Howdy, Stranger!

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





Article Comments: 2007 Suzuki SX4 Full Test

Check out our full test of the 2007 SX4 and tell us what you think.

Full Test: 2007 Suzuki SX4

Karen-Edmunds Community Manager

«1

Comments

  • I think it's unfair to compare the sx4 with versa, fit, etc. It's really apple and oranges. How do you compare small, urban econocars with a sturdy awd crossover with 4x4 ambitions???

    Here's some conclusions worth commenting on:

    "Is it perky enough for tooling around town at under 40 mph? Sure. It's when you need a little more oomph that the SX4 falls short. Merging onto the freeway is an act of bravery. Zero to 60? Um, eventually."

    That was my *initial* reaction to the car, but after putting a few thousand miles on mine, it is much quicker than you say. I note Edmunds tried the automatic and that might be different, but the 5-speed has plenty of "oomph". And it's an "act of bravery" only if you drive like my granny.

    "And when finally up to a respectable lane speed, forget about passing. Right foot to the floor and nothing seems to happen."

    Again, if you're driving the 5-speed, this just isn't a problem especially if you downshift to pass. The "nothing seems to happen" issue is exaggerated and could be solved if Suzuki modifies the drive by wire throttle response (or allow aftermarket products without having to worry about voiding the warranty).

    "The Suzuki's EPA rating of 24 city/30 highway is significantly less ambitious than the rest of the subcompact class."

    Duh, it weighs more and it's awd. WTF did you expect??? A legitimate complaint would be the stingy gas tank, only 11 gallons.

    "Once under way, I find that my overflexed ankle starts aching as I work the throttle owing to the Praying Mantis knees-forward-and-legs-straight-down driving position."

    yup, this is true, but only for long distance; it's fine for local driving.

    "Maybe my butt hurts because it's getting kicked by all the cars around me... If you ever face the choice between a beater Volvo wagon with 30 Greenpeace stickers on the posterior and a Suzuki SX4, get behind the Volvo."

    Dan Edmunds, you're a folkin' idiot if you think this is a fair statement.

    Bottom line, the review s*cks. Edmunds is right, he just doesn't get it. I think I'll send him a "Free Tibet" sticker for his Volvo.
  • arkainzeyearkainzeye pittsburgh paPosts: 473
    as far as power im not suprised to read the quart mile and 0-60mph results. when I test drove a sx4 automatic i thought it was way underpowered for what the Horsepower specs claim to be. I also though the suspension was border line dangerous in a panic stop. I know this from the test drive when a lady pulled right out in front of me as i was coming up and over a right handed hill turn. The front end dipped very hard and the rear end lifted and swayed very badly, all of this at only 35-40mph! i thought that suzuki gave the most features for the money. but as edmunds said "So if you live in an area that gets weather, the all-wheel-drive 2007 Suzuki SX4 may be your ideal new hatchback, but if fuel economy is a priority, the Honda Fit is the thriftier option." thats how i felt about the sx4. if you dont get alot of snow where you live you could get a car in the same size but with better mpg for around the same price. over the long run having a car that gets 30's mpg will save you money in the long run.. Its a nice car and i dont think what edmunds posted was "lies". It was just their opinion and in the cases of pick up and go it was a Fact based on times to get from a dead stop to 60mph. If you own a sx4 you shouldnt get upset about what edmunds said about your car. if you like it thats all that matters. I mean you didnt buy the car to impress others, as this is not that type of car.. so for the owners if you like your sx4 then be happy! and for the ones thinking about it the review might give you a different outlook on things..
  • bottom line: the review really seemed overly negative on the car.

    It seemed to harp on the acceleration, which, BTW, means nothing to my wife. There is so much more to cars than how fast they go when you floor it. Unless you're looking at a Dodge Magnum R/T, I think that acceleration should be low on the list. This is why I don't typically read reviews. They don't match what we look at in a car.

    It is the least expensive, most loaded car with AWD that you can buy. We need AWD and want a 5-speed, and the only other car that even comes close without spending $20,000+ is the Impreza wagon.
  • I just read the recent Motor Trend test on the SX4. They didn't get it either. The MT writer missed the fact that the car has so many standard features. Also the acceleration tests were better than many of the other small cars they tested. 0-60 on the 5-speed was in the low 9's and the quarter was high 16's and over 80 MPH. Still, the MT writer made fun of the car's performance.
  • erics6erics6 Posts: 684
    Well... there are some real negatives to the SX4. If you need AWD and a low price it's a pretty good car. If you can live with FWD and want better fuel economy there are a lot of better choices. I'll probably pick up a cheap used one since they depreciate so much.
  • I bought my SX4 two months ago. It's a 5-speed. I agree with much of the review, but the SX4 isn't as slow as they say. I bet there's other SX4 0-60 speeds that beat theirs.

    I use mine to commute 60 miles a day and I don't have any problems with speed, merging into traffic, or even with passing, but I did notice the slow accelerator response when I first got it and had to adjust my driving by downshifting more often to pass.

    I guess that's my only complaint. I don't think Suzuki should make us rev up our engines so high to pass. Someone told me that they can fix that with a software fix to the "ECU". If that's right, then Suzuki could do that and that would be that.

    Bottom line for me: a great car and I looked at all the others including Fit, Versa, Yaris, etc. Those were ok cars, especially since they beat the SX4 for mileage, but they don't have the extras or AWD.
  • jeffmcjeffmc Posts: 1,742
    '07 Impreza wagon can be had for well under $18k and gets nearly the same gas mileage as the Suzuki. Impreza has full-time AWD, 173 hp, and is one of the safest, most reliable cars out there (plus great resale). The Suzuki's a hard sell in comparison, at least to me. Not sure if the SX4 has any advantage beyond the $3k price difference.
  • I guess what is affordable and attainable is completely relative. The SX4 can be had for under $15,000. I think the Impreza comparison makes the two cars closer to $4,000 apart in price, which means the Impreza costs 25 percent more than an SX4. That is hardly a fair comparison. For someone on a budget, the near $4,000 price difference could mean a monthly payment of more than $100. For a lot of people, that is simply not attainable.
  • Swift? when is Suzuki going to bring the sporty swift to the U.S.?
  • nippononlynippononly SF Bay AreaPosts: 12,669
    you can really think of the SX4 as just another subcompact, which is a point all the reviews miss. And I also think that unless you are stuck on getting an AWD, you should never consider the SX4, something none of the reviewers mention.

    Unless you are going to use the heck out of that AWD, year in and year out, go out and get a front-driver with better power and handling, better fuel economy, and often the same or lower price. At least, that's how I see it...

    Now, if you ARE going to use the heck out of the AWD. then your choices change COMPLETELY. Then the SX4 becomes the least expensive car you can consider, with a ton of features for the price. And if you don't like the Impreza for one reason or another, the SX4 will be like $8000 less than anything else you compare. Plus, compared to AWD SUVs and crossovers, the power and handling of the SX4 aren't too bad. As for AWD cars, choice outside the luxury segment is still pretty scant, even today, except for hot rod racer models.

    This is the point Edmunds and every other reviewer missed or misses when they look at this model. They ought to focus only on other AWD models if they are going to make comparisons. Every car is engineered to a price and feature point after all, and for the SX4, one of the key features is AWD.

    2013 Civic SI, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (stick)

  • erics6erics6 Posts: 684
    Actually the real world prices between the SX4 and Impreza are much closer. Until the Suzuki prices really drop the Impreza is a better deal. (Let the discounting begin.) At least the SX4 is better looking.
  • The base 2006 Impreza wagon and the base SX4 are the exact two cars my wife and I compared... got financing options and price quotes from dealers on both and over the course of 4 years the Impreza was $5,400 more... based on better financing and base price the SX4 was about $100 less a month over 48 months.
    The other reason we bought the SX4 over the Impreza was the powertrain warranty, Subaru only has a 60K/5 year, while Suzuki has a 100K/ 7 year. The cost and warranty made the comparison pretty clear which car to buy.
  • erics6erics6 Posts: 684
    Wow! Impreza's are a better deal in the NW. I was speaking strictly cash price. Haven't looked at either manufactures financing lately. I know my ex got a great deal this fall on her Outback... 0% for 2 years and about $1500 under invoice + rebates.
  • dudeboydudeboy Posts: 55
    Here's a link to the Motorweek review of the SX4. I wish I hadn't missed the televised segment.
    Motorweek review - SX4
  • The problem is that the manual is nearly impossible to find.
  • Since September, I only have to look as far as my garage! I paid full MSRP for the first one I located, and thought I would probably regret it when they became more plentiful and the prices were slashed. Maybe that's not happening?
  • erics6erics6 Posts: 684
    No problem finding manuals around the Portland area. Drove another one before buying a Forester. Decided the Suzuki was too small. I'm getting about 22 city driving with the Forester and it's a lot bigger.
  • arkainzeyearkainzeye pittsburgh paPosts: 473
    eric i know what you meant about to small. i test drove on for the 2nd time and decided i would the car would out grow my needs to quickly. believe it or not my 24 valve V6 zr-2 tracker is getting 21mpg city. havent even driven it on the highway yet. and the power, room and 4x4 is all great. The sx4 has alot of great features but the bottom line is underpowered (at least it surely feels that way) and too darn small as your Main car.
  • I just love my SX4 JLX...I live on the west coast, and this little vehicle is just what I needed. I had to order it (since I wanted a manual JLX in ocean blue...) but boy was it worth it! It zips me around quite nicely, and when the rain is coming down sideways and the wind is blowing..the AWD is great....fun drive, safe drive, and it looks fantastic!! Move over ugly little 4-cylinders...here come the great looking, great driving Suzuki SX4's!!! :)
  • juanzjuanz Posts: 1
    The suzuki SX4 is a good car at a cheap price. The SX4 is originaly the Fiat Sedici a car with great quality. :surprise:
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.