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
#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"?
#170 of 183 Re: just a warning [suzsx041]
May 23, 2011 (5:58 am)
Worked with this lady in the late 80's...had a 1.3liter swift 4 door wagon looking car.....we used to laugh at her for having this little Suzuki. Now I would buy one in a second. She had 100,000 miles on it at one point, and did NOTHING except change the oil. that is all. (I kind of remember her using Mobil 1).....she had mentioned that to me......anyway....
#171 of 183 Re: wait... [joeyrab]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
May 23, 2011 (6:04 am)
does a motor, really "break in"?
Good question - many new cars don't require a break in period anymore. They get that at the line when they build the engine and you just drive them off the lot and keep going.
I keep track of my mpg with every tank out to two decimal points. For my '99 van, the lifetime mileage increased (by very small increments) until I hit 117,000 miles. It's started falling off a little bit now (up to 155,000 miles currently).
I don't know if the engine kept breaking in (and now it's breaking down ) or if my ECU keeps getting smarter or what.
#172 of 183 Re: wait... [steve_]
May 23, 2011 (6:16 am)
I can see driving the car for a little bit to get the hoses and pumps "loose" but, that's the kind of break in I think happens. Which makes me wonder why Hyundai takes a new engine of the assembly line and red lines it for like 5 minutes or something...I guess they do that to all their engines as they come of the "belt".....I saw this on tv, I think it was "ultimate factories on Nat'l Geographic or something, then I read it in a magazine....I personally don't like the idea, but that's what they do I guess.
I was driving in town yesterday, and I saw a white SX4 Hatch.....I was pointing it to my 10yr old daughter, (excitedly), I think the guy thought I was nuts, especially when I immediatly turned around and got behind it...(I wasn't following it, I forgot to go to the ATM!)
#173 of 183 Re: wait... [joeyrab]
by Stever@Edmunds HOST
May 23, 2011 (6:20 am)
There's a school of thought in the motorcycle crowd about "driving it like you stole it". Owners who go by this theory say it's critical to "exercise" the engine in the first couple of hundred miles after you buy a new bike. Taking it easy supposedly lessens the engine's performance in later years.
May 23, 2011 (6:29 am)
Ah, I see...
May 23, 2011 (6:44 am)
Here's one link about it. I'm not sure I buy all of it though; tolerances seems to be a lot better and closer these days than even a decade or so ago.
Probably came from a bunch of Suzuki bikers.