Howdy, Stranger!

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





Suzuki Verona

1151618202190

Comments

  • lil302000lil302000 Posts: 149
    It seems that the people that own this car like it and the people that do not own or drive this car don't. I have over 6000 miles on it so far and no problems. My wife and I drive to work on a two lane highway 30 miles each way everyday of the week and have managed to get around slower traffic without the aid of the extra one or two seconds. Just to let the owners of lower mile Veronas know the more you drive and once you reach over 3000 miles the car improves in just about every way.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    Quote " the people that do not own or drive this car don't"

    =============================

    Well, not quite all. I find it a beautiful and very appealing car, and enjoy this discussion. I own a 2001 Mazda Millenia P with a V6 rated at ONLY 170 HP. And just as the same bunch complain here about the supposed lack of power, they did the same on the MM forum. My Millenia does great under ALL circumstances with the 170 ponies it has. I guess some of us just don't need our egos massaged by excess horsepower under our car hoods. Not long ago Mercedes Benz and BMW were running engines of this calibre. I don't remember all the complaints about a BMW 318 or 325 for instance. I guess it's a matter of perspective.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    There were plenty of complaints about the BMW 318i, especially when equipped with an automatic transmission. Note how the model was dropped.

    Rasup, the fact that the Verona has 177 lb. ft. means nothing becuase the car is too heavy, overmatching the engine. From what I've read, the transmission is not among the "smartest" either, which doesnt help. The simple fact is that most 4s in this class can out accelerate the Verona in all circumstances, including the most important ones- passing. According to Car and Driver, the Verona is BARELY quicker than the Hybrid Prius, which Car and Driver averaged at 42 MPG, compared to their test Verona at 19.

    The Verona offers good value, but please dont argue that anything better than merely adequate acceleration is one of the cars attributes.

    ~alpha
  • The "better than merely adequate acceleration" of the Verona still gets me there in comfort, at a safe speed and on time, Oh, I forgot, I may be 1.5 seconds late due to the 0 to 60 mph acceleration time. I guess everyone is not so HP and speed conscious. Love that Verona....
    Ken
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    Alpha, Your postings always make interesting reading. Yes I did read the Car and driver views. As I said earlier, Views and reviews are one thing, the user would make the decision. I disagree that Torque is not important. Both Torque and Power are important. A lot depends on the type of car and performance you want and on the frequent situations and driving conditions you encounter. For an average driver under normal driving conditions it is important to have a good torque at lower speeds and higher HP at high speeds. Here is a write up on torque:

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    In the simplest terms, torque is the twisting force the engine applies to the crankshaft and then on to the transmission.

    Power, by contrast, is measured as the torque times the rotational speed. In imperial measures, one horsepower is equal to 550 foot-pounds (of torque) per second. Two engines can produce the same power but have very different torque ratings for the following simple reason:

    One horsepower can be produced by moving one pound 550 feet OR by moving 550 pounds one foot, provided that either function is achieved in one second.

    The difference comes in the fact that the high-torque engine will be rotating slower than the low-torque engine at the same power output but it will be twisting the crankshaft a lot more vigorously.

    In theory, different gear ratios - most commonly four or five in cars' gearboxes - should mask different torque characteristics by altering engine speed to suit but the reality is that engines which produce high torque figures at low revolutions respond much more readily in give and take driving.

    The practical advantages come in the form of reduced gear changing, lower engine revs and wear and, invariably, lower fuel consumption in all conditions other than constant speed driving.

    For Mr Average, torque is therefore more important than horsepower, unless you spend your life racing around at high revs.

    +++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
    Visit the following sites for more info:
    www.modernracer.com/
    www. welltall.com/ymc/discovery/car/intro.html
    Its true that more HP engines have more accelaration but the Verona feels great and runs smooth and serves us well for our daily requirements.

    Its the user that feels best about the Car.The Verona feels great on the road and performs better as the miles log on.
  • The fact the car is "heavy" and wide due to the transmounted I6 are in fact attributes I really like. The car feels substantial and solid on the road.....unlike the Corrolla LE I rented not long ago which probably did have better acceleration, but to milk that performance out of the engine you had to stomp on it to 4000+ rpm and it felt like I was driving a whinny tin box.

    If it had better acceleration and side air bags, you couldn't find a fault with the Verona. The positive attributes and price make it a great buy over these negatives. Reliability was the wildcard risk for me in my decision to buy, but contrary to the critics who look at the glass half empty and dismiss it as an outdated DAEWOO product, I took comfort knowing that it was an updated DAEWOO product. I rented a Leganza a couple years ago and thought it was a great car.
  • saber86saber86 Posts: 128
    people buy midsize sedan because they want the creature comfort not because they want to be the first one to the next stop light. If buyers of midsize sedan was so concerned about the HP, than majority of accords and camarys would be 6 cyl not 4. The hp and torque are nothing more than just numbers to most car buyers.

    Go ask any car salesperson, how many prospective car buyer brings a stopwatch when they come in for a test drive to measure 0 to 60.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    I understand what torque is. I am not arguing that it is unimportant. What I'm arguing is that the Verona's 177 lb. ft. cannot make up for its very heavy curb weight, or tranmission gearing. When it comes to all out passing ability, the Accord with 161 lb. ft and 5A, or the Camry with its 162 lb.ft and 4A, will perform better than the sluggish Verona. Just as people have different risk aversions to investing in the stock market, people have different tolerances regarding the safety net of acceleration their vehicle provides.

    One of the last cars in my family's ever changing fleet of leased and owned vehicles was the PREVIOUS generation 2.2L 136hp 150lb ft. Camry. While offering good efficiency and adequate power for daily activities, the car had little left in reserve. In fact, if you look at Car and Drivers clock, that Camry posts almost IDENTICAL numbers to the Verona (with the Camry slightly ahead). I would not buy another car with similar power characteristics, and our current 02 Camry is noticeably faster.

    I could not agree more with the statement "If it had better acceleration and side air bags, you couldn't find a fault with the Verona."

    But, the lack of acceleration and no available side airbags are BIG detriments to some consumers, like me.

    And saber- "Go ask any car salesperson, how many prospective car buyer brings a stopwatch when they come in for a test drive to measure 0 to 60." Very true. HOWEVER, buyers who cross shop a Verona and a 4cyl Accord or Camry are not going to be blind to the clear difference in available power. Its a question of whether or not the Veronas feature content can make up for this, IMO...
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    Well I dont want to repeat points as far as what alpha and others have discussed so far. The fact is I test drove Camry and Accord 2002/2003 models. I found Verona still better as an allround proposition. The Price should itself make one seriously consider it. Also the warantee makes it attractive. I know that Accord and Camry are excellent cars and have been refined over the years.If I did'nt have price constraints I would have considered the 2004 Maxima ( I drove a 93 maxima prior to the new car). Verona still offers an attractive proposition if you consider the complete package. Rest is up to personal preference. There are better cars in the accelaration department than accords if one is rave about blinding 0-60 timings. The fact is that driving a Verona with its current parameters has not impaired or created any serious detriment to driving in any condition to me so far. Other Verona owners are also adding their thoughts on this forum and there have been more raves than anything else. Verona is not a car that its negatives make it an unattractive proposition. Just as I said time will let us know how the consumer accepts the alternative option.
  • dkuhajdadkuhajda Posts: 487
    Anyone notice the wide variance in the reported numbers by the so called experts on the Verona 0-60 times?

    Edmunds 11.8 sec
    Car and Driver 10.7 sec
    Motor Week 10.5 sec
    Motor Trend 11.2 sec

    I wonder how many of the Verona's tested were past the initial break in programming for the tranny and engine from the factory when they were tested. I also wonder if the little thing called tire pressure was checked before running the test.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    in terms of performance testing (even as much as I like to emphasize how anemic the Veronas I6 is). Motor Week always seems to extract the quickest times. I put my confidence in the 0-60, street start, quarter, and 30-50 and 50-70 from Car and Driver. These represent the broadest range of usable accel. tests, their procedures are clearly outline in the "Road Test Digest" section of the magazine, and as are MT and MW, I believe... standardized mathematically for atmospheric conditions. That said, I'd say holding engine/vehicle/transmission/equipment combinations constant would yield a range of about .5 seconds either way from that combinations average... due to tolerances, break-in, etc.

    ~alpha
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    Quote "Just as people have different risk aversions to investing in the stock market, people have different tolerances regarding the safety net of acceleration their vehicle provides. "

    ====================================

    That's more an excuse for hot rodding than anything else. To extrapolate that statement, nobody would be safe with anything short of a Viper or Farrari. I can tell you that I am, without even trying, the first away from a stoplight with my 170 HP MM. I have also had NO problem climbing any hill, merging under any circumstance or passing under any condition. If you want to play race, buy a 500HP sports car. But please quit insinuating that there is anything unsafe about either the Verona or other cars because they take an extra second or two to get from zero to 60. That is just plain silly. I know that from personal experience, and have had this same discussion with other people who keep insinuating you can't get by with under 200 HP. You can very nicely, and probably 90% or more of the worlds drivers do.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    You read into my statement and went off the deep end with it. Nowhere did I say anything about the world's supercars, the Verona being "unsafe", needing 200hp, or whatever. I even backed my statement by explaining my personal lack of tolerance (hence then analogy) for our 2000 Camry, with its acceleration characteristics similar to the Verona's. Perhaps you should relax, not be so defensive, and take statements posted here for what they are worth. If you read my post and extrapolated that I was calling the Verona, or the previous generation Camry, unsafe, you're clearly reading words that aren't there. (Or conversely, maybe you missed phrases like "adequate for daily activities")

    ~alpha
  • One of the great Verona virtues is the excellent fit and finish of the body. The space between the door edges and the body is as small and consistent as any car that I have seen. It is better than the 2004 Chrysler Pacifica that I looked at and surpassed the latest Cadillac big sedan.

    As for the engine power, I think that 2.5 liters is (just barely) large enough for the car weight, for most users, but that General Motors Daewoo Auto and Technology (GMDAT)should plan on adding a five or six speed automatic and variable valve timing. That could boost both fuel economy and power. The other benefit of a five or six speed automatic is that shifting is less perceptible and a downshift does not change the engine sound level as much.

    The discussions on car weight are interesting. I like the solid Verona body but have no way of knowing how much the weight reflects stronger construction and how much is due to lack of the latest high technology, high strength steels and assembly science. If the extra weight actually buys a stronger body, then any benefits in reduced squeaks and rattles might not show up until later in the car's life span.
  • fwatsonfwatson Posts: 639
    My problem with what you post is that by using terms like "risk aversion" and "safety net of acceleration" you are inferring that the Verona is unsafe. I am saying that IMO that is not true. There are far slower accelerating cars and trucks on all the roads of the world, and they are very seldom the cause of accidents. Other than playing stop light Gran Prix, there is little reason to have more power than is provided by the low line 4 cylinder and small 6 cylinder cars you seem to be suggesting are unsafe because they can't do a fast enough 0-60 for your taste.

    This doesn't need to be an argument. You have your idea of how much power a car needs, and I simply do not agree with you.
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    I object alpha's use of the word " anemic" as regards accelaration. The so called " anemic" nicely manouvers me on hill roads with consumate ease as well as the silky glides on the city roads. I could have used words like " bland" for styling of some of the cars but i would'nt as I respect others choices.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    "You have your idea of how much power a car needs, and I simply do not agree with you."

    That is precisely the theme of my post. People have different preferences regarding power, and neither the Verona nor the previous generation Camry do I find sufficient for my preference. For you to make the leap that I am calling either "unsafe" is simply illogical. NOWHERE in my post did I imply this, nor did I imply that others should have the same wants/needs as do I in purchasing a car.

    RASUP- If you're hesistant to use the word "bland", I imagine you do a lot of filtering of word choice in daily life. I am not criticizing ANYONE for purchasing a Verona, indeed, reread my post and you will see that I state it offers excellent value. However, I am criticize the FACT, for example, that Suzuki makes a big deal of the Verona's 6-cylinder engine (it its Rod Stewart "The Way You Look Tonight commercials), meanwhile, it posts slower times and worse MPG than 4 cylinder vehicles in its class.

    Also, if you dont like the word "anemic" you may want to send a letter to the edmunds.com editors for the following:
    "The driving experience is easily the least enjoyable aspect of the Verona. The trouble begins under the hood where you'll find one of the weakest six-cylinder engines currently on the market. Rated at just 155 horsepower, the Verona's 2.5-liter inline six feels slow down low, in the middle and up high. Using passing lanes on two-lane roads was a dicey proposition, as the car took what seemed like an eternity to build up enough speed to overtake trucks. The power delivery is smooth, but since the engine has to work so hard most of the time, the sound of its labors gets old quickly. The standard four-speed automatic transmission makes the best of the situation by generally picking the right gear at the right time, but most of the time, acceleration is barely adequate."

    They used such harsh negativities as "least enjoyable", "weakest", "slow", "dicey proposition", "labors", and finally "barely adequate". Thats a whole 5 additional negative adjective phrases!!! How come you arent offended by that, but you are when I say it?

    ~alpha
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    Hold on here, there is no need to get personal.

    You folks have different opinions about this vehicle and there is nothing wrong with that. Just accept it and move on rather than trying to convince each other that any opinion is somehow "wrong" because it isn't the same opinion that you hold. It is a different opinion, but it isn't wrong.
  • dnksendnksen Posts: 3
    If some of you may recall, we are the ones that are having all the issues with our Verona. White smoke, burning smell etc.
    Well, it has gotten worse. The dealership said they emptied out the gas and oil (not sure that I believe that or not) but they had hoped that doing that would somehow fix the situation, and it hasn't. Recently we were sitting at a stop light and the speedometer starting flipping up and down. Then when we starting to drive I was maybe going 10 mph and it said I was going 60ish. Ughhh. And the most recent thing that happened was our keyless entry has quit working. It has almost become a joke to us as to what is going to break next, and we only have 2,900 miles on it now. After going back and reading all the messages I truely believe we just got a lemon since no one else is having these issues.

    Anyhow, we got a call on Wednesday and Suzuki has decided to do a "buy back" on our car and get us into a new one. We are so thankful because I love the car itself, I just hate the issues we have had with it.
    Now we just can't decide on which color to get. We have it in black now and I think it looks really sleek in black, but it gets dirty so easily, even dust shows on it. I really like the silvery blue color, I believe it is called Saphire Gray Metallic and I also like the Silver but my husband is stuck on black. Who knows what we will end up with!
    Just wanted to give you all an update! I am glad everyone else is happy with their cars!
  • Sorry to hear of all the troubles you have had with your Verona. I am very happy for you that Suzuki has made the decision to do the "buy back" on your car and get you into a new one. I am sure all the colors are nice and you will make the right choice. I wish you trouble free driving in your replacement car. Enjoy it.
    Ken
Sign In or Register to comment.