on our bumper you can see enough of them to know they are there but as for the intimidation factor it just isn't there. The wide angle mirror does help opening up a view out the side on the blindside (right)
when we first bough "it" we grasped at what to call it the explorer was simple this is a "truck" drive it as such, with the XL-7 it had to place it has a car or a truck. during our first fill at a gas station I coined it "the hearse" because it is all black and...the profile and the body slope in the back gives it that look that the only thing missing is a casket and and the roses, so we have just settled for "it" because it has the same specs as the exploder we trading in (including the tow), almost the same as the exploder in fuel mileage (if not worse than).
the one thing I would like to know from the others who are getting the great fuel milage is what size tires are you running, I drove long haul tractor trailer for 20 years and I know there is many factors in fuel millage, the foot, keeping the RPM's below 2 grand, don't rabbit start this, and keep your foot out of the 24 valves and keep the tires as hard as comfort allows which right now is 38 pounds. been running with that tire psi for 30+ days and we are barely getting the same city mileage we where getting with the exploder. looking at the XL-7 tires and the exploders old tires I have noticed the exploders where allot narrower. knowing every inch adds to the rolling resistance I am wondering what size tire everyone else is using.