When the 2009 Suzuki SX4 hit the 15,000-mile mark, we were climbing Interstate 5 through the Mt Shasta area. The first glimpse of Shasta always delights me, but the last time I came through here, I was in a 2006 BMW 330i, which undoubtedly added to the fun. And as we're all aware, this 2009 SX4 is down in the power department (143 hp at 5,800 rpm, 136 lb-ft of torque at 3,500 rpm), and its four-speed automatic is down a couple forward gears.
I'm pleased to report, though, that the climb was very manageable. Suzuki provides manual access to all gears, and the transmission holds gears when it needs to. Killing the overdrive was enough on most grades, but when stepping out to pass particularly slow trucks, I would sometimes put it in second gear (which is fairly tall).
No question, though, there's a lot of engine noise when you're working the car like this, and the whole experience is a lesson in momentum. There's no relaxing here; you've got to carry plenty of speed with you and you've got to keep the throttle pretty close to wide open at all times. It certainly helps that the SX4 steers and grips as well as it does, because you can start your passes on the curves when 18-wheelers and Durangos are at their slowest.
I also didn't hesitate to take the SX4 on Everett Memorial Highway (the road up to the Mt Shasta trailhead), which has a few twists and some elevation gain. I wasn't setting any records with my pace, but thanks to the momentum game, I certainly wasn't holding anybody up.
Naturally, all this hard play isn't good for mileage, but it's balanced by some long descents as you approach the Oregon border, so I wasn't gassing up any sooner.
Erin Riches, Senior Editor @ 15,000 miles
throwback says:
10:16 AM, 10/ 8/09
Beautiful pictures. How loaded down is the car? It sounds like the engine is able to handle the mountains, albeit with a lot of noise.
eidolways says:
10:17 AM, 10/ 8/09
Four speed with a tall second gear... Ouch. My 2004 Mazda6i had the 2.3-L I4 and a 4-speed auto, also with a tall second gear. It frustrated me to no end because unless you pushed the car from a stop, the transmission would happily shift out of first in the low 3000's, and second gear was so tall that the revs plunged, sending the car far outside its power band. Even in higher revs, the tall second gear meant a loss of power on the shift. It really killed what was otherwise a relatively fun inline-4.
You have my sympathies for the SX4's gearing.
bodyblue says:
10:40 AM, 10/ 8/09
What nice, clear instruments....I know I am a broken record, but WHY a 140 MPH speedo on such a car????? How fast can it go anyway?? 110?
I think a FWD unit would be great for an around town car.
altimadude00 says:
11:17 AM, 10/ 8/09
Bodyblue--The 140 MPH gauge is probably there to make the IP symmetrical.
Having a FWD SX4 might be more fun up and down hills because of it's lower weight (I don't remember if this is an AWD or not.) Having all four gears selectable is nice. Ford should look into that.
bodyblue says:
11:33 AM, 10/ 8/09
It is an AWD...that is why the fuel range is so short...the AWD has a smaller tank. And they cant make a 120 MPH symmetrical by spreading out the numbers??
hybris says:
05:16 PM, 10/ 8/09
When you think of the altitude that your driving at (I think is 5% power loss per 5000ft gain in elevation) I'm guessing again your at least 5000ft above sea level the SX4 is only making 135 horses its impressive that you could keep moving even if it was at full throttle.
bodyblue says:
08:05 AM, 10/ 9/09
135 ponies is pretty good for a 4 banger. We are just spoiled that everything has a gang of power. I think it is funny to see car reviewers saying that 9-10 seconds 0-60 is "slow". 20 years ago that would have been pretty snappy. It all comes down to what you really need. My commuter car is a 165 hp Stratus V6.....it has plenty of power to merge on the freeway for my commute and gets 30 mpg at 65 mph. I love getting in my Mustang to feel the difference but I live just fine with 165 hp. I drove a 08 Focus the other day and it was just fine also. I think cars like a 260 horse Camry are stupid....what do you need that for in a family car?
stephen987 says:
10:28 AM, 10/ 9/09
@bodyblue: the SX4 is slower than that. Try 0-60 in 11.3 seconds, which is 2.5 seconds slower than the '09 Jetta TDI.
stephen987 says:
10:32 AM, 10/ 9/09
[curse the lack of an edit button or a working preview button]
The SX4's lackluster acceleration would be acceptable if there were other compensating factors (such as top-drawer fuel economy a la Jetta TDI, Insight, or Prius), but in the real world it drinks as much gas as a RAV4 or CRV while offering inferior performance.
bodyblue says:
01:09 PM, 10/ 9/09
But what if you just like the car? All I am saying is this horsepower race is getting really silly. I am also looking at the Mazda 5. It is not fast, but it is so practical.......gas will go back up does anybody really doubt that? I wont be a slave to my car no matter how much I like or love it. What is wrong with a nice roomy van like the 5 that gets decent mileage? I love the Flex but cannot fathom why anyone would get one with 365 hp.
stephen987 says:
03:08 PM, 10/ 9/09
Nope--nothing wrong with that idea at all. But in both cases the fuel economy advantage over larger vehicles is minimal, because the engine is working hard against the weight of the vehicle. Both the Mazda5 and the SX4 would be better with more torque, perhaps in the form of a good turbodiesel four. You'd have about the same acceleration, but with a realistic 30 mpg.