Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





Suzuki Verona

1131416181960

Comments

  • I don't drive a Verona, but maybe the slight hesitation stopped because you smoothed out the gearing. Don't new cars have to be driven easily as opposed to one with 2K on it?
  • I think you are correct, that coupled with the adaptive transmission maybe. Anyway no signs of it now.
  • Oh yea! I forgot about the adaptive transmission. It probably DID learn your driving patterns. Pretty cool!
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    I agree with lil302000,rctennis and tekrek.My car seems to be getting smoother as the miles go by. I have 800 miles trouble free driving. The brakes of the Verona are excellent. Anyone know if the Verona is being crash tested?.
  • You could always do your own Verona testing... ;)
  • I have not seen any crash test data yet. It seems that at about a thousand miles the drive train comes into it's full potential with this car. Anyway 7,500 miles and no problems.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    "Television's First Automotive Magazine", had a short spot on the IIHS having tested a slew of midsizers in their new dynamic side impact test. I dont know when the results will be available though, and the spot on MW didnt go into any real detail. Not surprisingly, the midsizers w/o side impact restraints fared poorly, some worse than others.

    ~alpha
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    Nice Joke!. I prefer otherwise!!!
  • Hello everyone..2334 miles on my verona(1 and a half months old), and no complaints. Just came back from a road trip for work to Rhode island, Boston, and New Hampshire, and the car was very smooth. Gas mileage is getting better. I averaged 24mpg on the trip, and the car rode very well.
    Still looking for parts availability(brakepads etc). All in all i know i made the right choice in choosing a verona over the malibu
  • Just was looking at the chevy malibu forum, and 1 post said that the side impact test for the verona,came in very poor (certain death)...Any one have any info on this
    Thanks
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    says it hasn't been crash tested.

    Quote - Crash Test Results

    NHTSA Ratings
    Passenger: Not Tested
    Driver: Not Tested
    Side Impact Front: Not Tested
    Side Impact Rear: Not Tested
    Rollover Rating: Not Tested

    IIHS Ratings
    Crash Offset: Not Tested
    Bumper Bash: Not Tested

    http://www.edmunds.com/new/2004/suzuki/verona/100314852/safety.ht- ml?tid=edmunds.n.safetymmindex.content.num4.0.suzuki*
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    I briefly posted on this topic a couple of days ago, but since it came up again....

    Edmunds does not do crash testing, they just report it (sometimes inaccurately, by the way).

    On the Malibu thread, the posters were saying that they saw on Motor Week (usually appears on PBS) that the IIHS has finished its battery of midsize dynamic side impact crash testing. This test is substantially more difficult and very different from the outdated, misleading NHTSA side-impact test.

    According to IIHS procedure, only the base version of a vehicle will be tested. This means if side impact restraints are NOT standard, the IIHS will test a model WITHOUT the option. HOWEVER, the manufacturer can have the vehicle retested WITH the optional side airbags IF they reimburse the IIHS for the cost of the vehicle. (The IIHS will still independently pick the vehicle off a dealer lot, from what I understand).

    In the Malibu forum, the poster pointed out that the brief Motor Week blurb did not elaborate on the specifics of the vehicles, and the only one that was mentioned was the Suzuki Verona, for its poor performance that could not be improved by a re-test because there is no side airbag option.

    ~alpha
  • Geez, how long does it take for results to come out!?! LOL Hopefully, GMDAT will find out about this and put standard side-impact airbags into the Verona!
  • tekrektekrek Posts: 18
    I had an opportunity to burn 91 octane in my Suzuki Verona this past week. Last Saturday my local BP-AMOCO ran out of regular Blue of 87 octane and gave me Ultimate 91 octane for the same price. I thought it was a bargain and didn’t want to go elsewhere given it was snowing and late Saturday evening. I went home and garaged the car until Monday morning(Do I know how to party or what?). Right away Monday the car stumbled upon startup. The car had been garaged and was not too cold, about 45 degrees. All week upon startup the cold engine missed and stumbled. The stumble was gone by the first half mile but it was definitely there upon ignition. I filled up last night with 87 octane on a very low tank. This morning and all day I have had no misses or stumbles upon startup. It would seem my Verona prefers a gasoline of 87 octane. The car runs well with both grades of gasoline when warmed up but not when cold. I got 23 MPG on the tank of Ultimate 91, about the same as with Blue 87. In my opinion my Verona runs better on 87 octane than 91. It is yet undetermined whether or not 87 is the best for it but that will have to be determined another day. Thus far it seems my Verona likes “it” on the cheap. Even something as inconsequential as higher octane gasoline is a waste of on this Verona, the “low cost leader.”
  • How's it going? Thats interesting I don't put the mileage to pen and paper, I figure I bought it so I'll feed it. I run all different grades of gas in my Verona without problem, but I am like you I don't feel high octane is a must. I don't keep mine in the garage it's in the drive in the cold Ohio weather. The hesitation it had when new is a thing of the past. I did like the Sunoco ultra 94 in it though. I thought about posting this comment before but never did. I had a 76 Chevy pick up with an I6 and that engine was the cold est nature engine I have ever seen. It could be 80 degrees out and it would still hesitate if you did not let it run for a few minutes. I still would rate the chevy I6 as one of the best runners I have ever had though. Take care and enjoy the new car.
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    Your experience made interesting reading. Actually I read an article on the benefits of higher octane in a web site:
    http://www.autosite.com/library/advocate/ftcoctan.asp that simply states higher octane fuel for a car with no knock or normal and not high compression ratios is a waste. Regular grade is fine and its best to follow the car manual. Verona's manual states that you could add 87 octane or higher. My experience on the Verona was like this;
    On adding 93 grade the first time there was a slight hesitation initially till within 2 hours the car "tuned" up to the 93 grade. I find that it runs great and smoother but the difference is not a big one. I guess you could use what you like but nothing lower than 87.
  • I agree 87 octane will be just fine in the Verona. One thing I try to do is buy my gas at established brand gas stations. I don't know if it makes a difference, they could be getting their gas from the same source as we pump it for all I know but it makes me feel better. While we are on the subject. What kind of plugs do you like to use? As for me I have grown fond of BOSH Platinum Plus. They ran great in my Sundance.
  • What would classify as high compression?
  • Most family cars are not high compression engine cars. This is why the manuals suggest a min. rating of 87 octane. A high compression engine is in the motorcycle engine, high performance cars. A real high compression engine is used in say CART racing. They are high revving engines and burn methanol rather than gas. I don't have the knowledge to give a compression ratio cut of in terms of the min. ratio to term it a high compression engine, but I can tell you that the Verona is not a high compression engine.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    It's difficult to give an exact point at which the compression ratio would become classified as "high", but it is somewhere around the 10 or 11 to 1 rating. The main indicator for the need for higher octane gasoline is if the car has pre-ignition. In other words if it knocks or pings when you accelerate. Carbon buildup and other things can also cause pre-ignition.

    As lil302000 points out, higher compression is usually used in higher performance engines. There are quite a lot of "family" cars that do qualify though, and the manufacturer will tell you (usually on a tag next to the fuel filler pipe) as well as in the Owner Manual what octane you should be running. Also, supercharging causes a need for "premium" fuel even though the engine itself does not have a high compression ratio. A too high compression ratio can actually decrease engine performance because it makes it difficult for the engine to rotate against the high pressure.

    You can use a google search to find a lot on the subject if you are that deeply interested.
  • Thanks for the the added points on compression. I think the moral is follow the owners manual it should steer you in the proper direction.
  • It's my guess, but with high gas prices, the premium was probably old. I've read that winter gas is formulated for easier start-up in the cold, perhaps the gas you bought was still a warm-weather blend?

    The IIHS, at the end of the day, is in it for their own (insurance company) interest. I've noticed that the dummies knees are practically touching the dash to begin with, so it's no surprise when "high" leg injuries are reported and they can raise the premiums. I do not like how they have managed to manipulated vehicle design and force (i.e. shame) nearly every car to have extremely rigid structures, significantly reducing protection in low speed crashes. The crash barrier is extremely rigid behind the tiny crumple box used in the tests, and does not realistically simulate another car as they try to lead us to believe.

    Why isn't more attention given to head restraint performance? Because it doesn't have the "shock and awe" quality of a car after being slammed into a barrier for the media to feast on. Nor does it come with the high $ figure for bumper repair costs to scare owners. It is all about $$$ and their interest. Afterall, whiplash is the most personal injury related to crashes.

    As I have said before, it is unbelievable that GM/Suzuki is not selling the Forenza and Verona with side-airbags, when it is as simple as it could possibly be. Has anyone contacted them?
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Your analysis of the IIHS is so flawed, its unbelievable.

    1)"I've noticed that the dummies knees are practically touching the dash to begin with, so it's no surprise when "high" leg injuries are reported and they can raise the premiums."

    Are you kidding me? Then why is it that the top models in ALL OF THE TESTED CLASSES have extremely low injury measures for the femur and tibia? And on which engineering basis are you judging that the drivers knees are too close? It seems to me that you saw a test, and you simply "think" that they are positioned to close to the dash. Not a very good case for your argument.

    2) "I do not like how they have managed to manipulated vehicle design and force (i.e. shame) nearly every car to have extremely rigid structures, significantly reducing protection in low speed crashes."

    What are you talking about? How has protection in low speed crashes been compromised? Show me facts, data, and articles to prove that there has been a reduction in low speed crash safety. Then, when you sustantiate this claim, explain to me how this ALLEGED loss in low speed crash protection has occured at the cost of higher speed crash protection.

    3)"Why isn't more attention given to head restraint performance?"

    Every year, the IIHS evaluates head restraints, and berates poor geometry and design, which has resulted in SIGNIFICANTLY improved head restraints in modern cars-ones that lock in place, have a greater adjustable range. This information is plainly available on the IIHS website, and is included in vehicle evaluations.

    4)"The crash barrier is extremely rigid behind the tiny crumple box used in the tests, and does not realistically simulate another car as they try to lead us to believe."

    Really? Hmmn. You want to talk about misleading? Have you SEEN the NHTSA frontal crash barrier? How many people do you know hit brick walls? Are you aware that the NHTSA test has not changed at all since its inception in 1979? As far as "realism" goes, the IIHS test, and barrier are far more representative.

    Bmcclain, it is clear that you do NOT take advantage of the IIHS' FREE publication, "Status Report" about all the research and tests that go on. Perhaps you should. You are sorely lacking in education on safety testing and issues.

    Others, please dont misinterpret me. I am not saying the IIHS is the best thing since sliced bread, nor that it is perfect, nor that it is not without industry based motives. I am simply stating that the more demanding crash testing performed by this organization has improved the overall level of safety of today's vehicles. If you look at the facts, to make wild, unsubstantiated claims as did bmcclain has.... is to sensationalize an issue exactly as he seemingly despises the IIHS for. Quite ironic.

    Finally, I'd like to point this out: The IIHS was NOT the first to develop the offset test. It had been used by European gov'ts for a good deal of time prior to its introduction here, and was in part developed my automobile manufacturers. I'm not positive, but I believe M-B, BMW, and Volvo had been doing this type of testing for years before the IIHS started it.

    ~alpha
  • mopar67mopar67 Posts: 728
    Chuckle, chuckle.....(and some giggles)
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    The Crash test is a complex process that tries to simulate the possible impact situations that usually arise in real life. They are not perfect and never can be as they try a best simulation. There are a number of other complex factors such as comparsion of field tests with computer finite element tests to test the veracity, using statistical probability tools and other ergonomic factors. The idea is to make the vehicle safe for the occupants. Therefore I think all crash tests do have a merit and make the car structure more rigid to resist impact and therefore protect the occupants. Actually I presume they reverse engineer the results to design a more rigid structure frame that buckles less under impact loads. I agree that provison of side air bags could be considered by Suzuki in their Veronas and other cars. Ofcourse that has a cost implication.
    Ofcourse there is nothing like the age old motto : " Drive safely and buckle up" and a host of other safety precautions set by the DMV's.
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    I couldn't agree with you more!
  • Just went over 3k yesterday, and still think that the Verona is great. Nothing bad has happened, and the only trip to the dealer was for the airbag recall. And NO, I don't want more airbags! Those who would turn down the Verona for lack of additional airbags should be purchasing a Volvo, SAAB, Mercedes, etc for a <whole lot> more money to get the benefits of their structural integrity testing which will protect them more than airbags.

    Just finished the 2nd J.D. Powers survey and basically gave it all 9's with a few 10's and a few 8's. (Sorry I don't believe that any mass produced item can get a 10's since they have to compromise to sell to the masses.) Most of the lower ratings I gave were for categories about distinctive appearance which were a bit silly since most all mid-sized sedans look alike anyway, and, for some interior controls and item placements that annoy me in all cars.

    Milage is at or near the estimates. The cold running hesitation has gotten much better on it's own. Also, my dealer said that there was a service notice that said to wait 5-10 seconds before giving the engine any throttle - a 'computer thing'. The engine never stumbles when we do this. (We do use 93 octane gas from anywhere.) Besides, it's good for any engine to let a little oil flow before blasting off.

    The engine power is taking a definite leap as time goes by, and, I give it more hard running. I think that the Verona should not be turned down based on the initial road tests that claim low power. There are some situations where you might want to pre-select 3rd or hit the throttle slightly ahead of time to give the transmission computer notice to get break-neck acceleration. But this engine does NOT perform as badly as some V6 affectionadoes would want you to believe. The 'Real-World' performance and acceleration of the Verona is more than adequate, certainly beyond many mid-sized sedan 4s, and, is in no way unsafely slow! The thing that the Verona does well when accelerating is produce a constant, smooth, predictable rate of acceleration over a wide band of RPMs.

    I am suprised that auto reviewers have yet to pick up on the fact that the Verona engine holds about the same amount of oil as the cooling system holds coolant. Suzuki did something similar to their oil-cooled motorcycle engines and then proceeded to totally dominate endurance racing all over the world. I am looking forward to a very long lasting engine with this car.
  • mopar67mopar67 Posts: 728
    FWIW......the 4 banger in my zuke holds 5.8 qts oil. Classic overengineering if I do say so myself.

    Your comments on the power provided by the sophisticated 6 banger are dead on too.
  • Good to here your report. I agree this car gets noticeably better with break in, maybe more so than any other car I have had. I have had a couple of used vehicles with in line 6 engines and they proved to be reliable in the long run. The one that brings some of the fond est memories was my 76 Chevy truck. The engine was great but the starter cylenoid was a problem child. The nice thing about it was that the cylenoid was separate from the starter. When it would go out I would put it in neutral set the brake turn the key raise the hood and start it with a screwdriver. We can't do that anymore we would be stranded. Anyway almost 8,000 miles on our Verona and no problems here.
  • Please look outside of the box, from what the IIHS has fed to you.

    I invite everyone to look at the shoulders of the dummies and their relation to the B-pillar in every vehicle tested. Nearly the entire body (if not all) of the dummy is in front of the B-pillar. Next, sit in the driver's seat of your vehicle (with the seat positioned in the normal, comfortible driving position) and note the proximity of your shoulders and torso in relation to the B-pillar. Excellent, now how far away are your knees from the dash? Now adjust the seat to where your torso and shoulders are in front of the B-pillar as in the tests. Note the closeness and uncomfort while mimicing adjusting the foot pedals (as if driving). Also, the next time you have the chance, observe other motorists sitting position... do the results match up? They didn't for me. Take a look after the door has been taken off post crash in vehicle that had zero A-pillar movement... knees are against the dash. Why? I'm suspicious, especially when people are advised to sit a healthy distance away from the airbags, yet the videos show the airbags deploying into the dummy...

    Tell me, what are the side-effects of being in a very stiff structure during and impact just under the airbag threshold? I've read driver accounts of very painful injuries. The IIHS also wants front-ends to not bend in bumper tests, because it costs a lot more to replace the parts that dissipate the energy.

    Yes, the IIHS covers head restraint performance, yet it is quietly tucked away. The offset test has been used by European governments, but not private party insurance consortiums.

    Your analysis of the IIHS is so flawed, its unbelievable.

    I find it interesting, behind the shouting, that you do not answer any of the logic or provide your own... why not? I am interested in hearing your logic, not recaps of press releases.

    4)"The crash barrier is extremely rigid behind the tiny crumple box used in the tests, and does not realistically simulate another car as they try to lead us to believe."

    Really? Hmmn. You want to talk about misleading? Have you SEEN the NHTSA frontal crash barrier? How many people do you know hit brick walls? Are you aware that the NHTSA test has not changed at all since its inception in 1979? As far as "realism" goes, the IIHS test, and barrier are far more representative."


    Here you are essentially saying "It's broken... but the NHTSA is too!" Let me help, in what way is the IIHS barrier 'far more representative?'

    IMO, Because of the IIHS's influence, car buyers and manufacturers put a lot of importance on what the IIHS's fraction of overall type of crash results are made to show.
Sign In or Register to comment.