Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!

Suzuki Grand Vitara 2006 through 2008

1…78101213…21

Comments

  • xostnotxostnot Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member Posts: 14
    You beat me! I was proofreading :P
  • dclark2dclark2 Member 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 Member Posts: 9
    Amen, budman.
  • budman3budman3 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 Member 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 :).
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Member Posts: 992
    Since honda gave gm a vtec for the VUE, I'm expecting it to be here also. IMO, gm's v6 or straight 6s are either weak or gasaholics. :P Look at the verona for example. :blush:
  • xostnotxostnot Member Posts: 232
    "reliability, (and specifically Suzuki Grand Vitara reliability), remains a complete unknown at this time."

    If initial quality problems are any indication, I'd say there are remarkably few problems are being reported for the new GV compared to anything, let alone for a new model. Some people have had their new GV's for months now, and are racking up the miles. But then the Dodge Spirit was one of the most reliable cars in their first years. But after 10 years.....ack.
  • norwoodsmnnorwoodsmn Member Posts: 168
    Yes, I'm a real fan of the Volvo V50 too. Just looked longingly at a white one on a local lot Sunday. Seems because of the extra weight, etc., according to the reviews it looses out quite significantly performance wise vs. that great Mazda 3 sport GT. Then there's the significant price difference. To drive the Zoom Zoomer in sport GT configuration, either with the manumatic or the manual 5 speed, (the wife and I drove both), is to completely fall in love [with driving] again....

    Hearin the word Dodge has me instinctively wanting to "duck and cover". Also, just how many vehicles can they turn out anyway, with "Powerwagon" look alike front ends? Who ever thought that's what "we" all really, really want????

    Ya, the new Suzuki SX-4 would definitely be worth waiting to see first, what with it's standard awd capability.

    Yes, xostnot, great to apparently see good intitial reliability! I sure hope it remains so, especially with the "out ther doin' it" usage your giving your own new GV. In particular I'm really interested to know, longer term, how that complex driveline stystem will hold up. We're all hoping for the best on this all new model, and are here only, (I presume?), taking the time to make these posts as evidence of our keen interest in same. We hold these truthes to be self evident.
  • acetexasacetexas Member Posts: 4
    OK, so where is the radio "aux" input? Is it buried under the dash, a lot of good that is (IPods, etc.).
    One more, the driver seat has very little front (Leg) adjustment for solid leg support. Am average height, even with front height maxed out the seat falls short for proper (comfortable) leg support. Am I missing some other adjustment that would mitigate the issue?
    FYI - outside of the above items the vechile is great!!
  • budman3budman3 Member Posts: 187
    I also want a piece of the cake. I would trade my current GV for an upgraded version. For now, it's working for us and no complaints and no problems.
    I did take out the rear seat. The plastic covers are the biggest problem by your feet. I broke the little tabs at the top. I doubt norwoodsman will notice when he buys my trade in. :blush:
    Since we're all sneaking in some tidbits, don't forget to boycott all Mexican restaurants for Cinco de Mayo.
  • xostnotxostnot Member Posts: 232
    My warped viewpoint is that the "powerwagon" grille is very deliberately designed to evoke a menacing grimace, without making it so obvious it's ridiculed. Just like the "bullhorns" integrated into many recent vehicle front ends. As our lives get easier (or as we get more crowded), people compensate by choosing vehicles sized and powered and styled to intimidate others.

    I was thinking that the GV's drivetrain seems to be set up to release the traction/stability control beyond a certain point, to protect the drivetrain from the stresses, of, say, hauling the whole vehicle up a steep hill with only one wheel having traction. This would explain why the traction control seems to be inactive in certain circumstances. People who equip their off-roaders with locking differentials know the forces that puts on drivetrain components. SNAP! So if Suzuki got it right, we shouldn't have durability problems, it just won't perform as well as I'd hoped. Their marketing people must be pretty clever to have set up an off-road course that revealed none of the serious shortcomings (such as the lack of 2nd gear engine braking) during the press introduction. It's pretty good, though. In terms of the price and on-road dynamics factored in, excellent.
  • xostnotxostnot Member Posts: 232
    I understand the aux input is in the back of the radio. Apparently it's easy to remove the fake metal strips along the sides of the console, then the console itself can be dismantled.

    It took me weeks to find how to adjust the drivers seat to be comfortable, so don't give up on it yet. You might want to move it back to lower your legs, but then the steering wheel might be too far away.
  • vitara4mevitara4me Member Posts: 35
    Ok, I just took my 2006 Grand Vitara to the dealership to order NEW CARPET, NEW FLOOR MATS, and NEW SOUND INSULATION for the area where my "gas" foot normally is.

    If you will scroll back a few posts, you will see where I rented a small open trailer (the smallest trailer you can rent from U-Haul), and took some items to Las Vegas. Well, right past Baker, CA is a steep grade, about 40 miles long, to the top of the pass. I was driving in the slow lane (the same lane that the 18-wheelers use), about 65 MPH. The GV was in third gear revving about 6,000-6,500 RPM (approximately, I'm going from memory here). Besides absolutely horrendous gas consumption, I did not notice anything out of the ordinary.
    Well, the other day, I noticed that the right sole of my "Hush-Puppies" shoe was....well...melted. Huh? What? How did that happen? For weeks, I could not figure out what happened to my right shoe, until I looked at the floor of my GV. There is a "crater" where the heel of my right foot sits (this is my accelerator foot for you Aussies that drive on the wrong side of the road). I lifted up the floor mat, and there is a black stain coming through the carpet. Apparently, the gooey, black sound insulation under the carpet had melted and separated, and my foot sunk all the way to the floorboards.
    Take a guess to what is directly under the floor? The catalytic converter. It seems that as I was straining to get up the grade, the "cat" became very, very hot, along with the floor right above it.
    The dealer is going to repair it under warranty, but this is a very bad oversight on Suzuki's part. What this means is that there is not enough shielding around the cat and surrounding areas.
    So, this is a warning to all that plan to tow (even a light load) with the Grand Vitara. The floor will get very hot during steep grades. Once the dealer fixes my floor, I am going to the local hardware store, buying a sheet of aluminum, and building myself a heat shield for the floor.

    Does Suzuki Corp. read these boards? I hope so.....

    Any comments? Flames?

    Regards, ARG
  • xostnotxostnot Member Posts: 232
    Glad to hear it didn't catch fire! I bet they have to do a recall for this. Have you reported it to the NHTSA website? If not, you should. Suzuki should replace your shoes, also.
  • budman3budman3 Member Posts: 187
    Wow! I know the road you drove on. I'm surprised you didn't put your foot through the floor trying to go up that hill. I think 6500 is redline. That converter is right by the floorboard and must have had quite a nice color to it. It does have a shield and some reflective insulation underneath, I guess it wasn't enough. We're heading to Vegas today. I'll check how hot the floor gets at highway speeds.
    Checked my fuel consumption for city driving. Tried to be as accurate as possible in filling up the same. A/C is on. 17.6 mpg US.
  • acetexasacetexas Member Posts: 4
    Thanks for the feedback xostnot, I'll keep jacking with the seat adjustments. Do you think the aux connection is worth it, especially if you have to disassemble the console? I wonder what type of connection it is. If you can not put a lead on it to utilize access from a normal day-to-day condition I guess not ???
  • xostnotxostnot Member Posts: 232
    I haven't bothered with the aux connection and don't really know what it involves. Some people talked about it in the '06GV forum at www.suzuki-forums.com.

    With enough money, you can get anything rigged up, even a totally different radio that uses the same buttons.
  • autoboy16autoboy16 Member Posts: 992
    Hearin the word Dodge has me instinctively wanting to "duck and cover".

    :P lol. So wrong yet sooo true :D

    Good luck with the 3. Can you wait to test out a the CX-7?
  • pisulinopisulino Member Posts: 78
    Talking Engine size:
    I remember back in 1988 when driving my Suzuki Forza with the 1.1 3 cylinder engine.
    That little [non-permissible content removed] drove me to work and camping with my wife and two small children aged 4 and 2 years old.
    It was very slow at picking up speed but once there, it was a no problem cruising at 60-65mph in 5th gear.
    I had that car for five years and never had a problem.

    Now we are in 2006 and people are concerned that a 2.7 V6 engine may not be enough to pass on the HWY....WOW this is crazy LOL.
    If you need more power than that while keeping a good MPG (23-25), go and get the VUE V6 with the Honda 250HP engine and tranny.....that will take you places and probably at the same price as the suki.
  • acetexasacetexas Member Posts: 4
    Well, it's been a month with the GV. Overall, the SUV continues to meet owner expectations. However, some not so perfect findings:
    1. Cruise control accl button executes a high rev acceleration (like pressing down on the pedal for passing) for just a minor speed increase command (single button press) on flat road conditions. To avoid the high engine rev surge you must reach a higher speed by using the gas pedal and then reset the cruise accordingly.
    2. The radio aux is useless for day-to-day usage.
    3. The sunroof needs a auto pop-up (when in use) windbreaker. My sons Sicron works great.
    4. Gas mileage is definitely poor (just as stated on the sticker) - at best 21 MPG. Wish we had a diesel option when we purchased.
    FYI – we still get people looking and asking about the vehicle were ever we go. Typical comments: Nice looking inside and out :) .
  • budman3budman3 Member Posts: 187
    You missed the piece of the cake that was being passed around. At least that's what most of us would like, a more high tech engine for the GV. I'm happy with it because it suits my 16 year daughter just fine. If you're into serious highway driving, it may be dissappointing to most people who are into the big horsepower. After all, this is 2006 and we want everything.:shades:
    We looked at the Saturn but the closest dealer was over 2 hours away and we didn't have any good luck with our past saturn or the service. I would have liked the HP but I wouldn't like visiting the service department every week.
  • budman3budman3 Member Posts: 187
    Glad to know you still enjoy your GV. We've had ours about 6 months and are still happy.
    I haven't noticed the cruise control.
    I think the entire radio/xm ready is useless.
    Is your son's car a Scion? :confuse:
    My last check on city driving was 17.6 mpg. I haven't been able to do an accurate highway but I know it's close to the 24mpg as posted for the 2wd auto.
    My biggest gripes are that the Luxury should have come with a power seat and the back seats should have been more user friendly in folding or being easily removed.
    And you are correct in that it has a unique style that we like and nothing compares to it especially in price.
    Also it has one of the best warranties. I want to run out of gas just to try their roadside assistance. Maybe I'll do that in front of my house. :D
  • acetexasacetexas Member Posts: 4
    My "fat finger" spelling error, you are correct on the car brand "SCION". After the sunroof retracts, a small, but efficient windbreaker pops-up - pretty cool :D .
    If available, the power seats would be worth the extra $200.
    Mothers Day at the park had a lot of nice comments on the vehicle.
  • vitara4mevitara4me Member Posts: 35
    The dealer called and set up an appointment to have two factory Suzuki reps inspect my Grand Vitara. If you will recall, my floor "melted" while I was towing a small trailer up a 40-mile grade.
    They ran all kids of tests, and used a scanning device to check engine specs and values from all the sensors.
    They concluded that the fuel trim is off on the right engine bank (the 3 cylinders on the right side of the engine). They also said that the right side of the engine is running 50 degrees hotter than the left. NOT GOOD. They took all the data and will conduct the same tests on other Grand Vitaras with the same options to see if they can repeat the findings (to see if this is an isolated incident or a problem inherent in all Grand Vitaras). Next week they will return to do a back flow test to see if the pre-cat on the right side is clogged. If not, then something is wrong with the fuel injection. And so the saga continues......

    The one Suzuki rep I spoke at length was quite nice and very knowledgeable regarding the Suzuki product. Actually a pleasant person to chat with. Seemed to like cars a lot in general, in other words, a "car nut" like me.

    I will keep you updated on what is wrong with my GV.

    Regards, Vitara4me
  • budman3budman3 Member Posts: 187
    I placed an order with suzuki.autowebaccessories.com and there was a problem with one of the parts I ordered. Their customer service had the part picked up and refunded my money. :D Sometimes things don't go that easy.
Sign In or Register to comment.

Helpful Tools

Most popular vehicles