Last post on Nov 05, 2012 at 5:29 PM
You are in the Suzuki SX4
What is this discussion about?
Suzuki SX4, Hatchback, Wagon, SUV
#160 of 183 Re: New 2011 SX4 - Pros and Cons [sunlightcopper]
May 14, 2011 (7:38 am)
I have a 2009 SX4 Crossover with the Technology Package.
I agree about the mileage. Around town, I usually get 21-22 mpg. On the highway, 25.5 is about the most that I've been able to squeeze out of my car.
My understanding is that the cause of the low mileage is two-fold:
The car is a bit heavy for a little car. I'm guessing that this is due to the four-wheel drive hardware.
The automatic transmission is only four-speed, forcing the engine to rev high on the highway.
I also agree about the small gas tank, but my understanding is that Suzuki could not fit a larger gas tank in this car (possibly due to the 4-wheel drive set-up?).
Beyond these issues, I think that this is a terrific little car for the money.
It's loaded with features not found in cars at the same price point. It's very tight and solid. Nice steering feel and nice brakes (4-wheel disc). All wheel drive. Handles really well. The front is very spacious for such a little
car. I find it to be a fun to drive car.
I find the power to be adequate, even on the highway.
I have had no repair issues with this car (I have almost 17,000 miles).
#161 of 183 Re: New 2011 SX4 - Pros and Cons [azmustang]
May 14, 2011 (1:57 pm)
In warmer weather, I get between 31 and 34 mpg highway with my 2008 AWD. I do have the manual 5 speed, but it is still geared to rev at about 3000 rpms at 60-65. The 2010 and newer versions offer a CVT transmission that gets even better mileage. My lifetime mpg is 29 mpg overall. However, I rarely drive over 70.
May 22, 2011 (6:38 am)
Still one of the neatest looking cars in it's class...Everytime I see that giant "S" on the grill coming at me, I think "oh cool, it's an SX4".
#163 of 183 Re: New 2011 SX4 - Pros and Cons [sunlightcopper]
May 22, 2011 (9:57 am)
Thank you all for your replies, I've been thinking about this for some time, I only have this car for about 3-4 months and I know I made a hasty decision. I can go about blaming Suzuki's Marketing and the dealer's antics for diverting my attention from the bad and emphasizing only the good aspects of this car but it won't do me any good. I just have to wait until I'm right side up again (i.e. at least 12-18 months) and then go for something else.
I've talked about all this to a lot of people and the consensus is that despite its good looks, the excellent safety features and the competitive (in my opinion, somewhat but not great) price, this car -overall- is lacking compared with the competition. Apparently Suzuki made a decision to enhance some important (according the the Japanese mentality) features while not providing or removing some other minor additions that can be done with out, thus reducing the cost. Everyone I talked to agrees that if this car had what it has plus what it's missing, it's MSRP could easily climb up to 25K (or more) making it impossible to compete in this class.
The things do I like about this car is the i-AWD, the ESP and that it handles well at sharp/abrupt turns. I do not usually "abuse" my cars, not at all, only if needed to say avoid an accident, i.e. I am not a lead-foot by conviction. Never had an accident, always drive by the book, I am 50 y.o. and my last speeding ticket (going 76 on a 65 hwy) was 25 years ago.
But, anyway, the SX4 will quickly discourage anyone to drive faster/more aggressively because:
A. Engine is mismatched with the car and will not push the car forward unless you really, I mean REALLY, "step on it".
B. If you do drive like that, the engine consumes a horrific amount of gas for a car in this class. I tried it once, out of curiosity, and gotten 18.5 mpg in mixed 50/50 city/hwy driving. And this is utterly unacceptable !!! The Japanese engineers must have seriously screwed something up here...
C. The seats are too soft and too high to allow even for that rare, occasional sporty driving. If you've tried it, you know a sharp left turn will almost throw you out the driver's and in to the passenger's seat on the right, thank God for the belt. Try this with a sharp right turn and you are squeezed against the driver's door. Both, not a comfortable situation to be in.
Everything else, I can live with by modifying them or simply modifying ...myself (lol).
But the car's drifting to the left and the ridiculous MPG make this a dying relationship.
Bottom line is, I consider the presence of all these "annoyances" way too frustrating, on a daily basis, to the point I'm "done" with Suzuki and this car.
The question is how to do this without losing a lot of money. Probably a rhetorical question, but thanks in advance for any tips.
May 22, 2011 (10:13 am)
So you barely scratched 20 miles per gallon while driving it "hard"?
Do you have the CVT? Funny thing is, I knew the gas mileage was a bit below cars in it's class, but not that crazy. I wonder if the manual tranny is that much better.....from what I read the car is pretty peppy with the 6 speed...the suzuki web site states 30mpg highway!
May 22, 2011 (11:46 am)
I have the brand new 2011 automatic CVT with the 6 speed.
Yes, if this car is driven "hard" it will guzzle fuel like water.
However, I did drive it very, very, I mean VERY carefully, and only, but only then the car met its advertised MPG 23 for city.
I'd like to stress out here that driving like that is not what you'd call "average driving" but it is rather a road hazard, plus a lot of other people behind and around you appear to not appreciate the fact that on a posted 35 miles/hr speed limit, I -basically- reach 30 mph when it is about time to brake again for the oncoming traffic light.
Suzuki claims that with "average driving" the SX4 should yield 23 mpg in city driving.
This is far from being the truth.
ONLY if I drive slower than my 80+ year old granny I might get the 23 mpg.
This means keeping the engine around 2,500 rpm while starting off from a complete stop, never going over 3,000 rpm while driving and letting the car coast as much as possible while approaching a red light.
Ignore that and you will be reminded at the next fill-up at the gas pump.
Sorry, but this is not average driving. Not only it is border-line dangerous, it is also distracting while driving to be thinking of all that and it is frustrating to the car driver as well, as to all the other drivers sharing the road.
I though about complaining about that to the dealer I bought it from but they will giving me the usual run-around and I have no time or desire for all that BS.
Guess, I made a mistake (or may be not?) I 'll get my punishment and hopefully I 'll learn my lesson.
#166 of 183 Re: New 2011 SX4 - Pros and Cons [perry99]
May 22, 2011 (12:26 pm)
Sorry, I somehow missed your message, so I wanted to repy:
You say: 1) I agree about the mileage, though I have gotten 30 when I have almost 100% highway. I once even got 32mpg on a tank. But, yes, low 20's is my average in the city.
I never get 30 like you and I drive around 65-68 mph. If I get 27.x I am happy.
You say: 2) Also agree that that A pillar is too big. Just need to lean forward when turning to make sure I see where I'm going on left turns.
But other than the small band where the A pillar is, the view is excellent. You sit up high, the front windshield is huge, and the B and C pillars are very small, giving you excellent view to the side and the back.
Not sure what you mean with B and C pillars, what I know is I'm always scared when turning left that I missed something and that's because of the pillar where the left rear view mirror is attached. Other than that I have no problems with this cars visibility.
You say: 3) Have you seen how little space there is in the back of the car? The AWD takes up extra space, too. The non-AWD has a bigger gas tank. With a car this small, there's only so much room for a gas tank. Other small cars have comparable gas tanks (though, yes, they tend to have better mpg)
This is not an answer to my question but more like trying to exonerate the Japanese engineers. All I am saying is this: Since Suzuki knew MPG is not going to be that great why didn't they try to "squeeze" in a slightly bigger tank?
You say: 4) Sounds like this is problem with your and your highway-mates driving than the car. If you're going the speed limit, no should be tailgaiting you. And why are you blaming the car for tailgaters?
You did not understand what I 'm saying or I did not explain myself well enough: In an attempt to get decent MPG, I have to drive slower that the rest of the traffic. I do reach the posted mph limit but much later than the others. Unfortunately Chicago area drivers are somewhat impatient. Unless I drive faster I am being tailgated constantly. But driving faster means much lower MPG. I just can't win with the SX4.
You say: 5) I've never had a car with manual ON/OFF switch for the cruise control, and that's including a relatively new Mazda3. I think that's pretty common for Japanese cars to not have that.
I disagree with your last statement. My wife's 2011 CR-V does have that. My two previous cars (Mazdas, 626 and Protege5) DID have that, my 1980's Ford Escort L Hatchback DID have that, many, many other cars DO have that. It appears to me that having THAT (it's a convenience feature not a must) requires a more expensive setup with the car's computer. And apparently Suzuki chose to cut corners here as well.
You say: 6) What's wrong with daytime running lights? They only help with safety and don't detract from anything. Again, remember that this is a low-cost car. If they had to make a modification just for the U.S. market, they'd probably have to charge more.
I never said "there is something wrong" with DRL. I questioned why they included that since they are not mandatory in the USA and how about providing the owners with an easy way to decide if they want to keep them ON or (temporarily) disabling them. DRL is undoubtedly a safety feature. My personal opinion is they are good under certain and very specific driving conditions. Driving say in and around a big city (i.e. Chicago and suburbs) DRL are useless. They are a must driving cross country in Canada and the USA and if you live in a state like Montana, Wyoming, Alaska, etc. Since the government says they are not mandatory, YET, I argue that the owner should be given the right to chose or build separate car versions for different markets. But that would be expensive for Suzuki.
You say: 7) My car has an excellent straight track, and I've never experienced any drift as you describe
8) My windshield has held up great with no cracks or dinks or mystery white material..
And I am extremely happy for you! However, and if I sound a bit sarcastic, I apologize, I am mainly concerned about my car not yours.
You say: 9) I find the front seats to be very comfortable. Last summer took a long road trip from Seattle to Montana and loved how comfortable the seats were. I think the seats are more comfortable than the ones I had in my Mazda3.
I feel exactly the opposite. I find, at least the driver's seat, very soft and uncomfortable. The bolsters will not keep me in the seat when turning, the fabric is slippery and I constantly slide forward, even the cable from the heating element is protruding making my ..."behind" hurt. My Protege5 had by far better seats when I bought it 10 years ago.
You say Everyone has their specific needs and considerations. I'm sorry that you've found those specific items that you described to weigh so heavily in your view of the car.
I agree 100%, different people, different needs and considerations. Even identical cars will behave different -somehow don't ask me why- from owner to owner. But I do sincerely thank you for your sympathy.
May 23, 2011 (1:58 am)
I hear you on the highway mileage. I drive a 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS and I get about 31mpg in the city. My car weighs around 3,380 lbs. with the automatic CVT transmission. At one time I wanted the first year of SX-4, the 2007 model, with a passion.
I also took a April 2010 test drive in a 2010 Suzuk Kizashi that had an automatic CVT transmission. You might trade for one of them, magazine test drivers are getting about 26-29 mpg on average on the highway in their long-term Kizashi test drives. I am seriously thinking of buying a Suzuki Kizashi Sport one day.
It's between a Suzuki Kizashi Sport, Mitsubishi Lancer GTS Hybrid and a 2012 Kia Rio Hatchback or a Mazda 2 with the 5-speed stick. Or just keeping my 2008 Mitsubishi Lancer GTS with the 2.0L 152hp 4-cyl with 148 lb. ft. of torque, automatic CVT transmission. I love the car, just always think about what I want to buy next. It's built in to me, I'm a car nut with passion for sporty cars.
But your highway gas mileage is terrible. How many miles do you have on your copper sunlight 2011 SX-4 with automatic CVT transmission? Something is seriously wrong...I think Chicago drivers are driving you batty...this is probably the only problem...you need to get the hell out of Dodge. Chicago is nasty...I know...my wife is from there and I've been there several times...couldn't wait ta get out each and every time...the town has a Napoleon complex...it is forever in NYC's shadow and they seriously don't know how ta let it down...they need to just relax but they can't, it's too much of a rat race to stop and relax.
I just figured it out...take your beautiful Suzuki SX-4 and get out of Chicago. Test drive it some more in another area of the U.S. and then get back ta us, OK? Seriously.
2010 Suzuki SX-4 Sportback
#168 of 183 Re: New 2011 SX4 - Pros and Cons [sunlightcopper]
May 23, 2011 (4:57 am)
I had the manual transmission in my loaded 2008 Sunlight Copper AWD Touring SX4. My overall lifetime mileage was 29 mpg, and I never drove as conservatively as you describe. Nonetheless, I usually did shift into 5th at the earliest opportunity, and if I needed to accelerate quickly, a downshift to 3rd (or 2nd) was always sufficient for some scoot. City mpg was around 23 mpg, and on mostly highway tanks, it varied from 25 (in the dead of winter with temps around 0F) to 34 (warm, non-windy weather). I cannot complain about that mileage, considering the AWD and the equipment level.
As for the seats, I thought they were a bit hard after a couple hours of driving. Cornering was great...sort of like driving a Mini, that go-kart, on rails feeling. I usually took 30 mph corners at 50 or better with no strain and no braking (unless there was a slowpoke in front of me).
I miss the car already, but I upgraded to a Volvo. The Kizashi could be an alternative for you: AWD available, solid, comfortable and quiet--and more power and better mileage (with CVT) than the car you have now. I know Chicago traffic cuts into mileage on any car, but yours should really do much better than 18 mpg if you drive normally. One thing I found is that gas mileage did improve on mine after 15,000-20,000.
#169 of 183 Re: wait... [sunlightcopper]
May 23, 2011 (5:49 am)
Well, I'm not sure how much truth there is to this theory, but they say after the new engine "breaks in" you may get better mileage...I can see breaking in a pair of sneakers, to get a more comfy run.......but does a motor, really "break in"?