As Donna falls out of like with our 2009 Suzuki SX4, I think might be falling into like. I'm a long-time Fit fan and, up until today, I've never been able to get enthusiastic about the slow and heavy SX4. But after logging 130 highway miles, I think there's definitely something to the reports that Suzuki's hatchback might be the better highway car.
The SX4 outweighs the Fit by 450+ pounds, so it's no surprise the Suzuki feels more substantial and stable at 70 mph. And when you're in a very small car, but don't necessarily want to be driving a very small car, this is inherently comforting.
Also, when you're cruising down the highway, the SX4's steering is less reactive than the Fit's, with a stronger self-centering tendency, so you make fewer steering corrections.
Adding to the relaxation is the lack of engine noise at a cruise. But the arduous process of getting up to speed takes away some satisfaction. It's the classic scenario of not enough engine (a 143-hp 2.0-liter I4 lugging 2,982 lbs) and less than ideal gear ratios, and it's nothing you haven't experienced if you've driven any small car from the 1980s (or, yes, yes, our long-term Smart). And while not unbearable, the SX4 feels like a throwback -- perhaps to the Corolla All-Trac.
But recalibration of my right foot has begun, and I've started to take full advantage of the shifter's D-3-2-L setup. So perhaps even this annoyance will fade. I'll let you know Monday.
Erin Riches, Senior Editor @ 6,448 miles
carguy622 says:
01:49 PM, 05/29/09
Erin, How does the SX4 compare to the Compass when it comes to acceleration?
briancam says:
02:09 PM, 05/29/09
the title says it all - nicely put.
eriches says:
02:19 PM, 05/29/09
@carguy622: Compass is quicker (almost a second better at 1/4-mile), but the maniacal sound of that Chrysler 2.0L pegged near its redline (thanks to the CVT) will haunt me for the rest of my days. I'd rather be slower in the Suzuki, or even the Smart.
eriches says:
02:19 PM, 05/29/09
Oops, make that 2.4L, not 2.0L. --ER
carguy622 says:
03:16 PM, 05/29/09
Erin, Thanks for the info. The CVT in the Compass is an evil idea!
bc1960 says:
03:39 PM, 05/29/09
The Compass does have an available 2.0l with 16 less hp than the 2.4l.
"any small car from the 1980s"
*Small* car? Try big car. 143 hp is more than a lot of 5.0l V8s from the late 70s and early 80s, installed in cars that weighed 300-1000 lb more than this, with 3- or at the high end maybe 4-speed automatics--although they did have 210-225 lb-ft of torque. 2.0l I4s had more like 75-85 hp, although the cars they were in were 300-500 lb lighter, and automatics had only three speeds.
The SX4's problem seems to be weight and AWD coupled with an automatic poorly matched to make use of what torque is available, perhaps compounded by high drag coefficient and large frontal area. It would be interesting to compare the FWD version with automatic to see how much of a difference weight and drive train loss makes.
The old Mazda3 i was FWD and 100 lb lighter, but had about the same power in PZEV form and also only a 4-speed automatic. It certainly didn't zoom zoom as much as the s, but neither was it as grim as you make the SX4 sound.
carlisimo says:
03:41 PM, 05/29/09
It can't just be the engine - 143hp for 3,000 lbs isn't great, but it shouldn't be THAT bad.
Economy cars like the Civic or Elantra must have similar power and weight numbers without being so slow.
misterfusion says:
03:53 PM, 05/29/09
BC: I know your figures are correct, but Erin's comment about 1980's cars was obviously in reference to the driving experience, not powertrain numbers. And as far as acceleration is concerned, the SX4 does seem like a throwback to some of my earlier rides.
But I agree with you and Carlisimo -- 143hp is not too bad for a small car these days, but you don't hear horror stories about the Spectra5's acceleration. The SX4's AWD must be eating up a lot of power.
stephen987 says:
07:07 PM, 05/29/09
I don't think the 143 hp is the problem. I point the finger at the 3000 lbs. A new Civic has 140 hp and accelerates more than adequately--because it's 300 lbs lighter.