What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

edwardsf

Well, those cruisers may have more power but a Honda Fit does not damage the ear drums of people in its vicinity. What is the point of all that noise anyway? Does it install machismo in its rider?

Mr_Shiftright

ewwww...what a monstrosity...is that Herman Munster's bike or what? :P

They should teach that bike in Bad Design 101.

A fast thing doesn't have to be heinous-looking or the weight of a whale (it's 1,300 lbs DRY weight).

This bike would kiss that monster goodbye.

Horsepower: about 165hp Weight? About 195 kilos!! (429 lbs)

(do the math)

snakeweasel

Yeah talk about power to weight. They used to have a V6 but they seem not to offer it anymore.

Mr_Shiftright

That's a power to weight of 2.6 : 1

Not a ride for the rookie....

I'm not saying there isn't a place for "Home Depot" design----I mean look at the Hummer---but on two wheels----it's pretty self-defeating to need a crane when you drop your bike off the kickstand. I find nothing to admire in such design except maybe the artwork on the tank, which DOES take talent.

snakeweasel

Its got loads of air bags, it has AWD and ABS as standard equipment. One can choose standard front wheel drive 2WD, AWD or part time 4WD. Its..... I just can't do that with a straight face.

I found the car rather small and it really isn't that wide. While it has elbow room it has very little extra room there and you are very close to the passenger seat. While I had adequate leg room I did feel a little to close to the steering wheel with the seat all the way back. While it had plenty of headroom it appeared that the 'B' column was a little to far up front as it seemed to almost get in the way for entering and exiting.

The seats seemed a little stiff and slightly on the uncomfortable side. The cargo area in the back is a little on the sparse side.

The overall look of the car was a little plane. Not ugly but nothing to write home about. On the whole I was slightly underimpressed with the car.

Now here is the shocker, they had a $3,000 market adjustment tacked onto the car. They wanted almost 20 grand for that car :confuse:

boaz47

I don't know why you should be surprised. When I went Suzuki Shopping i found the same kind of thing. It is the same way at Subaru dealers. They know people don't cross shop much and they are about the only dealer for miles so they simply don't do much dealing. Not like the major players who may offer as much as 2.5k off sticker. I also found the Suki to be a bit harsh sounding when pushed hard. Not loud mind you but raspy I guess. But it wasn't a bad car. Nothing to write home about but not bad. If I were going to give up that kind of fuel mileage I think I would want a bit more HP for the effort. Plus pushed hard into a corner and you felt a bit high and tipsy for me. Our local dealer was closer to 16.5K on the window.

snakeweasel

They know people don't cross shop much and they are about the only dealer for miles so they simply don't do much dealing.

Well while Suzuki isn't plentiful in the area of dealerships there are 3 within 15 miles of me and 7 within 25 miles. The dealer I went to has two other Suzuki dealerships within 20 miles of it. It shouldn't be to hard to cross shop them.

growwise

Subcompacts are beginning to pique my interest simply because I now travel 70 miles to and fro from work.

Its just me doing the travel and even on the weekends, it will work for groceries.

For the occasional times when a minivan/SUV with 3 rows are required, either renting one or buying a used low end minivan will work.

The only potential issue I see is crash test ratings..
Here is crash results for SX4
crash video

BTW, Just saw pics of new corolla wagon. Would be an excellent choice if it comes to states

tsgeisel

If they'd had a Corolla wagon last year, I might have wound up with one. Depending, of course, on price.

I continue to be glad that the Elantra hatch isn't coming out initially. It makes my decision not to wait for it that much more palatable.

fintail

Those remind me of something like the SUVs of motorcycles. Too big and gaudy. Every beige Camcord-driving middle aged orthodontist and accountant around here is a weekend warrior on similar machines.

This is more like it...pretty

brightness04

Sure, MB made the best cars they ever made four decades ago . . . all the billions of R&D budget in the decades since must have all been spent on buying beers for office parties.

The concept of and first implementation of crumple zone and safety cell were but first steps in the right direction . . . otherwise, why do they even bother with crash tests nowadays? Crumple zones and safety cells have become mainstream at least since the 1970's, yet we have witnessed massively improving crash results among most models of cars in the last decade alone since IIHS started systemic crash tests. Progress is constant; those standing still simply get left behind.

lilengineerboy

Its interesting, I am pretty hard core with cars and I don't like poser cars, but with motorcycles, I think i am most inclined to get a Ninja 500, which is a standard bike but with fairings to make it look like a sport bike. Its power/weight ratio is fine for me as a beginner anyway.
Actually, I think the bike is pretty much aimed at me, its very easy to ride, very easy to shift, very smooth power delivery, its like the CamCordUsion of bikes, or the Beringer White Zin of bikes, or what have you.

fintail

Actually they probably made those best cars 20-25 years ago, and their R&D certainly hasn't been invisible over the past 40 years. First successful mass production airbags and ABS systems, for starters. Insignificant in the safety world, I know.

From the crash test footage I have witnessed, the average modern car is no better off structurally than a 45 year old fintail, in the average 35-40mph front test. It's all about restraints and bags today. This all stems from you stating these old cars had "precious little" crash protection..."MB Tech" nonwithstanding....which is of course simplistic at best, uninformed too.

And not every vehicle of the past decade has had spectacular test results, especially in the SUV arena.

fintail

I'd be a poser if I had an R1, but I'm too chicken, so it's of no matter. It's all looks and noise for me. I wonder what kind of mileage that thing gets.

plekto

And it (67 Mercedes) offers precious little crash protection compared to modern cars. Plastic is at a major reason why cars are safer: composite bumper that can aborb collisions, airbags, and interior panels that do not splinter, just to name a few. Mercedes was actually at the forefront of making use of plastic back in the 70's and 80's: they just gave it fancy name . . . MercedesTech what we normally call pleather.
****

How wrong you are about the safety. First car with crumple zones and a reinforced passenger area. Side reinforcement in the doors. Safety glass, padded dash, collpseable steering collumn/wheel, shoulder belts, disc brakes, halogen headlights, unibody construction, hood even bent in the middle in a crash. 1959(!). It was thoroughly modern and easily equal to anything Volvo was putting out a decade later(stole the tech and sold it for half the price - but Mercedes invented allmost all of it)

By 1968, with the 250/280 series, Mercedes was equally as modern as most of the stuff from Ford and GM in the 90s - other than the airbags and fancy electronics that is.

brightness04

Insignificant in the safety world, I know

Airbags and ABS are very important safety features. I was not the one proclaiming 40-year old cars without them being safer than today's cars with these features. The bit about squandering their R&D budget on beers was sacasm (one would have to imply if actually believing in 40 year old MB being safer than today's MB's)

From the crash test footage I have witnessed, the average modern car is no better off structurally than a 45 year old fintail, in the average 35-40mph front test.

From crash safety point of view, the car should be designed to sacrifice itself to preserve the life of the occupants. The kinetic energy has to be absorbed somewhere, either by the car or by the occupants' flesh. Old cars that come off the crash looking great may be bad news to the occupants indeed.

It's all about restraints and bags today.

Of course that's the case. Bags are what makes it possible to have a small car reasonably crash worthy at all. Bags are some of the most important safety devices . . . and MB has been at the forefront of adding more and more bags in the last decade. Bags that 45yr old cars do not have . . . that's why I said "precious little crash protecion" . . . 40yr old first-generation crumple zone design simply can not compare to today's combination of composites, crumple zone with properly stress-laden material and air bags, lots of them.

Modern SUVs like the X5, M class, RX, MDX, Pilot and Highlander actually have great crash results.

brightness04

This is not the 90's, and Ford and GM were by no means the best in safety even back then. The entire list you proferred are more or less standard on even the lowest Kia model, which also has air bags on top of that entire list (much of that list have been mandatory equipment since the 90's)

Look at the IIHS crash results in the past decade. Anything that has crash results equally good as Ford and GM vehicles made in the 90's are patheticly poor compared to today's vehicles.

iluvmysephia1

You went into that 2007 Suzuki SX4 look-see with an obvious disrespect and disdain for the car right up front. Ain't I right on with that observation, everybody?

Snake doesn't like Suzuki's because they're too handsome, they're too innovative and they're too affordable.

Let's see-he doesn't like that it's so small inside. Humm...sounds rather subjective to me. Have to check that one out for myself.

Oh, tacking $3,000 on to this rig is ridiculous. I agree.

What I don't get is why people go take a look at a rig when all they want to do is spread disrespect for the maker of the car and the car itself. Why would someone do that?

For example, snake. I don't particularly care for the Hyundai Elantra. Don't get me wrong-I don't hate the car. But there's no way I'm gonna waste my time and everybody else's by reviewing the rig, just to criticize it or look for weaknesses where there aren't any.

Oh and those so quick to disrespect Kia aren't reading your automotive news. In case you've been spacing out on Edmunds for too many months discussing which end of up is down Kia's Optima was just voted the best midsize car and the Sedona the best van. Their quality is now considered by some to be on par with Toyota. True...........dat. My Sportage's tires of Hankook variety last 102,000 miles....I've yet to burn out a single lightbulb on the SUV....yeah, right, keep believing you know what you're talking about.

Suzuki, the Kia of Japan, is silently producing well-built rigs for anyone who wants a rig with a good Warranty and low price.

And, no, I won't pay a "second sticker" on my 2007 Suzuki SX4 in Red or Techno Blue Metallic, 5-speed form. I'm guessing that a prudent buyer could blow the "Second Sticker" into their dealer's trash can with a fairly quick Hasselback pass to Darryl Jackson for another Seahawk TD.

imidazol97

>Bags are some of the most important safety devices . . . and MB has been at the forefront of adding more and more bags in the last decade

Who actually invented or first used airbags?

daysailer

I believe that the first airbag implementation was the Experimental Safety Vehicle (ESV) commissioned by the NHTSA in 1968, although they were conceived and patents filed long before. I remember films of the ESV crash tests in which the airbag deployment was so violent that all of the windows were blown out of the ESV. Airbags were vigorously promoted by insurance companies as a means to protect those who would not wear seatbelts - the misnamed and illconceived "passive restraint" efforts that also brought us so many horrible seatbelt designs.

w9cw

Plekto, how right you are on M-B. Frankly, I would rather be in an accident, except for a side hit, in an older M-B, Volvo, or SAAB than in many newer cars with full airbag protection. Airbags alone do not make a safe car.

I've seen photos of headon's with M-B, Volvo, and SAABs with the occupants properly belted in with the 3-point belts, and injuries are minimal. Just as in real estate where it's "location, location, location," in car safety it's "structure, safety cage, and controlled crushability."

rockylee

agree....

Rocky

snakeweasel

You went into that 2007 Suzuki SX4 look-see with an obvious disrespect and disdain for the car right up front. Ain't I right on with that observation, everybody?

Nope I went there to give it a honest look at. I have nothing against the car, although I do have to make my comments about your commercials for that car that you post here.

Snake doesn't like Suzuki's because they're too handsome, they're too innovative and they're too affordable.

To be perfectly honest I haven't given Suzuki much of a thought one way or the other. To be honest the SX$ is rather pedestrian in looks, not ugly by a long shot but not much of a head turner either. Looks wise it looks like it would unassumingly blend into traffic.

As for innovative, I don't see to much in there that is that innovative. As for affordable, yes it is but still you can get more car for less.

Let's see-he doesn't like that it's so small inside. Humm...sounds rather subjective to me.

While "feeling small" is rather subjective the door was definetly closer to me than in my Elantra and the passenger seat was definitely closer to. The only thing it really has on my daily drive is head room, which the figures posted on Edmunds agree with.

What I don't get is why people go take a look at a rig when all they want to do is spread disrespect for the maker of the car and the car itself. Why would someone do that?

Again I don't want to spread disrespect for any car and I really don't think I have. However since the car was discussed on this forum and I have been in on those discussions it is only right that I actually get some hands on experience with the car. That is more that you apparently have done.

On the whole its not all that bad of a car, just a little tight (but bigger than some I have been in). If they can bring the price point down and get better mileage (maybe just offering it with FWD might do this) it might get my consideration. Of course that statement is conditional on a test drive which I didn't take.

My Sportage's tires of Hankook variety last 102,000 miles.

To be perfectly honest with you I find that hard to believe. That is unless you have worn them down so much that you're running in the steel belts.

And, no, I won't pay a "second sticker" on my 2007 Suzuki SX4 in Red or Techno Blue Metallic, 5-speed form. I'm guessing that a prudent buyer could blow the "Second Sticker" into their dealer's trash can

I am guessing that those who "blow the second sticker into the trash can" will not be buying one in the immediate future. My impression is that you might get them to come down on the $3,000 add on but you won't fully eliminate it.

imidazol97

The first airbag implementation I recall is the Olds Toronado or Olds 98 in ?1971-1973 or near that date. I saw them at the Detroit Auto Show after having heard about them in the Media.

As for the safety of Older MBs, it's all in the type of accident. They were able to sacrifice the outer parts of the auto chassis and protect the passenger cage. But doing that was at risk of high acceleration to the passengers if the outer portions didn't properly absorb the forces adequately for the weight of the passenger cage. I.e., sometimes it could work but other times there were going to be brutal forces on the passenger. Having a high mass vehicle helped in MB's benefit.

Now the engineering is combined with airbags to absorb forces from the specified accident types and speeds in cars that are lighter and still safer. But it all comes down to the physical forces--you can't change Mother Nature, no matter how hard you advertise.

As for Volvo's safety... it became apparent it's advertising with some validity. Else they wouldn't have had to reinforce the roof for the Olds 88 to sit on top of the "strong" vehicle in the ad showing "safety."

andre1969

Boaz, which Rambler are you thinking of? The one I'm thinking of is the "standard" Rambler, which was on a 108" wheelbase and I think was about 190" long. Now I've never sat in one, but they actually look pretty roomy to me. Somewhat smallish in overall length compared to a 1957 Chevy, Ford, or especially a Plymouth, but having a passenger cabin that seems disproportionately big compared to the overall size of the car, so while it's proportions might be goofy, it makes for a car that seems it would be very space-efficient. But perhaps the car was just narrower enough inside to make 3-across seating more noticeably tight than a '57 Chevy or Ford.

Now there was a smaller Rambler model called the American, which was on a short 100" wheelbase and was probably considerably smaller inside than the regular Ramblers.

lilengineerboy

imidazol97, you are right on, it started at Chrysler went to Ford (who built experimental cars) then GM who actually made it. I remember reading MBZ actually doing early testing with it in the 60s as well, but I cant find a source to back me up.
Airbag History

andre1969

One thing that was kinda cool about GM's airbags on those big 70's cars was that they were actually DUAL airbags...driver AND passenger! In 1974, on the Cadillacs at least, the airbags were a $225 option. That seems kinda cheap to me, when you consider an AM/FM radio with an 8-track player was a $426 option.

There's a 1974 Olds 98 that was painted up as a police car and wrecked near the end of "Smokey and the Bandit". It had the airbag option, but the impact wasn't hard enough to deploy them...did a good number on the '77 LeMans that it hit but barely scratched the Olds. The Olds was later used in a crash test video.

rorr

"There's a 1974 Olds 98 that was painted up as a police car and wrecked near the end of "Smokey and the Bandit". It had the airbag option, but the impact wasn't hard enough to deploy them...did a good number on the '77 LeMans that it hit but barely scratched the Olds. The Olds was later used in a crash test video."

I am constantly amazing at the shear number of little factoids crammed into your cranium......

iluvmysephia1

into that "review" of the 2007 Suzuki SX4 with a pre-conceived notion of what a Suzuki "should be like" and not looking at this as the car that it is.

It is a new car that does something remarkable. If the driver wishes they can set the drivetrain in FWD(2WD) and leave it there for maximum ghastly mileage. Oh, BTW, 24 and 29 are good numbers for me, they might not work for you. I realize that. Your AWD system carries some weight, that's all. It's cool. If they want better traction they can flip their conveniently located toggle switch to AWD-Auto for better slip-grippage. If they want to get some help in snowy, icy, or sloppy-muddy conditions they can flip their toggle switch to AWD-Lock for true 4WD action. Correct me please if I'm wrong but I don't know another rig that does all of these powertrain items available on the market. And if someone can name another rig that does I'll bet it's cost exceeds $25,000.

If it does that for $25,000 then the consumer is being charged too much. Does that automaker offer a 7 year and 100,000 mile Warranty for you?

snake, your review of the SX4 reminds me of Clodsumer Retort's review of the latest 2002-2003-2004 Kia Spectra's. Basically all Clodsumer Retorts did was pull a 2000 or 2001 Kia Spectra review out of the slammer and cut and paste "2004 Kia Spectra" or "2005 Kia Spectra" up above. Going into the review they were already determined to slam the rig and publish the information. As if no newer version of the car was even manufactured. I realize the 2007 Suzuki SX4 is a brand new model, but the principal is the same here. Preconceived notions are slamming out objectivity.

Now, as I continue to enjoy and drive my 2001 Kia Sportage 4x4 I will follow 2007 Suzuki SX4 owner reports and see how the crossover is holding up. I do think that the American consumer is wise enough to know that reviews are not always helpful and they are not always objective. People's minds can be trapped shut about new products and good ideas. Truedat.

For instance, my 2001 Kia Sportage 4x4's OEM Hankook tires not only lasted 102,000 miles but they were not riding "funny", causing the rig to pull one way or another or putting me and my loved ones at any risk whatsoever. Freeway speeds or town speeds. They also wore evenly. Probably about 1/16" of tread left upon swapout time to Toyo Wilderness SUV tires in the late summer of 2005. Still not a single light bulb burned out on this great little SUV.

If I had foolishly opted for a new Ford Escape in September of 2001 I would have changed out at least 15 light bulbs by now. I know Fords, they were primarily what I used to buy and drive. It was a swap of a purple 1997 Ford Escort for a 1999 Kia Sephia, Violet Mist and 5-speeds, that started my foreign car path. So don't tell me Ford's have their electrical act together-what a rickety job of electrical engineering those dudes do and have done for decades.

Although I loved my '65 Ford Mustang the car was a mechanic's nightmare. Still love it's body design, though.

The 2007 Suzuki SX4's body design is plain Jane? Oh well, I guess looks are subjective. I think that it's a refreshing Italian body design that inspires further flow study. Similar to this little pony car in the mid 60's that caused such a stir, eh?

lilengineerboy

The 1965 Mustang wasn't complicated enough to be a mechanic's nightmare. A 1985 maybe, as that was when fuel injection and electronic feedback carbs and MAFS and on board computers were starting to be phased in.
Doesn't the Impreza get about the same mileage and have full time AWD? Does the 4wd on the Suzuki actually lock the differentials and hubs as necessary (even if manually)?

daysailer

continues ................................

snakeweasel

into that "review" of the 2007 Suzuki SX4 with a pre-conceived notion of what a Suzuki "should be like" and not looking at this as the car that it is.

You need to brush up on your mind reading skills. I have/had no preconceived notions of what a Suzuki "should be like" as I never even considered them as a car company. By that I mean that they are same enough that I really don't see that many or even go by a dealership that much. Despite what you may think I went in to actually see what the car is like and not take your word for it nor just go off of what anyone else said. I tend to be like that.

It is a new car that does something remarkable.

So did the Taylor Aerocar

If the driver wishes they can set the drivetrain in FWD(2WD) and leave it there for maximum ghastly mileage.

Its really not the first car to be able to do that.

Oh, BTW, 24 and 29 are good numbers for me,

Well goo because I can get a Toyota Rav4 with 4WD a more powerful V6 and only lose 1-3MPG (costing me an additional $5-600 over 200k miles) an IIRC have more room. As for me my current daily drive gets better than that and has never gotten in a jam in 6 midwest winters.

snake, your review of the SX4 reminds me ....

Yours reminds me of something cut and pasted from a sales brochure. At least I actually got to one sat in it and got a feel for it.

The 2007 Suzuki SX4's body design is plain Jane?

Yes nothing that shouts "Look at me". Not ugly not shocking not interesting nothing distinctive. Basically nothing that stands out, good or bad. Sad to say is that a lot of cars are heading that way.

Similar to this little pony car in the mid 60's that caused such a stir, eh?

Far from it.

snakeweasel

I had a 1969 and a 1982 Mustang and they were very easy to work on.

andre1969

has me kinda tempted to go look at one. I do like the looks of them. I guess I just have too much of a hang-up about the mileage. It just seems to me that if an Intrepid, Impala, LeSabre, etc can get 29+ mpg on the highway, then something this small should be able to easily exceed that. The mileage issue is one thing that bugs me a bit about the Dodge Caliber too, although that's also a bit bigger than an SX4.

tjw1308

My point wasn't to abolish VSC altogether, it's just that there are a lot of purists out here that, given the option, would rather not have to PAY for it.

As for the bumbling idiots that are fixing their hair, talking on the cell, blasting their music, eating breakfeast, AND adjusting the mirror to check themselves while driving, needing VSC...

I'd say it's 50/50. 50% of them will serve us well by having it. The OTHER 50% will drive like even BIGGER idiots (if that's possible), because hey, the VSC will save them right? And if it doesn't, they'll just cry "what happened?!?! I had VSC!".

I truly think it's a mixed blessing, and that the aura of invulnerability is downright dangerous.

Again, it's like a 4WD in snow. Even personally, I have found myself driving differently when in one than when not. You think in the back of your head you're better off, and even though you might be, you drive less carefully. Not everyone of course, but a lot of folks do.

T

wale_bate1

I don't mind having to pay for mandated VSC. No really. Whatever libertarian streak may lie buried in my psyche isn't strong enough to overcome my inkling that the vast majority of idiots may in fact be safer because of it. By extrapolation, it might just save me from them some day too.

No, I don't mind paying for mandated VSC. If I'm not provided with a kill-switch, then I'll be truly pissed off...

fintail

Nobody proclaimed any old car was "safer" without the most modern features...you use quotes, perhaps you can show where they come from? But these old cars are much safer than many more modern vehicles. I'd rather crash in a 1964 Mercedes than many 1994 cars.

Old MB don't come from a crash looking very well. The trunks and engine compartments collapse upon hard impact. The windshields pop out. Shoulder belts were common options, seen on virtually no other period car. I have 45 year old crash test footage of these cars.

I'd feel almost the same being in a 35mph head on collision in my fintail as I would in a late model Camcord...the 'almost' being simply the airbag, nothing else. Even with its MB-Tex... And I'd rather crash in a 20 year old W126 than I would a Camcord. With the way things seem to be bloating, a Camcord will weigh as much as a W126 very soon :sick:

fintail

I think those limited run large GM cars in what...75-76 were the first real cars with them, but they were made in very small quantities...I've seen a total of one for sale, ever. Shame the market didn't take it.

daysailer

didn't demand a proper belt restraint system, rather than relying on airbags!!! such systems have been in common use for decades and were once available as aftermarket accessories, now they're allowed only for "off-road" use. It's instructive to note that no racing organization has adopted airbags.

fintail

Could these multi-point belts be modified to fit the growing waistlines of the general population? :shades:

snakeweasel

Go a head and tell us what you think. Its not a bad little car but its not the cats meow that iluv makes it out to be. Also tell us if the dealer has the price marked up.

iluvmysephia1

the AWD-Lock feature allows one to lock both axles together automatically from the same toggle switch by the stick shift(or slushbox handle). If and when your SX4 achieves 36 mph the drivetrain will by sensor automatically switch you to AWD-Auto for better slip-grip traction.

If you want maximum ghastly mileage you just flip the toggle back to AWD(FWD).

No, I don't know of another rig that can do all of this.

Name the one that does, snake. Edumacate me, man.

And if there is one it will cost in the mid to upper 20 thousands, huh?

Oh, apparently Suzuki is doing some good things lately according to consumers, too. The 2006 Suzuki Aerio was the JD Powers APEAL winner for subcompacts. Better than a poke in the eye from another errant Ben Rothelschild pass. Never has another NFL team been given more free passes to a Super Bowl than the February 5, 2006 Pittsburgh Steelers. Nice to see such honest referees hanging around collecting...ummm...paychecks. :surprise:

daysailer

a loose cannon banging about.

lilengineerboy

I think one of the main issues with multi-point belts is the removal. My racing harnesses weren't legal for street use because they didn't have a big orange button to release them.
Scrotch and I think a couple others are starting to make belts with a single release.
Another issue is the effort involved in putting the seatbelt on. We have a heck of a time convincing people to connect one buckle. I think it would be exponentially more challenging to get them to have two shoulder straps and a crotch strap to all connect together...kind of like a child safety seat.

daysailer

Yes, that's why we have airbags - to protect those who can't be bothered to protect themselves. The result is that the BEST protection is available to NONE of us! Just another example of society seeking the lowest common denominator.

boaz47

what some fail to mention is where some of these vehicles appear in long term dependability tests. It is all fine and Good if you believe JD powers on a initial quality survey. But what happens to some of those same vehicles "after" someone buys them. The Kia must drop like a stone if it hits bottom of the dependability survey after starting out so well? But then how a car looks on the showroom floor and how it works in the real world are two different things. By the way the lock on a Suki does "not" lock the two axles together. It simply locks two open differentials together. If one back wheel and one front wheel is slipping you are back to Two wheel drive without flipping any switches. To lock the axles together you need to lock the diff on both the front and back of the car. That isn't happening without a diff locker. The system Suzuki is using is very close to what Subaru used back in 1986.

But I understand blind enthusiasm. I stopped by the car dealer to drop off my Secretary while she had her car serviced. I believe I have found the perfect car. It was a new Aveo. It comes in stunning asphalt grey. It has a shift lever that has the shift pattern printed right on the top with numbers and letters to tell you what gear you are in. The entertainment system has a clock in it and it will tell you if you have a CD in or if you are on AM or FM. You won't believe the wheels and tires. You can get some five spoke alloy wheels with an option of 15 inch rims. And would you believe the tires have numbers on them, raised so you can see the size. (hold your breath, some of them are white lettered.) Not only that it comes in a hatch that opens with the hinges on the top. Now tell me, what other car comes with all of these cool things? And such a fine looking rig it is. It is time to stop looking at other cars my friends. You can have all of these cutting edge features for less than 12k. It also won MADDs car of the month award as the best car to get your child for getting out of high school with a 2.0 average. I understand it can be ordered in Pastel yellow with silver wiper covers. Best of all it fits in this forum because it is a Sub Compact not a SUV. What it is what it ain't, your momma, word, it all dat, and it is better than a pitcher learning to fly over New York. Did I forget anything?

boomchek

lol... You forgot the optional chrome muffler tip.

iluvmysephia1

that was true. For starters, you left out that funky Pittsburgh referee who chose to throw a flag every time Seattle would advance the football(which with Seattle is often). BTW-those referees are banned from ever reffing another Super Bowl..why might that be, car freaks?

Oh, you forgot to mention that, even though Subaru doesn't offer all those things the SX4 does it also charges about $15,000 more. And doesn't lock both axles together. Not as good for more of the cost. Doesn't quite add up. Dont' forget an anemic Warranty to boot. Don't even get me started on the Subaru ugly body styling...could they get any uglier?

snakeweasel

Name the one that does, snake. Edumacate me, man.

Since AWD/4WD holds no interest to me I can't say what cars have or have not in that aspect. All I know is the ability two switch between 4WD and FWD or RWD has been around for decades and is not innovative.

And after racking my brains about where I saw SX4 before I figured it out



Now there was an innovative ahead of its time AWD vehicle.

snakeweasel

It also won MADDs car of the month award as the best car to get your child for getting out of high school with a 2.0 average.

OK now I have to ask, what did they recommend if your child got a 3.0 or a 4.0? :P