Howdy, Stranger!

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





Suzuki Verona

1171820222360

Comments

  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    All the hemming and hawwing is unnecessary. They have controlled tests to compare how these cars would compare under similar condition. Some cars do excellently some cars not so great. But the fact remains they are tests. Just like the fuel economy test, the handling tests, the performance tests. There are those cars that perform to "best pick" levels in each of these tests, and there are those that don't. When I last posted in here there was a debate whether the Verona was cheap enough to offset the lackluster performance figures. Well, that caused quite a few posts. Now we have another test that shows the Verona is also a bit behind the class leaders in the crash tests. You have to ask yourself again. Is the Veronas' bargain basement price worth it if you have marginal performance on nearly any test of it's capabilities? It's your money.

    Someone compared this car to the first Accords and Camrys. The first Accord came out in the late 70's and the Camry started in the early 80's. Is that a fair comparison? I mean this isn't the first Suzuki mid-size sedan. It's the second Daewoo mid-size. It's a dramatic improvement to the Leganza. But it's still not "best pick" material. Neither Suzuki nor GM had anything to do with the crash structure of this car as it was designed by Daewoo.
  • bmcclainbmcclain Posts: 39
    Interesting that even though, according to you, almost all cars are rated good the Verona still only managed to rate Acceptable.

    I've found the IIHS site to be peppered with some of the same inconsistancies that tekrek has. Even before I posted about this test, I saw them. Similar injury measurements, different ratings. His post sums it up very well, along with my feelings on the Verona issue. These inconsistancies cripple the actual value of the ratings!

    If this statement is true then why are there sedans that exhibited very little risk of injury?

    Evolution of vehicle design. The IIHS tests have had impact on this. However, now that the cars are catching up with their test, they are implimenting the side-impact test to lower the scores again. They can't have all G's. They make a living on insurance premiums.

    Next you are going to say that the dash cracking is a safety feature but I've never heard of a manufacturer intentionally creating a crumple zone in the dash.

    There are crumple zones (equivalent) in dashes! 'Knee bolsters' are to sheild the knees from the stiff dash frame. There are layers of padding, and bars that give specifically for this purpose. I do see that this dash movement is more important to your husband. In my case, it isn't. Seriously though, what % of the population is his height?

    Fact is, the Verona experienced dummy movement and interior intrusion at a level higher than the top-rated sedans.

    OK. The Verona had the lowest head injury criterion. It bested the the top rated sedans. Hmmm... head... legs... head... legs... Obvious for me.

    Veronas class do not have the same level of interior damage

    Next you will be complaining about the paint being scratched. ;) It's frivolous to worry about cosmetic damage (as in interior trim) in a totaled car.

    One thing my crash did exhibit is that the IIHS/NHTSA tests are a good indicator of how a car will perform in a real-world crash.

    No it didn't. If the two of you swapped cars, your car would have had more damage. The crash wasn't the same for both cars. One of the first things to remember in crash safety (and this is on all crash websites and car owners manuals) is that the amount of 'damage' has no relevance to safety. However, crash tests do give an indicator of a similar real life crash (it's their point, but the IIHS is in it for money, not safety). gee35coupe says it best:
    "They have controlled tests to compare how these cars would compare under similar condition."
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Interesting.

    With regard to the Volvo S40 and the Verona ratings. The text may read similarly, but point to me, where, besides HIC, is the Verona better? With specific regard to structure, the S40 did NOT experience the seat tipping and roof buckling that the tested Veronas did.

    You seem to be against the IIHS tests for the simple fact that it is an industry funded program. So what? You state yourself that the evolution of design has stemmed, in part, to this crash testing. What is the issue then? Comparing scores of the old vehicles to new versions of similar vehicles shows that this, and other, types of testing are worthwhile.

    Your claim that the side impact testing is yet another scheme to make money is rather outlandish. Creating safer cars means fewer deaths, and fewer injuries... exactly how does that positively affect the insurance industry? Arent higher premiums a result of greater risk exposure? In that light, it would be smart of the insurance industry to stop crash testing altogether, and instead fund some type of report that merits the widespread non-usage of safety belts.

    Mind you, I agree with your statements on some of the IIHS's faux pas, such as the red-light running. The crash testing is different. It is based on the programs that have been developed and proven by the Gov'ts and mfrs in many countries.

    I have a question. If NHTSA took over the exact procedure and ratings as the IIHS currently does, how would you feel about the testing then? Additionally, you never answered my question regarding the NHTSA side impact and how it doesnt factor in head injury. You dont think this is misleading?

    I will continue to disagree with you in terms of the IIHS's placement of dummies. Your contention that Suzuki may or may not have discovered the mfg. defect the next day borders on absurd. In the post above, you claim that interior damage is cosmetic. No, it most certainly isnt. The cars whose structures do not allow for roof buckling and seat tipping do not feature the amount of interior damage that the Verona has. The Verona's HIC is indeed very commendable, but anything below 400 is generally outstanding. Even so, that is just one measure- peak g's from hard hits, the time duration of the load, etc.... are all factors in head evaluations. So when comparing the Veronas HIC to the top rated vehicles, it is the best among an excellent field. The bottom line is that all performed excellently. The Verona, in comparison, does not offer the structural strength or leg protection that the top rated cars do. You contend this is due to the way dummies are positioned, and you're free to make that narrow assesment. But other cars do not inflict injury on dummies legs the way that the Verona did, and indeed, some are worse. You claim the IIHS places the dummies legs in a danger zone, but if that were the case, the leg injuries should be present for more cars.

    You re-iterate Gee35's comment "They have controlled tests to compare how these cars would compare under similar condition." You seem to agree with this.

    So what then, is your real beef with the IIHS testing? I highly recommend that you email the IIHS with your criticisms and ask them for explanations regarding dummy placement. I have emailed the IIHS before and received pretty timely responses. I have also emailed NHTSA regarding my criticism of their side impact testing. They emailed me back a very speedy, polite, and BS answer about how side impact testing is relatively new and will be subject to future re-evaluation. Great. But I can still buy a car like the Honda Accord 2 Door which gets great star ratings, but has an HIC in the 900s for the rear passenger.

    This is my final .02 on the subject. I fully agree with gee35coupe's assement of the Verona. Good car, lots of features, worth the lack of performance, crash test scores, reliability record, poor fuel mpg? Its up to the consumers.

    ~alpha
  • dkuhajdadkuhajda Posts: 487
    A consumer organization recently published it's measured fuel economy results.
    The Verona was tied with an average for mixed driving, not published what the mix was, at 20MPG with 8 other cars. The measured higway MPG was 30 with stop and go in town driving at 14. The range of fuel economy average for mixed driving was between 19MPG and 26MPG for the same class of car, midsized sedan.
    Verona:20:14:30
    The results for other cars of note:
    CAR :Mix MPG:City MPG:Hwy MPG
    Verona:20:14:30
    Camry V6:20:13:29
    Altima 2.5:22:15:32
    Stratus 4cyl:21:14:32
    Taurus SES:22:15:31

    Just shy of half the cars tested had a mix MPG of 20 or 21. The Verona Fuel economy is not sub-standard for other cars in the mid-sized class. It is virtually (%5 or less difference) the same as about 50% of the cars being offered in the same size class.
  • gee35coupegee35coupe Posts: 3,475
    The Verona gets near the same mileage as a Camry V6 but the Camry has nearly as much power as the Verona in the 4 cylinder version. And over 50 more horsepower in the V6. Not quite the same "class".

    The Altima 2.5 bests the Verona in its 4 cylinder version AND still has more power and performance to boot. Maybe the Verona should be in the 4 cylinder "class" since that's all the power its 6 can put out. 155 is lagging in today's 6 cylinder marketplace.

    The Stratus and Taurus are also rans in this field. I'd actually place them equal to or worse than the Verona.

    It very telling there are no 4 cylinder Accords or Camrys in this "test". But if you look on Suzuki's own web site you'll see the Camry 4 cyl bests the Verona by at least 4 mpg hwy.
  • anonymouspostsanonymousposts Posts: 4,202
    http://www.iihs.org/vehicle_ratings/ce/html/grey_midinexp.htm

    That chart pretty much sums it up. In most categories the Verona lags a good bit behind the best in it's class.

    "they are implimenting the side-impact test to lower the scores again. They can't have all G's."

    Again, this does not make sense. If all cars participate in the same test then the results are fair, whether you agree with side-impact testing or not. If the IIHS wanted more insurance premiums why would they rate the top-selling sedans so highly and place most of the lower-volume sedans at the bottom? Seems like they would profit more by inflating insurance costs for an Accord (which sells approx. 400,000 a year) vs. inflating insurance costs for the lowest performing car which was the Grand Am.

    "There are layers of padding, and bars that give specifically for this purpose"

    The whole center console of the Verona was destroyed. Is it because of cheap plastics or the dummy's forward movement. Neither scenario would make me feel good about owning a Verona.

    "It's frivolous to worry about cosmetic damage (as in interior trim) in a totaled car."

    It's not necessarily the interior damage that I am worried about. It's the fact that either the materials are lackluster or that the dummy impacted the console so hard that it cracked. Again, neither looks good on the Verona's resume.

    My accident was a good indicator that the IIHS/NHTSA results are accurate because her car sustained severe damage by being hit in the side. According the NHTSA the Grand AM is only worthy of 3 stars in side impact while the SI I was driving received 5 stars in frontal testing. I walked away from a 50 MPH impact with no scratches, bruises, or broken bones. They went to the hospital. I can't speak about what would've happened were the positions reversed because I was not in that situation. Only thing I do know is that I hit a heavier object going 50 MPH and had no interior intrusion at all as well as no forward movement of the seat.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    I agree.

    ALSO of note with respect to post #598 is that one of the cars tested by the publication (Consumer Reports) features a powertrain that is NO LONGER available for sale.

    The Camry tested in the February 2002 issue of CR is the one with the 192hp, 4 speed automatic transmission. This is the Camry that achieved the above (and admittedly unstellar) 20/13/29.

    This combination has since been replaced by a 210 hp, 5sp automatic transmission, which has not yet been tested by CR in the Camry.

    Im not sure as to why CR is still reporting MPG for a powertrain that has ceased to exist, as the extra overdrive 5th gear would no doubt improve highway MPG. (Indeed, this application in the now-unavailable ES300, tested March 2002, acheieved 21/14/34).

    So here's a better OVERALL picture just of the cars already mentioned:

    Verona 2.5L I6: 155hp/177 ft-lbs: 20 overall/14cty/30hwy
    --------------------------------
    Camry 3.0L V6: 210hp/220 ft-lbs: 21/14/34
    --------------------------------
    Altima 2.5L I4: 175hp/185 ft-lbs: 22/15/32
    --------------------------------
    Taurus 3.0L DOHC: 201hp/207 ft-lbs: 22/15/31
    --------------------------------
    Stratus 2.4L: 150hp/155ft-lbs: 21/14/32

    Of course, this list has conveniently left off the Accord, Camry, and Malibu 4s which averaged 24MPG on the CR test loop, and out-accelerate the I6 Verona, and the Malibu V6 which will out-accelerate all the above and was tested at 26MPG overall.

    ~alpha
  • mopar67mopar67 Posts: 728
    that a conspiracy exists.
  • patpat Posts: 10,421
    We aren't going to get off into various conspiracy theories (especially not about flouride(!), but not about anything at all) - I'm calling a halt to this argument about the IIHS testing right now.

    We can see that some of us have different interpretations of the testing and the results, and we can ALSO see that none of us are going to change each other's minds, no matter how heated these exchanges get.

    It's time to agree to disagree on this and move on. Everyone has made his or her best points and it's time to let our readers make up their own minds by taking our opinions into consideration along with doing their own research.

    So ... anyone have something different to contribute about the Verona?
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Theres just no middle ground with some people.

    With regard to the Verona, the simple fact is that given the unimpressive fuel consumption, performance is modest. bmcclain, you want to factor in price? Fine. The Verona has a poorer acceleration/fuel economy compromise than any vehicle I can think of at the 20K price point. It also has more "features" at that price point than any other car I can think of. But for many consumers, including myself "features" does not equate to VALUE.

    ~alpha
  • bmcclainbmcclain Posts: 39
    Large size, handsome styling (best IMO), extensive warranty, the best IIHS test results in its price group. It was very comfortable at the auto show, and I could find only a few reasons to even consider buying a different midsize. Throw in the fact that all of this can be had for $15,000. The total package, not only features is value.

    I have yet to drive one, but from what I read, the driving aspects are favorable.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    You spend three days debating why the IIHS test is invalid, why its engineers and management are conspirators, then cite the offset as a reason to consider this car. Truly impressive. And compared against other cars in the $15000-$20000 range, there are better performers. Styling is subjective and a buying impetus for only the individual consumer.

    ~alpha
  • mopar67mopar67 Posts: 728
    Oddly, the dealer forgot to lock it:)

    No, I was not there to destroy, but rather to examine w/o a sales person covering me like a wet coat.

    I am 6-4 tall. I put my padded american rump in the driver seat and adjusted it backwards so I would have "room" to sit comfortably. Then I adjusted the tilt wheel and mirror as if I would do so in order to drive.
    I rotated the lumbar knob to give the seat a bit of "bulge" and the forward lumbar knob to drop the front of the seat down a bit to alleviate the slouch position that is so au courant with the younger generation.

    I then buckled the seatbelt. Then I looked at how far my knees where from the dash panels that were so cracked up in the IIS test. At no time(,matter of perception of course) did I feel my knees were too "close" to the lower dash panel.
    However I did notice that if one really slouched or allowed the seat to tip down in front, there could be a chance that your knees and legs would plow right into the lower dash. What is the liklihood of that happening? Who knows?

    BTW.....I do like this car and sans sunroof, I had enough headroom for my noggin along with the LL Bean hat.

    The engine bay however, is another story but that's for a later discussion.
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    I often wonder why is there so much vitriolic!! Gee..This is the first suzuki mid size in the US and thats a fact. The verona is very different from the leganza. GMDAT makes it but under suzuki quality control. The engine is designed by porsche. My comparision about the accord and camry's first tests was correct. In my opinion this was Verona's first test and it came out adequetely well. The Car is definately a "best pick" material for the price you pay. This is from a user who also test drove a Camry and accord. No doubt the accord is voted the best car and the verona needs more improvement in the power category. BUt after having driven it I find it very smooth, comfortable,spacious and have no problems in driving in the city or highway. I have never felt a problem for accelaration and have always merged well with the traffic. As far as the accord and camry tests..though they were conducted in 70 and 80,.I merely wanted to point out that they too had defeciencies. The Verona is not a car to be "trampled" but rather defines an excellent value proposition. If I had more to spend, I would go for the Infiniti or Acura. But then I would not try to demean other cars so vehemently. I agree that all are entitled to their views. But that also means recognising the good points of a car too. I am sure with time Suzuki will pick up the test results as well as on road reports to make a more perfect Verona. As far as the crash is concerned though the tests will serve as a very good source of technical material, Safe driving practices as well as a host of other factors play a major role in crashes and the probability increases if safe driving practice is not followed properly. I would also like to know if any research institute has tied down the test results with real accident situations to establish a pattern between simulated tests and real life accidents.It would make intersting reading.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Research you have asked for:

    http://www.iihs.org/news_releases/2004/pr020504.htm

    If you have a subscription to the online WSJ, I believe you can also search and find an article or two there. (For those who dont read the WSJ, you'd be surprised just how much auto-industry related news and views can be found.)

    ~alpha
  • lngtonge18lngtonge18 Posts: 2,228
    I'm just curious where you got the 5'8" size dummy from? It is my understanding the IIHS uses a 5'11"-6' dummy, to correlate to the height of the average size male. Another thing that wasn't mentioned here is the safe distance from the airbag. I believe the IIHS places the dummy so that it is at least 12" away from the airbag. Judging by the pictures, that looks about right. I think what you may be misjudging is the distance of the knees from the dash. We only have access to after crash photos. So we honestly don't know where the dummy is exactly placed. So you can't say they place the dummy's knees up against the dash and state it as fact. How do you know this without access to their testing documents or pictures of the dummy's position before the wreck? Since the dummy's size is constant, the dummy's position will be relatively the same between each car, but style differences can lead to great differences in the distance of the knees from the dash. For example: My 03 Tiburon has a lower dash that slants inwards so my knees are about 6" away from the dash even though I'm only 5'6". In my 03 Diamante and 84 VW GTI, my knees are more like 4" away because the knee bolster bulges outwards. These variations can greatly affect how the dummy looks after the crash. What happens during the crash can also greatly affect the dummies distance from the dash. Combine rearward movement of the dash, forward tipping of the seat, and any forward movement of the dummy, and it's not out of line to expect to see the dummy's knees near or touching the dash after the crash. In fact, the dummies knees come in contact with the dash on every car, which is seen by the paint left behind. But you can't infer the IIHS purposely puts the dummy too close to the dash and thus skews the test results by looking at a picture after the test and that is what got so many arguments started.

    All in all, the Verona did a lot better then the Leganza and was respectable in its safety. It's just not the safest new car on the road.
  • rwisemrwisem Posts: 96
    I've spent much of my 35 year insurance career involved with auto safety issues. The tests conducted by IIHS and the Feds are the best we have, BUT, I would not use them as predictors of real world results, which have a limitless number of variables.

    You can change the outcome of the tests by making minor changes in the dummy's feet position, let alone be of a different weight and height from the dummy.

    A particularly nasty injury people are experiencing is a shattered wrist from having their arm crossed over the air bag at time of impact. Keep your hands away from the center of the wheel and sit back as far as is comfortable to use the controls. This advice will make you far safer than choosing a car based on the unique test procedures we read about.
  • In three concise paragraphs you have cut through all the verbose nitpicking and said something relevant, believeable and useful.
  • tekrektekrek Posts: 18
    Now back to the truth. I’m about to have my 6000 mile tire rotation and my last tank of gas gave me an average 26.23 miles per gallon. My driving pattern over the 408 miles was 85% highway and 15% city. My guess is that the 20 mpg city and 27 mpg highway is right-on.
  • chuck1chuck1 Posts: 1,405
    I currently own a 2001 Mazda 626 ES-V/6 and average about 23 miles-per-gallon. It now has 62K on it. I am in industrial sales and do alot of driving. I was looking at the Verona and reports of sub 20 mpg was making me cross it off my "short list." I am attracked to the car because of it's "high value" content. You can get an "S" model here in So. Cal for about 14K!
    Thanks, again!
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    Thanks for the nice info tekrek. I have around 1500 miles in severe ( city stop and go) conditions in a hilly and winding area. My MPG is around 17 and increasing. It seems the MPG increases after 3000 miles and optimises after that. The report by rwisem made interesting reading and only shows that corelating test results and actual situations is really a complex process involving to many variables.Chuck ...The Verona must be more attractive to you after the recent 1500 off. Its MPG is not the top of the block but the Car is really an excellent value for the price. Consider the saving over other cars ,having the same features, saving in depreciation amounts, and warentee after subtracting the minuses for possible lower resale, lower MPG, and Lower HP than other competing cars. Personally with a tight budget, I think I made a very good choice.
    Good Luck Chuck!
  • tekrektekrek Posts: 18
    Filled up today and got 27.11 mpg on the last tank full.
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    Any of you seen the new Advertisement of Verona?.What do you think?. I think that its good but the Older one was more classy. The Ad seems to move along Camry's lines.
    I do wish they think something more unique.
  • bmcclainbmcclain Posts: 39
    I read rwisem's post and I think it makes more since than I could in thousands of pages.

    I also follow his advice:
    "sit back as far as is comfortable to use the controls. This advice will make you far safer than choosing a car based on the unique test procedures we read about."

    Ingtonge18, I thought that a 5' 8" 181-lb dummy was used from reading about these tests, though I'm not certain on the height of it, so you are probably correct. If they place the dummy at least 12" away from the airbag, then perhaps they are going for a minimum distance test than an average position. This possibility makes since.

    How does the transmission in the Verona perform? The main reason why I don't want a Forenza is due to GM's unattentive torque converter. Does to Verona slip out of overdrive when the throttle is adjusted, and then lock back after a few seconds? I don't know if the Verona uses a GM transmission or not, but this could be a major deciding factor for me in a few years.
  • rasuprasup Posts: 136
    Bmclain...
    The verona tranny takes time to optimize. I have found that in a new car, the trans. actually adjusts based on the driving pattern and driver characteristics and " seems" slow to respond. In fact some have even trashed the trans for being 'confused" etc. Far from the Truth. After its initial break in of say 1000-2000 miles, the trans. performs very well and i have'nt noticed any slippages. On sudden burst of accelaration there is a millisecond delay in response to flooring the pedal but the car responds almost immediately. It may not be a fluid shift like the accord but there is no major shuffle. Once you know how the Car responds, you actually can hit the pedal with less force and there is a fluid shift with no jolt being felt at all. The ride as I said is real smooth even at 70 or 75 mph.
  • mopar67mopar67 Posts: 728
    There's more and more "driver adaptive" transmissions in the marketplace today than ever before.

    Chrysler was a big proponent of this and its true, the trans has to "learn" how you drive before it can optimize the shift quality and shift points.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    The Verona's transmission has been criticized by Car and Driver, Edmunds.com, and most recently, Consumer Reports. To the end that the transmission "learns" behaviour, this is true, and that learned behaviour may not have been reflected in the Car and Driver and Edmunds.com tests. However, CR tests cars for at least 4000 miles, from what I remember...

    ~alpha
  • rctennis3811rctennis3811 Posts: 1,031
    Yay! The 2005 Suzuki Forenza Wagon will be offered with an advanced passenger weight-sensing airbag AND SIDE-IMPACT AIRBAGS!!! Hopefully, the other Suzuki models get them too for 05!
  • tekrektekrek Posts: 18
    Thanks for the heads up regarding the new Forenza Wagon rctennis3811. A Google search on the Forenza Wagon gave lots of sites discussing the new offering from Suzuki. It looks like a nice car. Have you had a chance to drive the Forenza? When I bought My Verona I wanted a vehicle with a little more room for my family. I did have plenty of time to inspect the Forenza and was impressed with it’s design, fit and finish.
  • alpha01alpha01 Posts: 4,747
    Although I didnt have much time to spend at the vacant Suzuki display at the NY Auto Show, I did see a Verona S, and sat in it. The front seats, upon a cursory test, were comfy, and the fabric was plush but ugly. The step up to the LX is worth it, IMO, just for the fact of the auto climate control- the panel that houses the rotary knobs (pleasing in operation) does not match the rest of the dash plastics and looks cheap. The rear seat was nice, reasonably roomy, but seat contouring was just ok. I very much like the 3rd rear head restraint!

    ~alpha
Sign In or Register to comment.