What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

iluvmysephia1

and it's a big but, snake, that picture shows a SX/4, not a SX4. Big, big difference and none of these lame excuses for arguments against the 2007 Suzuki SX4 are holding water or making any inroads.

Humm...could they be fabrications, or even...lies?

Are Subaru's everyone's cats meow here? Why can't they design a car body, for starters, that looks presentable to the trained enthusiast's design eye, then? I gotta tell ya, a lot of the Japanese car body designs are homely, very very homely at best. Subaru's are up there at the homely top, too. Too much cost for too little product with too little Warranty to back them up=poor choice in automobiles.

andre1969

Are Subaru's everyone's cats meow here? Why can't they design a car body, for starters, that looks presentable to the trained enthusiast's design eye, then? I gotta tell ya, a lot of teh Japanese car body designs are homely, very very homely at best. Subaru's are up there at the homely top, too. Too much cost for too little product with too little Warranty to back them up=poor choice in automobiles.

I think Subarus are one of those cars where you either "get it" and love it to death, or you don't. Almost kind of a cult-like status. I never was much of a Kool-Aid drinker though, unless it's spiked! :P And NOT in a Jim Jones sort of way! :surprise:

lilengineerboy

iluvmysephia1,
You know, I am starting to understand you but I am still a little hazy...can you tell us how you really feel?

snakeweasel

and it a big but, snake, that picture shows a SX/4, not a SX$.

Actually it was called the SX4, and I never used it as an argument against the Suzuki.

Humm...could they be fabrications, or even...lies?

Now what are you talking about?

Are Subaru's everyone's cats meow here?

No and I don't see people post Madison Ave. type hype about them either. And for someone who jumped on me for saying the SX4 looked plain jane you sure do make some declarative statements about how the Subarus look.

iluvmysephia1

because, snake, these are the things I really see with my own eye of design. I see them on the net and in magazines and on the streets. Now, most people who own Subaru's don't care how I think about their cars. It's just weird to me how forgiving the American public can be with car body design. I mean, these Subaru's are homely, really dull looking. Suzuki's stable is much more interesting to look at body design-wise. Yet people, like andre states, buy these Subaru's up with a cult-like desire of following. I think he's right in that appraisal.

Really, though, a carmaker like Suzuki offers so much more for such less cash with much greater backing of Warranty and much better car body design.

If you can't study the 2007 Suzuki SX4 from front to back and see a great looking car body design that invites further study(like a great car body design should)then you just don't appreciate great car body design. There's nothing I can do for you, then. Your loss.

boaz47

There is a reason marketing people love some of us and not others. The enthusiast that is a bit of an auto historian or a mechanic, racer, off roader or car club member is harder to blow smoke up their skirt than a bench enthusiast. I consider a bench enthusiast as one that believes the brochures and sales hype. While some brochure and sales hype can be true if you take a close look you may find that what is an innovation to one manufacturer is simply technology that was borrowed from someone else. An example is a salesman telling a customer that by simply flipping a switch you can lock the front and rear axle of a street car into full time 4wheel drive. Now this sounds good and if true would make the after market for companies like ARB and Detroit locker a bit softer. You might even question the technology of Jeeps track loc system with a centrifical locking system. However no amount of reasoning can dissuade some from what they have read in a glossy colored brochure. Even hyperbole doesn't work. It doesn't even do you any good to keep your tongue in your cheek.

rorr

Beauty is in the eye of the beholder. You're not going to get anywhere trying to convince anyone the SX4 has wonderful lines. We either see or we don't.

But, to be honest, I've looked at pictures of the SX4 on (I believe) three separate occasions. The reason I keep having to go back is because it makes no impression on me, one way or another. Zip.

Even now, although I looked at it again this a.m., I can't remember what it looked like.... :confuse:

A great design will leave an impact; this one (to me anyway) doesn't.

Karen_S

A reporter seeks longtime loyal Dodge-Chrysler-Jeep buyers who want the company to build a subcompact model or two. Please reply to jfallon@edmunds.com no later than Friday, October 20, 2006 with a few relevant comments and your daytime contact info.

nortsr1

either buy one or give us a break!! I am still waiting to see what they will give you $4900.00 trade-in for that Kia.(that you claim KBB says it is worth) You keep avoiding that!! Why don't you go down to the Suzuki Dealership, try and make the deal and see WHAT IT IS REALLY WORTH!!!!! In a couple of months you will be preaching about some other NEW vehicle that you intend to buy!!!
If it si so dam- wonderful....BUY IT!!!!!!

tsgeisel

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?

If it's a boy, a Corolla. If it's a girl, it's a VW Beetle Convertable - only because they don't make the Cabrio Convertable anymore.

boomchek

I used to work with a bench enthusiast before. He would carry around a brochure with him at work of a car (Trans Am) he was going to buy, boasting to everyone about this and that. we would all say "good for you buddy."

Then a month later he buys a Civic. We'd all say, "hey man, what happenned to the other car you were talking about?" And he'd just change the topic completely. No point in even debating with someone like that.

As for the SX4, yeah it looks different, but I wouldn't give it any design awards, and it sure doesn't break any new ground in design. Maybe for some people it's good value for the money, but personally I wouldn't care for it much.

boaz47

There is no problem with getting one if that is what you are looking for. If you happen to need AWD and you want a entry level SUV maybe a Suzuki is just the ticket. It is not a Sub Compact however and it is not the most advanced car on the market. It doesn't get outstanding fuel mileage and it is only beautiful to those seriously looking to get one. If people are talking about sub compacts a sales pitch for a small SUV will not change their mind.

Like you I doubt if the Suzuki will set the world on fire. But for Suzuki's sake I hope it does better than what it replaced.

iluvmysephia1

a minute, there. Who just jots down somewhere and spends their hard-earned pesos without doing the research? Soneone is not researching anything at all with purpose.

The research is done. A Subaru is a body design abomination and really mundane in it's abilites for high prices and low warranty coverage.

A 2007 Suzuki SX4 is a beautifully-designed, well-thought out vehicle that contains several powertrain options and many, many safety installations as standard equipment.

For $14,999 for the MT? What's not to like here?

boomchek

Liking a car is not just about the numbers. There was a discussion at the "What's new in the car mags" thread about why some cars win comparos over others. It's not just the price, performance, or specs, but how the car feels and how it fits the person that's looking to buy it.

Why do some of us buy $5 pens when one for 50 cents does the job the same. Why do we buy $1000 mattress sets when we can purchase a sheet of foam that you can sleep on as well. Why do we go out and spend $5 on a burger meal when macaroni and cheese will fill us up as well..... you see the point

We do what feels right for us. The SX4 may be to you what you say it is but to me it isn't. To me it's another alternative in the small car market. The value may be there but if I don't care for the looks or the AWD why would i even want it when there's other cars that I might like better.

boaz47

But most importantly, do any of those cars you might like come in Raspberry Red? How about Blueberry blue mist or sea Foam Green? Do any of them have silver stripes on the bumper? Ha, I thought not, how could you even consider something else. Don't you know the sales brochure says with the flip of a switch this Suzuki can leap tall buildings in a single bound. Ok, that was a bit harsh. I am sorry.

The important thig to consider is that this is not a Sub Compact it is a SUV.

daysailer

By the authority vested in repetitive posting, It is well established that the SX4 is the finest vehicle ever conceived and fulfills the requirements of all buyers in every market category. We've even learned that there are market adjusments available for those who wish to avoid the stigma of low cost. These have been deemed to be unquestionable truths by the ultimate arbitor of all things automotive who wears a Kia moniker to prove his objectivity.

But since the Suzuki dealerships will now be packed by eager buyers and we will have little chance of obtaining our preferred ride, what will we settle for as our second choice in a subcompact vehicle? Thoughts anyone?

wale_bate1

Suzuki makes an SUV?

boaz47

Now all we have to do is see what is a sub compact "besides" the mini cooper in the US.

rorr

SURE they do! Or at least they used to.....remember the old Samauri?

....although that was more of an suV...

snakeweasel

Well Wale it is more of a miniature crossover.

rorr

But wait....you also get:

A huge VALUE!

For a low price!

All of which makes iluv..... :shades:

wale_bate1

It goes up the hill... it goes down the hill...

snakeweasel

As I said before it doesn't matter, I have the best car in the world:

1.) Its paid for

and

B.) It runs

:P

tsgeisel

The new Suzuki Grand Vitara is being very well received in the few reviews I've read.

Now, what was your joke again?

rorr

Having a hard time posting pictures....

ANYWAY - this is my idea of a desireable subcompact...



One should notice there is ZERO "U" in this particular "SV" :shades:

wale_bate1

of the subs we are offered thus far, I find the Mini most appealing, followed closely by the xA - assuming a decent budget for tuning, with the Fit bringing up the rear.

My dollars would probably go to the xA and Carson Toyota's skunkworks...

british_rover

I kind of like the Ariel Atom over the Super seven myself.

rorr

Well, I guess I'm old fashioned but I actually LIKE bodywork.

boaz47

Well true, but you still start in the hole with a small engine, and even supercharged you only get 160 ponies with the Yota. That would be fine in a 1900 pound car but a 2500 pound car is going to be pretty average when the Mini is about to push 180 ponies stock. Plus people will be able to show just where their priorities are. They will have the "Option" of ordering the origional 115 HP. With three motors to choose from what do you think the most popular one will be? Now if there is room to drop a 2 liter Honda motor in a Fit or a 2.4 in a xA you have something to start with with some real potential.

wale_bate1

No argument that a somewhat larger plant in the xA would increase fun factor.

But as a daily driver to suit my needs that I could easily take to a level of enjoyable motoring with factory parts, and customize to my tastes (perhaps even orange on the inside) with a wide array of available fun bits, while still retaining a rather remarkable degree of utility, I'm listing to port.

What can I say? I like the little thing. There is one locally all in white with a Kenstyle kit and some tasteful rims, and it catches my eye every time.

Nifty little rig.

Mr_Shiftright

Crashing in a '59 car. No thank you, as I don't believe there are many truly fun-type surgical procedures for steering wheel extraction from the chest cavity, or ignition key removal from the knee. (to say nothing of the "hurl-away" door locks and the under-dash passenger containment area).

explorerx4

anyone remeber that quip by jay leno about the roadmaster in rain man? to paraphase, if you got killed in a head on collision, they would just hose off the dashbaord and sell it to the next person!

british_rover

Yup I remember that. I have heard a similar saying about 1960s mustangs but it went like...

hose off the dashboard and sell it to the next victim errr customer.

snakeweasel

what about this one?

fintail

I like the Ariel Atom...closest thing to a sportbike on 4 wheels maybe

nippononly

Stop calling it an SUV! The SX4 is a small hatch, whatever Suzuki might be promoting it as. It is no more an SUV than a Subaru Impreza (you don't think that is an SUV, I hope?).

Sube's shiftable FWD/AWD/4LO from 20 years ago was an actual truck-style system that added cost and weight, IIRC. People wouldn't pay the premium, and they were slow and thirsty.

So now we have Suzuki bringing in an AWD system that uses an electronic clutch pack on the rear axle exactly like the new RAV4, only for about $6K less. In addition, the RAV won't let you shift into FWD, although that is how it runs when there is no wheel slippage. Which is why the RAV gets virtually the same mileage, in a higher vehicle that weighs about 800 pounds more.

It is a question mark in my mind whether Suzuki will find a lot of buyers looking for a subcompact/compact size car with an AWD system, when Subaru has been suffering at the Impreza's price point because it doesn't offer a FWD version. Of course, Suzuki managed to offer it cheaper. Too bad they couldn't squeeze a standard LSD on the front end into the $15K budget. That would give the "lockable" AWD system a little more cred. I bet it's a fun little car though. If it didn't have AWD, it would still make a pretty good case for itself at $15K. I bet it's faster to 60 mph than the Fit or any of the other cars around that price point, which makes a decent trade-off for the low fuel economy.

As for the Mini, I don't think they will continue to offer the current 115 hp engine in the new model will they? That is only for other countries, or at least so I thought. There will just be two engine choices in the States, of which the new NA engine will be the cheaper, and won't make much more power than the current NA 1.6.

iluvmysephia1

it's so nice to read comments from someone knowledgeable about the SX4 that is not biased to hate it up front. You may not want one but still you have taken the time to gain a chunk of knowledge about it so we can converse about it. Here we'd probably get further talking about the Ford F-150 or the Dodge Caravan. Something mundane and vanilla and dull. This crowd would dig that kind of talk to the max.

Yikes.

Nothing like the facts to confuse people. The 2007 Suzuki SX4 offers too much to piddle it off as an also ran worthy of nobody for nothing. It is designed for driving fun, too, which is also why I am very interested in it. It can be talked about in a thread about subcompacts, too. It's not a big automobile at all.

Tough, tough bunch of hombres.

daysailer

does not a subcompact make.

But we already know that everybody wants one and the dealers can't keep up with supply so we must settle for something else, so what IS that something else? Perhaps a vehicle that really is small (as opposed to not big) and offers a contemporary suspension system and an engine that does not "run out of breath" at 4000 rpm (per Road & Track).

My Ideal subcompact would be something like a Honda Insight with a vastly improved suspension and angine output in the 100hp/L range.

rorr

I like bodywork but having it look like a coffin is just a bit TOO prophetic.....if you know what I mean. Kinda like having a bumper sticker for the local funeral home on the tail end of a sportbike.....

boaz47

Nippon my friend, Edmunds calls the SX4 a SUV. You will have to chastise them for that oversight. But just because it might be smaller than a Explorer doesn’t make the SX4 a sub compact nor does it make it innovative. What is innovative about an open AWD system with an electronic servo selector between front and back? The only diff that gets locked is the one between the front and back but not the diffs between the front or back wheels themselves. However let’s take a look at the SX4. It is 163.9 inches long and 63.2 inches tall and 69.1 inches wide with a 98.4 inch wheel base weighing in at 2800 pounds. While it is about 10 inches shorter than a Jeep Compass in roof line is only 1 inch shorter and its wheel base is only 5 inches shorter. Granted it is lighter by quite a bit, as you have advocated for some time but for all of that the EPA rating for it is the same as the Compass. Doesn’t sound so good for such and advanced AWD system? Give up 1600 pounds and you still get the same mileage? Maybe Edmunds and the EPA made a type? But you said it is no more of an SUV than a Impreza? Once again you are correct. It is lighter and shorter by 10 inches. But it is taller by 6 inches and wider by and inch. Not that the Subaru is a sub compact either is it? But the Subaru has AWD and 166 HP and still the EPA gives it the same mileage rating? Sounds like the SX4 still needs some tweaking for such an advanced system. But should it be considered a Sub compact at all? We all know the standard for compact is either the Civic or Corolla but just to pick one lets look at the Civic. Opps, the civic is shorter than the SX4 by 9 inches and the SX4 is taller than the Civic by close to 9 inches. It the SX4 weighs 400 pounds more than a Civic and the Civic hammers is in EPA fuel mileage. So if someone is calling the SX4 a sub compact then it sucks in the very things Sub Compacts are supposed to be good at.

Now if I did a search for small SUVs would the SX4 come up on my search engine? And if I wanted a SUV could I find many more with better tow ratings, payload ratings and equal fuel mileage? If I wanted a Compact couldn’t I once again do better? We don’t even want to know how the SX4 stands up to Sub Compacts using the criteria you have so often quoted.

boaz47

Now how am I goping to get that picture out of my head?

rorr

Beer.

Lots and lots of beer....

snakeweasel

And if I wanted a SUV could I find many more with better tow ratings, payload ratings and equal fuel mileage?

It is my understanding that the SX4 has no tow rating. To get better fuel economy you either have to get a FWD or hybrid. And IIRC all others have a better payload capacity.

FWIW I think the EPA classifies it as a small station wagon.

Also the EPA website also gives estiments for a FWD SX4 at 33 highway and 26 city.

nippononly

yep, you're right of course. I never meant to assert that the SX4 was a subcompact, although when you sit in it you find that cars that truly ARE subcompacts use their interior space better. The SX4 is close to feeling cramped, but I suppose it is more of a compact than a subcompact. As is the Impreza I compared it to, another car that feels fairly small inside.

boaz47

But using Edmunds EPA rating for all the vehicles we are talking about it is only 29 for the SX4 and it is called a Compact SUV. The Compass is rated at 29 as well. After all we have been talking about the most innovative and attractive vehicle to grace our brochures since the XKE.
As a small station wagon would it be close to a American eagle? And could we find other small station wagons that got better fuel mileage? Are there more proven AWD systems out there? After all we are posting on this site so it only seem fair to use their classifications. And we were talking about Sub Compacts still. So as a Tall sub compact it would suck just as much. Still it is "bigger" than a compact using Civic, Corolla as a base standard. If we are going to make our own standard of what a Sub Compact is can we call a H-3 a Sub Compact. It is smaller than a H-1 or a H-2. We have reached the point of trying to decide if a vehicle qualifies as a Sub Compact simply because someone wants to talk about it? Is it bigger than a bread box or not? If we are talking about the qualities of a vehicle that is smaller than a compact shouldn't we exclude vehicles than are bigger than a compact? If we don't like what Edmunds calls a vehicle should we decide to classify the vehicles according to our own perspective? Maybe the best question is, do we believe someone looking for a sub compact would be interested in a SX4?

boaz47

Once again, we agree. The lines are far too blurred. We are now looking at cars smaller than a Explorer and trying to lump them in with cars that are smaller than an Accord. I would be surprised if the SX4 is taller than an Accord as well.

nippononly

you know what happened, right? Someone heard that the SX4 has AWD, and instantly assumed it must be an SUV. As AWD cars proliferate, "someone" is going to have to rethink their notions....

I think AWD is overrated in a lot of applications, and subcompact cars would definitely be one of them. Too bad we don't have any RWD choices in this segment in North America. But FWD keeps them the lightest of the three configurations, at least.

snakeweasel

As a small station wagon would it be close to a American eagle?

Yes it would, except that the Eagle had some real good ground clearance and I would not hesitate to take that off the road.

And could we find other small station wagons that got better fuel mileage?

I have a small station wagon (actually bigger than the SX4) and I get better mileage.

Maybe the best question is, do we believe someone looking for a sub compact would be interested in a SX4?

Maybe they would if they want AWD and don't mind sacrificing a little fuel economy to get it.

bumpy

I think AWD is overrated in a lot of applications, and subcompact cars would definitely be one of them.

I wouldn't go that far. There are some good AWD subs out there, the Pulsar GTiR for one.

british_rover

I just want a rehash of the Mazda 323 GTX. I wonder how hard it would be to get the AWD tranny and rear diff/suspension from the MS6 into the MS3.