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

1202123252651

Comments

  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    Norwoodsman was interested in some pictures of the GV with a canoe on the roof, so I've posted a couple of shots in my CarSpace.

    On the front, I removed the plastc cover over the tow loop (best to get underneath to see how to remove it to avoid damaging the tabs), and the second vesitgal hook that lacks a removable cover.

    On the back, I used the muffler bracket and the tow loop. I didn't bother trying to protect the paint from the ropes because the ropes are fairly soft and we weren't driving long.
  • desertbdesertb Posts: 2
    I noticed on our new GV that the muffler bracket is very rusty. We live in the desert and have no snow, no rain ,no road salt. GV has about 1k miles on the car. Anyone else notice this hunk of rust.
  • budman3budman3 Posts: 187
    We also live in the desert, but did notice the very rear hanger by the muffler with some surface rust. The other ones looked ok.
    I'm not sure how, but I noticed some rust on my rear seats where they divide in the middle. It must have come from the hinge when I had them folded up but don't know how the seat would have been wet, unless the dog hasn't told me something :blush:
  • budman3budman3 Posts: 187
    I couldn't find the TSB from pitstop.com as was previously mentioned about the front tires being out of alignment. It's covered under 12mth/12k mile adjustment warranty and my local dealer fixed it. The front end toe was off by 1.5mm. Sure doesn't sound like much but the tire wear was obvious.
  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    That's odd. I found a light stain that looked like rust on the leather covering of the front passenger seat. I couldn't figure out how it got there.

    We too have various underbody components with surface rust. Maybe this happens during the trip by ship from Japan. But we've driven on salty roads, so I'm not surprised.
  • norwoodsmnnorwoodsmn Posts: 168
    Reaching back a few posts here, yes, the FJ Cruiser is too funky for me too. But out there in the dirt....
    Which brings me back to your need for aftermarket rims and tires. I'd particularly look forward to reading how it's going there in the field after you making this "essential" move. Noikan's Vatavia line looks interesting, actually with seasonal crossover off road use and road comfort, all built in there too. Hawk those low profile alloys for the oem steel wheels and the right tires! Easier said than done, I understand, and the alloys do look "foxy".

    Nice to see the ice finally thaw off some fav lakes now, eh? I, and the trout grow restless...Happy trails to ya!
  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    As far as the tires go, no tire will do any good if it's in the air:-) Although the articulation on the new GV may be good for an independent suspension, I don't think it's as good as the old Pathfinder. So a traction control system on a fully independent suspension vehicle simply has to work properly, rather than be a band-aid solution.

    Whether our lakes are still frozen depends on their elevation and latitude. We were headed for saltwater, and the structures in the pictures are berths for the ferries we used to cross Georgia Strait to get closer to our paddling destination in the Gulf Islands.
  • whysterwhyster Posts: 14
    Hi slinky1,

    So is the GV getting a bigger engine/more power for '07?
  • dclark2dclark2 Posts: 91
    "So is the GV getting a bigger engine/more power for '07?"

    I'd be shocked if it didn't. I will hang on to my jetta wagon until the '07 models comes out. Driving around in a 50mpg diesel wagon and waiting to see if the the '07 has more power/mpg makes a lot more sense than selling it now and getting an underpowered, noisy GV with 23mpg.
  • budman3budman3 Posts: 187
    The GV is far from underpowered and noisy. Of course it doesn't get the mileage of a diesel. Why even whine about it here or keep hoping for major improvements? You don't see me in your VW forum whining about a smelly diesel, do you? Why not accept the GV as it is or look at something else that suits your needs.
  • 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.
Sign In or Register to comment.