Howdy, Stranger!

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





Suzuki Grand Vitara 2006 through 2008

1131416181934

Comments

  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    It's funny that as traffic gets more and more congested, the air gets dirtier, and we run out of cheap fuel, people are conditioned by the advertising industry to clamor for bigger and bigger engines in their cars. Whether Suzuki offers larger or more efficient engines in the GV in the next year or two will signal how smart they think their target buyers are.

    Looking at it another way, how do you think the rest of the world can lead satisfying lives, without even having the 2.7 as a choice?
  • dclark2dclark2 Posts: 91
    The competition is tough and even Suzuki knows it needs a more powerful, efficient engine. The 2.7 is old tech, other vehicles use variable timied valves for better mpg and power. Like I said, even Suzuki knows the 2.7 is not up to snuff- if you disagree, write them a letter and ask them why they have built a factory maing 3.2/3.6 vvt GM design engines.
    Remember, despite having an extra 70 hp and powering a way heavier vehicle (the new xl7) it still gets the same mpg as the old 2.7 in the GV. Put that same motor in the GV and you'll see a lot better than 23mpg. I know and Suzuki knows it, however you don't.
  • whysterwhyster Posts: 14
    I think dclark2 and I would like to have our cake and eat it too. I like the GV, but was hoping for both more power and better fuel economy.

    It's possible - the XL-7 is getting GM's HF 3.6 V6. This same engine in the Buick Rendezvous (500 lbs heavier than GV) gets 18/27 mpg. The RAV4 as we all know has a 269hp V6 and gets 20/28 mpg.

    So slinky1, should we keep waiting? :)
  • whysterwhyster Posts: 14
    You beat me! I was proofreading :P
  • dclark2dclark2 Posts: 91
    "I think dclark2 and I would like to have our cake and eat it too. I like the GV, but was hoping for both more power and better fuel economy."
    That would be cake with lots of frosting! With a 3.6, not only would mpg be better, but the GV would be down right sporty.
  • vitdeanvitdean Posts: 9
    Amen, budman.
  • budman3budman3 Posts: 187
    Everyone always wants the best and pay the least. Unfortunately the GV only has one of those traits. The Rav4 does have alot more HP, but it also has alot more price tag. From what I have read, the Rav4 has yet to attain those mileage ratings. I will do an honest highway test the next time we go to Vegas. So far we have achieved 24mpg with a full load and driving 70 to 80mph with the a/c on. That isn't looking at the cheezy mileage indicator.
    I doubt they would put serious HP in a compact SUV. The XL7 is larger and has more HP for those who want that.
  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    On the highway, the GV's full-time AWD exacts a penalty, as does the shorter body, which is less streamlined at speed than the longer XL7. Weight has no significant bearing on a flat road, and once up to speed. Frontal areas are the same. A larger engine could be a factor if the GV's 2.7 is so underpowered it has to rev beyond efficient rpm's to maintain highway speed, but I don't think that's the case. It is more than adequate in practical terms. I doubt Suzuki's market for the GV is people who need an ego boost.

    A more technologically advanced engine may get better mileage for a given displacement. So why not have lots of cake by using a modern 2.7? And if you want a bigger/fancier engine with your GV, you're going to have to pay for it as you do with the Rendezvous, new XL7, or V6 Rav4. So you pay at the dealership, or at the pump.

    While EPA mileage estimates have some value, if you look at the Rav4 forums, the ones with the large engines are getting mileage similar to what 2.7 GV owners are seeing, not anything like Toyota claims. I have no idea what the Rendezvous actually gets. You've quoted what the new XL7 GETS (your word), and it isn't even being sold yet. Nothing like a fair, real-world comparison!
  • dclark2dclark2 Posts: 91
    Weight does have a large effect on MPG! That's one reason why makers go to great extremes to cut it.
    I have already pointed out how antiquated the 2.7 is. Even Suzuki knows that! Do you want to tell them to keep making that motor for the next decade?
    A more advanced 2.7 (like with vvt) is not the way. Ask a Suzuki engineer and he'll agree. Why do you disagree? Do you really think you know more about Suzuki than the people who make them???
    Again, the proof is that the new factory is making 3.2/3.6 vvt motors.They wouldn't have gone to the trouble of building that multi million dollar factory if they thought the 2.7 was worthwhile. Face it- the 2.7 is yestertech. I know and Suzuki knows it, you just don't want to accept it.
  • whysterwhyster Posts: 14
    "Everyone always wants the best and pay the least. Unfortunately the GV only has one of those traits."

    Well, I agree. That's why I'm checking the GV out. Great styling and lots of features (especially safety). The GV is a great value. The point I'm making is that I would be willing to pay $500-1000 for an optional more modern engine that is comparable to what the competition offers. I would just like to know if I should wait for one, settle, or look elsewhere.

    Getting 24 mpg is pretty good in those conditions though. I figured it would be getting less than the EPA like most cars do. It sounds like you're happy with it and I'm glad to hear that.
  • pciro2180pciro2180 Posts: 43
    Hi,

    I own a Verona and you guys are talking about the power of the new XL7 versus the GV. The new XL7 has a motor designed by General Motors and built by Suzuki. I have learned first hand with my Verona not to trust a GM designed motor, whether or not it is built in Japan, Korea or Canada. I had an 01 Esteem that was designed by Suzuki and built in Japan and had no problems with it, but my GM designed verona has been a nightmare so much my list is too long to explain. The worst was the head repalcement. The GV engine is a classic Suzuki designed engine that Suzuki needs to update, with more HP, but keep it in Japan only with no GM input at all. The GM designed motors are all push-rod motors that are all flash with alot of HP and torque to wow people, but are very unreliable motors, the exact reason why people are not buying GM cars and GM is shedding off alot of sub brands like Suzuki, Isuzu and Subaru. i say look for a new XL7 motor in the '08 XL7 and more HP in the GV from Suzuki in '08.
  • norwoodsmnnorwoodsmn Posts: 168
    As Bill Clinton once said, "Ahhh feel your pain!", (re the Vernona). But as Suzuki put their badge on it, they're FULLY co owners of the many problems of which you, unfortunately, are ever oh so well aware of. Again, condolences here....

    To all our "Bros" out there who care about FACTS, guess what? From a New York Auto show press release I saw just yesterday, the 3.6 in the all new XL-7 gets identical mileage as does the dated 2.7 in the "all new" Grand Vitara. So, with [my]thanks again to dclark2, we know Suzuki is also going to be building a 3.2, so just where does budman3 (for instance), think they'll end up putting it?, ANYWHERE but to displace his beloved 2.7. Please give me a break...

    If you've been around these vehicles for a while, and I'm at 18 years and counting, if you belive any of them are entirely "wart free", well hey, I know this frog down at the swamp which you ought to kiss... But that doesn't mean we can't LUV 'em all the same, especially as they evolve before us, [each model], that is, when and if they do. As to the Verona, it's a still birth, but the GV clearly will not be, but what will they do with it next? That's the question that inquiring minds want answered now by Suzuki, ASAP.

    I continue to think unfortunately some newbies to the breed, including fairly obviously some posting here, will undoubtably prove to be flashes in the pan as far as ongoing ownership goes, when reality eventually sets in re the subject vehicle here. Lord, don't you guys have the same gas prices down south as those of us here in the Great White North, and do you know they're only going higher still????

    Yes, once again, the new GV still remains a great value, just as it is. However, many of us know it could be that much better if it was more evolved in several key areas. So, just as we're happy you've got yours now, don't disparage "our" decision to remain watchfully waiting now before we plan on joining you there behind those four, oops, five doors. For now, it feels real comfortable here just being a spectator. Keep the news a comin'

    Norwooodsmn
  • norwoodsmnnorwoodsmn Posts: 168
    Hi again xostnot. Really just a quick postcript here to my prior one this date. You'll note my ref. to the new XL-7's 3.6 mill getting identical city highway mileage as does the new GV with it's OLD 2.7. Ya, I don't know if those XL-7 figures are with the awd option, probably not. But on the other hand I've noted very little difference, interestingly, in the 2wd new GV 2.7 mileage figures posted for US models, so equipped. So....

    Well, of course we all remember our high school physics. So if they put a new similarly fuel effecient but smaller 3.2 in the "new" GV, right away just because of it's smaller displacement you'd expect to get better mileage than the 3.6 in the new XL-7. But then factor in that the "new" GV must weigh more than a fair bit less than the new Suzuki Equinox?, (ooops, XL-7, but it IS a "fixed?" Equinox), in fact. Sooo, who knows, knocking on the door ofl 28mpg? Then you would have your new cake, and be able to well savor the tase upon consuming it, eh?

    ps: Try the Broken Islands in Pacific Rim Park, mightyfine there too.
  • budman3budman3 Posts: 187
    Feel free to wait and see and wait some more. Who cares? Don't buy it. Why keep slamming it here? The GV has some issues but why dwell on it? I bet you haven't bought a computer yet, either. Still waiting for that perfect high performance trouble free pc? Way too much thought process here and long letters of nothing.
    The GV works for us and it has been trouble free. Not everyone needs tons of hp.
    Would you buy a GV if it had a bigger motor and better mileage? You JUST read about the XL7 and a bigger motor and better mileage? Welcome to old news.
    I think we should all get together and have some of that cake.
  • bearsgvbearsgv Posts: 19
    Well said budman3.
    When I was buying the GV, it didn't take me long to choose the smaller engine, 2.0 litre 4 cylinder GV instead of the 2.7 V6. Unfortunately the diesel engine was not available, otherwise I would have opted for the diesel engine. :)
  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    Weight does exact a penalty when climbing or accelerating. When up to speed, on a flat road, it has no effect other than a slight cost in friction in the rotating parts. I'm sorry if you don't believe this, but it's basic physics. But don't worry, you have plenty of company. Note that the highway mileage test simulates constant speed on a flat road. Weight is reduced because it costs energy to raise or speed up a vehicle. So weight reductions are mostly beneficial for city use. But for flat, constant speed highway running, it has insignificant effect. Believe it or not.

    The factory for the new larger engines is proof Suzuki is "forced" to go along with the North American marketing/ego horsepower race. I could rephrase your comments to point out that the GV is sold successfully with smaller engines than the 2.7 in most parts of the world. The horsepower race is not sustainable. Have you not checked traffic congestion or the price of gas lately?

    You already can't drive nearly as fast as our vehicles are capable of going. So you mean "sporty" either in smugly knowing you have "more under the hood" than the next person, or can accelerate faster. So how fast is fast enough? Do you need AAA fueler acceleration to think it's adequate? F1 power to weight ratios to fetch groceries?
  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    It should be kept in mind that the stubbier GV body is less streamlined at highway speeds, all else being equal. So it has an inherent penalty compared to the XL7, in addition to the full-time AWD.

    (We've canoed three times in the BGI. World class, and certainly not the preserve of the 'yakkers. We've also been to Vargas Island, Meares Island and the Deer Group. The latter in the month of November, with a kid in the canoe. Good judgement required.)
  • whysterwhyster Posts: 14
    Hello xostnot,

    I just starting reading some older posts and I appreciated your list. Lots of things I did not know. Maybe I should consider the Premium model instead of the Luxury because of the leather situation.

    Also, what keeps some one from tampering with your gas or spare tire cover? A locking gas cap or other lock?
  • budman3budman3 Posts: 187
    Whyster, I know the question wasn't directed to me, but I put a small lock on the latch of the spare tire cover. It would only take seconds for someone to steal that.
    I think Suzuki makes a locking gas cap. Anything to make money after the sale. There is a website with Suzuki items for less money but my wife took the laptop today and it's in my favorites.I'll post it later.
    xostnot had a very extensive list. I hope he accepted my apologies for critisizing it. It was more thorough than anything I would have done and I'm sure it helped out many people. Don't get discouraged on the leather. The Luxury has so much more to offer for a little more money. We haven't had any issues with the leather although the little brown stains have us both puzzled.
    Sorry for intervening. xostnot will be here, too.
    I also agree with his mpg, weight, and acceleration views. Maybe I'll also do a city mpg test, but I'm usually heavy on the accelerating part.
  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    Thanks for the acknowledgement, budman3. I don't mind others answering questions for me - less for me to do. As for my list, I have to admit I'd change a few things now that I've had some time with the GV, but I can't edit the list.

    I haven't owned a car with leather seats before, so I don't know what to expect of them. I actually don't see how they could not stretch over time - just the nature of the material. However, if they're not supposed to stretch, and some of ours don't, then it's reasonable for me to expect them to be right.

    I have to get around to taking a picture and posting so people can see what degree of bagginess I'm talking about. If I'd been able to get fabric seats in an attractive color with the low range, I certainly would not have gotten the leather. Because I basically don't like leather seats. However, I can see how the smell could become addictive (or repulsive).

    The GV spec in many countries has a remote filler release, so you don't need a lock. But not the Canada/US version. The cap specified for the older GV is the same as for the '06, in case your vendor has no listing for the '06. Not even the dealer had a code for it. Suzuki wants $30cdn for them, and it looks like better quality than the $10 ones at places like Canadian Tire. It better be better. And don't let them charge you a $20 installation fee to put it on, like they did to me. (Refunded on protest.)

    I also put a little padlock on the spare tire cover. The problem is that the lock rattles around, and it's a tough life for a small lock back there. Someone anchored theirs with stick-on velcro tabs, but so far I haven't gotten my lock to fold anywhere where it will stick.

    If you need a locking gas cap and tire cover lock, you likely also need wheel lock nuts, and an alarm system. With the locks on the roof rack crossbars, we have an awful lot of locks on this thing. I stuck velcro on the keys for the various locks, and they stick on a patch I stuck under the front center armrest.
  • budman3budman3 Posts: 187
    Try; suzuki.autowebaccessories.com They have genuine Suzuki parts for alot less money. The locking gas cap is only $9.57US
    xostnot, I would be upset over baggy leather, too. What has the dealer said? Our 105# doberman gives the back seats a workout and still no trouble.
    For the spare tire cover, I also looked at the trailer tongue locks. They're on the same principle as receiver locks for your hitch. They may be a little thicker than the hole in the latch, so it might have to be drilled out.
  • dclark2dclark2 Posts: 91
    "The factory for the new larger engines is proof Suzuki is "forced" to go along with the North American marketing/ego horsepower race. I could rephrase your comments to point out that the GV is sold successfully with smaller engines than the 2.7 in most parts of the world. The horsepower race is not sustainable. Have you not checked traffic congestion or the price of gas lately?"

    That's a huge load! Did you know, did you, that hp has been going up for automobiles since they first were invented? Did you? There was this time in the 60's where they went up, then in the 70's emissions took a toll, In the 80's they started going up and they will are. Did you know that? This is called "progress". Auto manufactors have engineering departments that (get this!) try to design engines that make more power while using less fuel. Believe it or not, that's what customers want. Now, they have these managers in the company who have discovered that if you don't make a product that can compete with the competition, people won't buy it.
    What goes on in the rest of the world really doesn't matter. If they are happy with a 2.0 in Zimbabwe or whatever, great. I bet they don't have to worry about passing on a 75 mph interstate, or spilling jumbo slurpies on the leather upholstery.
    Also, just because an engine is larger doesn't mean that it will get less mpg! My '96 350' V8 powered Chevy Impala SS gets 25 mpg on the highway, whereas my old 2.6 four cylinder K-car only got 24mpg. My '06 GTO (with 400hp!) got 26 mpg on my recent trip in CA. Gee, despite having more than triple the hp of my old k car, it got better mpg! It is called p-r-o-g-r-e-s-s!!!

    "The GM designed motors are all push-rod motors that are all flash with alot of HP and torque to wow people, but are very unreliable motors, the exact reason why people are not buying GM cars and GM is shedding off alot of sub brands like Suzuki, Isuzu and Subaru. I say look for a new XL7 motor in the '08 XL7 and more HP in the GV from Suzuki in '08."
    That is another ignorant statement- where should I begin? Ok, Suzuki, Subaru and Isuzu are not "subrands" of GM! GM has owned a stake in them and has partnered with them, but that is it. GM pushrod motors are junk? Gee, I guess you better explain how all those LT1/LS1 motors managed to give 100's of thousands of miles! Also, the new 3.6 motor is NOT a pushrod design! It is dual overhead cam engine with variable timing.It has already proven itself in the Caddy CTV and is a fine motor.Oh yeah, about your Verona- you think you are driving a Suzuki... you are wrong! You are driving a Daewoo with a Suzuki badge glued on. Whatever beefs you have , take it up to the people over at daewoo who designed it.
    It'll give MORE power, MORE mpg and LESS noise. Only someone with their head in the ground would not welcome those.
  • norwoodsmnnorwoodsmn Posts: 168
    More on the possibility of a new 3.2 in the GV. Good points there certainly re: all the variables concerning the prospective mileage figures it would get, in the new GV. But one fact seems indispuitable, being a vastly more modern mill, it WILL get better mileage than the dearley beloved, (by some), 2.7. Mark my words.

    But far from it, (I agree with you 100% xostnot), that I'm not cheerleading in favor of more displacement either, just for the sake of keeping up with the Joneses. But hey better mileage, well every bit helps.

    Then there's the factor we have not [re] addressed for a while' The significantly enhanced driveability that would result when and if they put a 3.2 under the hood. I'd even go so far out on a limb as hazard a guess by suggesting there might at least be a remote possibility that even budman3 might notice the difference via a test drive. Not that I toss and turn at night giving a (well you know what), about that. But what I know for sure is, I've driven "his engine" on at least three test drives now in the past six years, (two in auto and manual 5 speed XL-7's respectively, and a while back in a manual 5 speed "new" GV. Conclusions: not just because I saw it somewhere on paper, but rather just because of how it felt under my right foot, I remained notably underwhelmed by the experience. At least a modern 3.2 would cure that current miss.

    Good on ya. Too bad all our mates can't chill together at that great campsite there in the wilderness on the northwest tip of Vargas, eh? We could hoist a few, and maybe realize that maybe we're not from different planets afterall? Or are we? Who knows.
  • norwoodsmnnorwoodsmn Posts: 168
    So where are we? First throw out the chaff which is so painfully obvious in some posts on this site. Then there's the man from Down Under? who aptly points out the wisdom behind his choice to purchase a more fuel efficient 2 liter, but who may forget we don't have that option here in the [Quake] epicenter of automotive consumerism. So just where is the middle ground? Well, hey xostnot and dclark2, you guys agree on most everything, weather you agree on THAT, or not...

    Then there's the ODD "outsider". No we haven't bought yet, and to my mind for very sound reasons. Amongst the "outsiders" the lonliest of subset groups seems to be "we" long time prior Suzuki owners. Actually I'm serious here, am I the only one posting to this site?

    Back to the 3.2. Bottom line most of us seem to agree it's just a matter of how soon Zuke can wedge it under the hood rather than if they will. Re: it inevitably getting better mileage than the ANTEDILUVIAN 2.7, xostnot, you don't seriously doubt that, do you? But further on the 3.2, actually we probably are all just being distracted here in a sense, looking at rearranging the the deck chairs prior to the sea change that has to be comming to the automotive marketplace by the end of this decade? MUCH BETTER fuel efficiency will inevitably no longer be a matter of choice. Get used to it.

    So what does this evidently Lone Ranger really want? Well Santa, my trusty Sidekick is so rusty that he needs Suzuki to start [yesterday] to again produce a small(er) than
    new GV, four cylinder engined, (yes, one with a VW TDI like, low sulpher or bio diesel fueled), new SUV. One that by inference gets VASTLY better mileage than the hogs we're wallowing with here in this oft times pig pen, (hi again to you too, budman3). That sort of new model development would be an entirely logical path for Suzuki to follow. One we should all be encouraging them to embark upon, but not as a follower, as a leader. The alternative? Lets finally just see the light, get our frontal lobotomy surgeries scheduled, or at a minimum, learn to ape the ostrich who becomes invisible by burrying his or her head in the sand.
  • dclark2dclark2 Posts: 91
    I'll tell you where I am- I wanted to replace my wife's daily driver with somethign with awd, but the GV looks like a gas guzzler! Her present car is a jetta tdi m5 wagon that can easily get double what the GV gets.
    I was thinking of waiting to see what the GV engine options were like this fall. The one that I want, a diesel, is not in the cards.
    However, there is a possibility that Honda will offer diesel in the upcoming '07 CRV. Here is an old article:
    http://car-reviews.automobile.com/Car/review/bmw-and-honda-slated-to-bring-diese- l-to-north-american-markets-by-2007/1162/0
  • vitara4mevitara4me Posts: 35
    Ok, some have asked. You can find the remote filter kit at www.summitracing.com
    Make sure that you specify "import" as the threads are metric. You can mount the remote filter kit either near the radiator, or under the Vitara on the drivers side just under the front seat, on the frame rail. The kit uses a Ford F1A one quart filter (the BIG filter that used to be standard on the older big Ford luxury cars). This filter gives you an extra quart of oil for protection.
    It is not easy to install the kit, so be patient and take your time.

    The Suzuki Verona is not a GM design. It is a Daewoo design with a Daewoo engine. The Verona is the old "Leganza" that was re-designed, but Daewoo went bankrupt, and GM bought them out. There are three models of Suzuki that are re-badged Daewoos. The Leganza, Nubira, and Lanos anr now called the Verona, Forenza, and Reno. Still a Daewoo though.....

    I rented a U-haul 8x10 open trailer last month to tow a fridge and quad from LA to Vegas. Let me tell you that the GV will tow, but it will SUCK GASOLINE like it is going out of style! With a full tank, I ALMOST made it to Baker, CA. Damn near ran out of fuel trying to get to the next station. I was getting 9 MPG with the trailer and the auto transmission never once went into 5 gear. It just stayed in 4th all the way to Vegas. The GV will tow, but you better stay near the gas station!! While climbing the 40 mile grade past Baker, CA, the engine was spinning at 6,500 RPM in 3rd, trying to get up the hill. At least the engine didn't blow up.

    Regards....
  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    I'm not sure why two participants seem to have the impression I don't think a more modern engine would be more efficient. A couple of quotes from my posts:

    "A more technologically advanced engine may get better mileage for a given displacement."
    "Whether Suzuki offers larger or more efficient engines in the GV in the next year or two..."

    But then I don't always read others' posts accurately either, and we can't possibly remember everything everyone said.

    Norwoodsman, are you referring to Ahous Bay? Amazing place. You seem to know the area well.
  • norwoodsmnnorwoodsmn Posts: 168
    Right. Then most everyone on the site seems to agree at least on the improved mileage which the proposed new 3.2 ought to realize, vs that historic artifact, the 2.7.

    Nope, Ahous Bay is great. Feeding migrating Grey Whales there in season. The camp is just north at the very n/nw tip of the isle. To completely spill the beans, Blunden Island, due west offshore, has an amazing but very weather exposed secluded cove on it's n-n/w coast. Otters, the full nine yards. But we surely digress. We oughta meet on line elsewhere, meethinks.

    To dclark2. We're in/on the same boat. That's why my daily driver is a Suzuki Esteem. 38mpg, (US). So my strong interest goes to the new SX-4, due out approx. at the end of summer. It's a small "crossover", (to use that cliche), with std. all wheel drive. Really a Matrix, Mazda 3 sport fighter. But a couple of "buts":
    1.) I think it may be a "fix it again Tony", (Fiat based?). I forget..
    2.) Whatever you do, don't ever test drive the Mazda 3 sport! (just kidding). After being deeply po'ed over a recent problem with out Esteem, we td'd the little Zoom Zoomer, and well, nothing else in class can touch it. Think we'll go for one this time next year. The trade off would be to evaluate the awd capability of the new Suzuki SX-4, and just how much you really needed it. Then there's that new model reliability factor.

    But hey, this is a Grand Vitara site. But to transition, reliability, (and specifically Suzuki Grand Vitara reliability), remains a complete unknown at this time. But then that's why at least a majority of us are here. To learn about [that] and more, with open minds... (I think?)..
  • dclark2dclark2 Posts: 91
    "Whatever you do, don't ever test drive the Mazda 3 sport! (just kidding). After being deeply po'ed over a recent problem with out Esteem, we td'd the little Zoom Zoomer, and well, nothing else in class can touch it. Think we'll go for one this time next year. The trade off would be to evaluate the awd capability of the new Suzuki SX-4, and just how much you really needed it. Then there's that new model reliability factor."
    I won't bother . I am quite happy with my "small" car- a '06 GTO, which is smaller than my 4400lb Impala SS. I want something with station wagon room, awd and good mpg to replace a jetta tdi wagon.
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Posts: 992
    Dodge Caliber? More like a miniature hatch. Maybe Volvo V50 t5? Its on the same chassis as the 3. Sound like a good choice to me :).
Sign In or Register to comment.