2009 Suzuki SX4: Open Thread

I didn't drive one, but I sat in one. I'm 5'11 200 lbs. I felt instantly comfortable. The only reason why it isn't in my top three: isn't the gas tank tiny?

adavis2493,

In my experience with the SX4, the design of the A pillar and triangle shaped side windows creates a bad blind spot for drivers of a certain height.

Otherwise, visibility is pretty god. The car has a raised seating position similar to a traditional SUV, and a high roofline with lots of glass all around.

My spouse tells me that when she gets out of the SX4 and gets in my 08 WRX she feels like her visibility is reduced. The WRX gives her that sitting in a big bathtub feeling.

v65magnafan,

As you say, the SX4 is a very comfortable car in this price range. My spouse and I have taken her SX4 on several long road trips and we have never had any complaints.

The seats are pretty good, the high roofline with lots of glass gives the car an open airy feel and the raised seating position similar to a traditional SUV makes entry/exit very easy. On the highway, the car is smooth quiet and has a very solid/substantial feel.

That said, you make a good point w.r.t. the tiny fuel tank and short range. This is my spouse's biggest complaint with the SX4 thus far.

I have read some stories about Suzuki arranging for journalists to drive a diesel version of the SX4 here in Canada. I think the diesel would be a very good idea since it would address the less than stellar fuel economy and short range due to the small tank.

How does it handle a cross-wind? With all that glass area, does it cook when left in the sun worst than others like the Fit, or Versa if you remember that one? It's a real concern down here in Florida.

That's interesting, wmurrin. Fiat already markets the same vehicle with a diesel engine as the Sedici MultiJet.

I wonder if that's the car they're driving in Canada, or if they've arranged for a different diesel in the belief that it would be more suited to North American tastes. Do you have a link to that info?

The Edmunds staff all seem to like this car, but I can't get my brain around a car this size that has such mediocre fuel economy. A diesel version that fixes that problem without much sacrifice in performance would be a game-changing move IMHO.

stephen987,

I would assume that the diesel Suzuki has been showing some journalists here in Canada is the same one offered in Europe. The article indicates a Peugeot-sourced 1.6 L direct injection turbocharged four-cylinder motor. 88.5 horsepower at 4000 rpm, and 158.6 lb.-ft. of torque at 1750 rpm, and meets stringent European emissions standards. 5.3 L/100 km = 44MPG

Check out these links:

http://www.wheels.ca/article/394990

http://driving.canada.com/research/viewroadtest.spy?artid=101508

I hope Suzuki decides to bring the diesel option to North America.

altimadude00,

My experince is that the SX4 handles a cross wind well for a car of this size. We have driven our SX4 on the highway in blizzard conditions with cross winds in the 80-100 km/hr (50-60 MPH) range and I was impressed by how well it drove. I think this is mainly due to the wider stance and larger curb weight compared to some other cars in this class.

With the dark interior and lots of glass, we find that the car does get quite warm in the summer when it is left in direct sunlight. I can imagine that this is a big concern down in Florida... not so much here in Canada. I don't have any experince with the Fit or Versa but I would guess that all 3 cars are very similar in this respect.

If I'm not mistaken, the sedan version is available in FWD trim, and has a larger gas tank. If only the hatch had the same features, it'd be that much more desirable.

Even so, the praise around this car is starting to make me think that the advantages really do outweigh the disadvantages. There is a lot to be said for a really solid-feeling small car, especially one that is also inexpensive and reliable. That used to be the domain of Volkswagen, but now the assumption is that you can no longer get all of those qualities at the same time in a VW.

Another link with regards to diesel SX4 testing here in Canada:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/auto/not-in-canada-pity/article1052569/

I agree with that author that the 1.9L diesel options would be a better option in North America.

misterfusion,

It is also my understanding that the FWD models get a slightly larger fuel tank. I think the small tank on the AWD is required due to space/clearance requirements resulting from the rear differential.

Having driven this car for 2+ years; if AWD is an interest or priority, I think the SX4 is a very compelling package.

If your plan on sticking with a FWD vehicle, the competition is much stiffer. There are alot of great cars in this price range:

- Mazda 3
- Honda Civic, Fit
- Toyota Corolla, Matrix(AWD available)
- Pontiac Vibe(AWD available)
- Subaru Imprezza (standard AWD)
- VW Rabbit/Golf
- Nissan Versa
- Hyundai Accent, Elantra Touring
- Kia Rio, Spectra, Soul, Rondo, Forte

In any event, if you are in the market for a car in this price range, the SX4 is worth a look.

Thanks, wmurrin. A direct comparison isn't possible because Suzuki and Fiat only offer the 1.9 in the 4x4 version, and the 1.6 is only available as a 4x2 Suzuki. Still, consider:

Sedici Multijet 4x4/Suzuki SX4 4x4 diesel (Fiat 1.9 power): 120 hp @ 4000 rpm, 206 lb-ft @ 2000 rpm, 112 mph, 11.2 sec 0-62, 42.8 mpg (imperial) in the Euro combined cycle.

SX4 diesel 4x2 (Peugeot 1.6 power): 90 hp @ 4000 rpm, 158 lb-ft @ 1750 rpm, 109 mph, 12.2 sec 0-62, 53.3 mpg (imperial) in the Euro combined cycle.

Yep, even with the awd system's added weight, the 1.9 is the winner. The acceleration numbers are roughly comparable to what Edmunds is getting with the 2.0 gas engine. And 42.8 mpg Imperial equates to 35.6 mpg US. I know the Euro cycle is pretty lenient, but it would still probably post well over 30 in the EPA combined--a considerable improvement over the 23-24 mpg EPA combined rating of the current model.

To sum up, I think the 1.9 Multijet would have pretty good sales potential here, at a price of, say, $18000 to start.

I don't think the 1.9 diesel is a better choice then the 1.6 diesel. The 1.6 gets much better mileage and as this quote from the road test shows, it has plenty of power.

"The Peugeot-built, 1.6L common-rail, direct-injection, turbocharged four-cylinder Suzuki is considering importing is an utter delight. While it pumps out a scant 89 hp, it twists out a stellar 159 lb-ft of torque at just 1,750 rpm. This oversized torque plateau gives it surprising pull. While my stopwatch says it needs 12 seconds to eclipse 100 kilometres an hour and 7.2 seconds to bridge the 80-to-120-km/h gap, it feels so much faster. The reason is simple: This little mill pulls with enthusiasm almost without regard for the gear selected. Even when in fifth on a fairly steep incline, there is absolutely no need to downshift -- try that with a 1.6L gas engine."

A good point, firstwagon. But I think a lot of US consumers have a mental block when it comes to acceleration times, especially for diesels. I also wonder--if the 1.6 is so good, why won't Suzuki offer it in the 4x4 version in the UK?

I'd love an engine like that in a lighter car, though.

Having owned my sx4 for over a year the only words that come to mind are fun and versatile. It's not a sports car and its not going to get you 40 mpg(32 isn't out of the question) it just gets the job done. The winter months are much easier on the nerves now that I have AWD and the options even on my base model make it very comfortable.

My only complaint is the low 5th gear.(remedied somewhat after 07) She revs a little to high for my liking on the freeway. That being said road wind and engine noise is bearable nonetheless.

I'd suggest at the very least to anyone looking for something in this class of vehicle to find a suzuki dealer and take one for a drive. It's a very surprising car. sx4club.com is a good reference for anyone looking for more info.

Has any thought been given to sending this light blue badboy over to RRE and having them install the turbo kit they designed for Suzuki? That might take care of one of the recurring gripes about this car.

Hell, just have RRM install their intake, UD Pulley, and Piggyback. Those three things will wake the little beast up a bit.