Howdy, Stranger!

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





Suzuki SX4 MPG Real World Numbers

1235

Comments

  • Drafting actually benefits both the donor and the vampire.
    The vampire gets a free tow, the donor (particularly a box like a semi trailer) gets a free boost because the terrible aerodynamics of the box get cleaned up a bit because of the turbulance intervention courtesy of the vampire.

    It's a win-win...as long as the trucker doesn't mind (you might ask on the cb), the vampire stays awake and alert so he doesn't get decapitated in a sudden-brakes situation, and no cops stop you for following too close.
  • I've been interested in the SX4 Crossover since its inception. The idea of packing all that technology into such a go-anywhere auto has intrigued me. BUT----I do alot of driving; anywhere from 60-150 miles daily and I'm concerned about the small 11 gallon tank. If the SX4 Cross had a 13 gal. or bigger tank it would be sitting in my driveway now, but I don't want to fill it up every 2 days.

    I have a 12 gal. tank in my 2005 Scion XB but I also get 33 mpg and can go 3 1/2 days between fillups. Calculating mileage from the posts on this site highway distance should be 270-300. Is this correct? What kind of highway mileage per tank can you get in the SX4 Cross?
    Thank you.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    You have a choice here. The AWD Crossover has an 11.9 gallon tank, which is a bit small. The FWD Crossover has a 13 gallon tank. If you do buy the FWD Crossover, you get a bigger tank, better mileage, and standard stability control and traction control (both of which you may find more useful most times than AWD), and you can get the Garmin navigation system only on the FWD model at present. I have the AWD, but if I only used it once, when I was too lazy to plow my driveway before going up it. Given the mileage you drive, teh FWD model would fill your bill.
  • ^^ Good point, Gregg. That must be an '09 change. Too bad they didn't go to 15.2 gallons, even 13.2 is a bit on the small size. But an improvement nonetheless.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    It's a packaging difficulty, sorting AWD hardware, cargo space and gas tank on a car that has almost no rear overhang. That is why the tank can be bigger on the FWD model.
  • Thanks Gregg-vw and other posters. I did not realize that the FWD version had a larger tank and that the Garmin was only available with it. The 13 gallon should be fine and the Garmin looks like a nice feature on a vehicle in this price range.

    My daily commute is from eastern WV to Wash DC and I was looking at the AWD model for its capabilities. The FWD would probably be fine as I've driven them for the last 6 yrs. on this route and would be lighter on my wallet too. I have dedicated snows for winter driving on the 05 XB and have never been stuck on the mountain ridges or highways. As it approaches 100k and my daughter approaches 17, it looks like the Scion will soon be her daily driver.
  • The 11 vs. 13 gallon tank must be a 2009 MY change. Or perhaps late '08, as they did with decontenting the sedan to include 15" wheels.

    IMHO the small fuel tanks are an inherent design flaw that indicate Suzuki still doesn't have a thorough comprehension of the American market. Here people often travel vast distances on a daily basis.

    Original planning for a 15 gallon tank for all, and folding rear seats in the sedan, would have garnered a lot of sales that were otherwise lost because these are core issues that were not grasped by Suzuki management.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    Maybe, but I doubt it. The lack of folding rear seat in the sedan is becoming a more common thing, as more and more manufacturers are foregoing the sedan folding seat in order to obtain the more desirable greater chassis stiffness. It is a trade-off of course, but you will be seeing fewer folding seats overall. If you want a folding seat, then get a wagon or hatchback. As for the fuel tank size, there is no change. The FWD model always had a larger tank, but recall that the FWD Crossover was not initially available in the US in 2007. And finally, a 13 gallon tank is pretty usual on cars around 160 inches in length or smaller. Honda FIT (same length) 10.6 gallons; Chevy Aveo 11 gallons; Nissan Versa sedan 13.2 gallons; Hyundai Accent 11.9 gallons, etc. etc. Most of the others have smaller more fuel efficient engines, but the point is, given the footprint size, the fuel tank size is actually right on the money. Increasing it more would tighten space in the back seat or cargo area or both. I'd rather have the room than have to refuel a bit less often. Want a bigger tank? Buy a bigger car.
  • Actually a folding back seat is pretty much standard, not in danger of becoming a rarity.
    A no-folder is the exception, not the rule. It always garners comments from road testers, because utility and flexibility are attractive features. Once something has become common and expected, such as power windows, customers notice when it's not there. Same with folding seats.

    And of course, not everyone wants a wagon or a hatch. Me, for one.
    Wagons are not exactly common as they were in the 60s. Hatches never made it big in the US, despite their popularity on The Continent.
    And I want a sedan, not a hatch.
    I would still buy the 08 sedan version sans folder, but eventually I would have to make some sort of mods to give me access to the trunk for long objects such as 8' boards and what have you.

    It is not exotic engineering to design the back seats to fold. Otherwise, the 2009 sedans would not be folders. Clearly that was an issue that Suzuki responded to from field reports, otherwise why would they go to the trouble of doing later what they should have done in the beginning?

    As for the hatch fuel tank, my '08 SX4 catalogue which covers both models lists all hatches as having an 11.2 gallon tank and all sedans as having a 13.2 gallon tank.
    One of the common complaints on the boards is the limited range with an 11 gallon tank. Just because an Aveo and an Accent have tiny tanks does not make it a smart marketing move. Our PT Cruiser takes 15 gallons and it's about 160" OAL.
    The VW Golf etc. have a 14.5 capacity IIRC.

    I'm not here to argue, I am simply repeating the old adage that has been known for centuries regarding doing things right the first time, vs. correcting things later.
    Measure twice, cut once. Look before you leap. A stitch in time saves nine.

    And IMO despite Suzuki's having been in the US market for a long time, they missed two important concepts: range and utility. And in fact, range is a large factor in the definition of utility for many.

    One gallon liquid is 231 cubic inches, the cube root of which is 6.136". So squeezing in two or three more gallons of fuel tank capacity is fairly simple if you do it at the outset.
    Apparently enough customers and dealers commented about hatch fuel capacity and sedan folding seats that Suzuki was motivated to make changes for MY 2009.
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    Have it your way if you wish. Deny reality.

    However, the Crossover FWD fuel tank has always been 13 gallons, and that is right in the ballpark of all the competition. It is on the web site. It is in my 08 owner's manual.

    As for folding seats in sedans, they became quite popular in the 90s and early 2000s. If you pay attention to the auto press and new models (I can name names if you wish), many of the 09s and 10 sedans have gone back to pass-throughs are no access at all through the back seat for the greater stiffness and improved handling dynamics this imparts. The SX4 sedan, even as tall as it is, has been praised for its stiffness and handling feel. Many like you would prefer the utility to the greater stiffness, but Suzuki is hardly alone in making the choice for greater stiffness on its newest models.

    I frankly don't understand why the huge preference for sedans in the case of little cars. The hatchback is far more versatile (greater hauling capacity) on a shorter more efficient, easier-to-park footprint. A larger sedan usually looks better than a large hatchback, but in the case of subcompacts, the sedan usually looks like a little hatchback with a trunk grafted on. In some cases, like the Versa sedan, the result is truly awkward-looking. To each his own.

    Bottom line, what Suzuki has done with tanks and seats on a little car is very much in line with what the rest of the market is doing or has done. If you don't like it (and after all, it is all personal preference) then buy something else. But given the few models Suzuki has for sale here (and in niche areas like where the Crossover resides), they are doing ok. They need to dump the Daewoos badged as Suzukis, get a mid-size sedan, bring back the Swift, and generally expand their offerings. Meanwhile, they do very well in other parts of the world, notably India.
  • Discussions with your attitude are non productive.

    I simply stated what is in the Suzuki publication. Since I'm not interested in the hatch, I didn't pursue information further because it's not a concern of mine.

    Some people prefer hatches. Some people prefer sedans. What's to not understand?
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    Discussions with your attitude are non productive. Apply those words to yourself.

    And I simply stated what is in the owner's manual and on the website. If you had actually read my message, you would know that I already said it is all about personal preference. Lighten up.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,110
    And I simply stated what is in the owner's manual and on the website.

    You also said "Deny Reality." which, at best, is posturing. Let's please keep the discussion respectful and on topic. Thanks. :)

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • gregg_vwgregg_vw Posts: 2,419
    Yes, you certainly have a point. Sorry about that. Being an owner and aficionado of the brand (and somewhat knowledgeable of numbers and capacities!), it was frustrating to have simple facts disputed in previous posts. However, we should not take anything personally here. It is all good. Cheers.
  • Absolutely correct. I find exactly the same thing.
  • cnvhcnvh Posts: 2
    For anyone interested, I picked up my new SX4 last week... I'm normally a pretty conservative driver, but I've been babying the new Zuke for break-in. For my first fill-up yesterday, I got 31 MPG. (Onboard computer and calculator results matched, so the car's reading was accurate.)
  • craigmricraigmri Posts: 243
    cnvh,

    While I appreciate this is a MPG thread, I'm not only interested in your fuel economy numbers but since I'm looking seriously at a new 2008 leftover SX4 sedan myself, I am very curious to learn if the $12,995 price I've been given is a good one for the Automatic 2wd sedan.

    Craig
  • cnvhcnvh Posts: 2
    Well, I got a 2009 SX4 Crossover AWD MT (not a 2008 sedan), and I thought they gave me a pretty exceptional price-- $2500 rebate, full KBB value on my trade (private sale value, not trade-in value), plus some extras which I wanted thrown in for free... they brought the price from roughly $19,900 down to $13,900. According to the salesman, they had some end-of-month quotas they had to make... considering it was the end of the month and the 2010's are trickling in, he might have been telling the truth. Either way, I think I did OK.

    So with the deal they made me, I got a fully-loaded SX4 for less than I would have paid for a moderately-equipped Yaris (5-door MT, hard to find), which was my second choice.
  • You will be getting MPG in the high 20's average instead of around 40 with the Yaris.
    The SX4 feels much more solid and planted than the Yaris. Enjoy your AWD capability!
  • My first fill up Saturday for my 09 Sport Touring with MT yielded 32 mpg. The computer indicated 34. My miles left display indicated I could get about 380 miles to a tank.
Sign In or Register to comment.