I had a quick biz trip down near San Diego this week. Del Mar, to be precise, which is about 115 miles from our office in Santa Monica. After considering my trio of vehicle options (Ram pickup, Challenger, SX4), I went with the Suzuki. And there were a trio of reasons for my choice: fuel economy, a nav system and Bluetooth. Follow the jump to see how it fared...
Fuel economy: B-
For the 230-mile round trip (virtually all highway, and apart from a few miles of slow-moving traffic, moving along nicely at 70-75 mph), the SX4 averaged 26 mpg against the EPA highway estimate of 28 mpg.
Note: The 2010 SX4 AWD automatic will be a CVT, and mileage estimates improve to 23 city, 29 highway and 25 combined, versus our '09 with a 4-speed automatic's 21/28/24.
Navigation System: B
A bit of a reach to access, so if I had an address to enter I would detach it (it's removable from the car) and type away, obviously when I was sitting parked. And thanks to its simple, intuitive layout, entering addresses and finding gas stations and yes, Starbucks, were quick work. The voice prompts, however, sound like they're from a 1980's voice synthesizer. The Suzuki's Max Headroom is certainly not as smoothly spoken as the lady in our Honda Fit's nav system. Then again, the SX4's system came standard as opposed to commanding a near-$2,000 premium as with the Fit.
Bluetooth: C
It's nice that the system automatically downloads your phone numbers (no, they don't all do that). However, the transmission quality was sometimes rather poor. At times, the person on the other end couldn't hear me that clearly, prompting one to say that it sounded like I was underwater. Or that I was Charlie Brown's teacher.
John DiPietro, Automotive Editor @ 18,195 miles
throwback says:
12:16 PM, 11/23/09
That is pretty poor mileage. Especially when the Genesis is averaging 21 mpg.
jeepsrt says:
12:30 PM, 11/23/09
I would have taken the Challenger, I think it would have been worth the couple of mpg's for comfort and style.
crowb says:
12:59 PM, 11/23/09
+1 jeepsrt
nealibob says:
01:10 PM, 11/23/09
Wow. I burn a lot of gas on onramps, and I am not the tamest driver, but I still get 27+ MPG highway in my 335i. I am looking at 24-25 MPG for the 15k miles I have had it, with a lot of Chicago driving (but mainly clear highway driving, with 50% cruise control use).
I wonder what the mileage would have been without that unnecessary AWD.
johnnyturbo says:
01:29 PM, 11/23/09
@jeepsrt:
Believe me, I was tempted. But I had to put my personal automotive gluttony aside as I hadn't yet taken/evaluated the SX4 on a long ride. Professional obligation and all that ; )
vt8919 says:
04:11 PM, 11/23/09
The 2010 model gets the same EPA highway mileage as the new 2010 Outback. And that's a much bigger vehicle.
I still say I like the Suzuki's AWD selector near the gear shift. Sometimes you need AWD. Sometimes you don't.
wrinklebump says:
09:58 PM, 11/23/09
That thing seems like a real pisser to drive around. Take the Fit over it any day.
awcmtl says:
07:43 AM, 11/25/09
that is a real clueless comment. have you driven one?
We compared the SX4 (fwd) and the Fit back to back the same afternoon. We found the SX4 had a better, much quieter ride, more comfortable seats, a better driving position and more power at highway speed. The Fit has a larger, more flexible cargo area and of course better mileage. Since the SX4 was also better equipped and lower priced we bought it. With fwd and a manual, it has been averaging 26 mpg in city driving. A pleasant little car.