What is "wrong" with these new subcompacts?

boaz47

So from that response is there any positive reason to get a SX4? Does it fit in the class we call sub compacts? And if you wanted AWD and were willing to pay for it anyway how do we determine what it is worth? Is it worth both fuel mileage and the weight penalty? If so is the system superior to the proven system of Subaru? If I am willing to pay for AWD and it is one of my top considerations do I have better offerings than a SX4? In other words is the SX4 worthy of a brass band and balloons flying with flowery descriptions of how it is the only well designed car on the market today? If it were obviously superior to other cars in its class will it become a sales leader? I have my doubts.

snakeweasel

So from that response is there any positive reason to get a SX4?

Yeah if you want or need an inexpensive AWD car, if you like that car or if you want something somewhat unique.

And if you wanted AWD and were willing to pay for it anyway how do we determine what it is worth?

Thats an individual choice.

If I am willing to pay for AWD and it is one of my top considerations do I have better offerings than a SX4?

To be honest not at that price range. If you're willing to spend more yes there are. Is it worth it to pay the extra? well thats a personal choice.

In other words is the SX4 worthy of a brass band and balloons flying with flowery descriptions of how it is the only well designed car on the market today?

No, its worthy of a "hey as a less expensive alternative take a gander at this" and as an after thought.

lilengineerboy

My Ideal subcompact would be something like a Honda Insight with a vastly improved suspension and angine output in the 100hp/L range.
Here Here. Hmm kind of like a 88-91 Honda Civic CRX with a B18c (the vtec Integra motor) would put you in the 30mpg range with ~200 hp in a ~2200lb car (I think the '88s were a little lighter, and if you got a non-SI it would be lighter still). Another option would be a 70s Rabbit with the modern VAG 1.8t (1800lbs/~190hp).

boaz47

Ahh, now we are talking, except the insight is so ugly you have to sneak up on the garage door to get inside. But a CRX with Vtec is just what most of the people are doing. I have nooooo faith in a Rabbit even with a 1.8, better known as the oil burner. But between oil changes it would run like a scalded dog. All that and fuel mileage to boot.

john500

Good plan. Unfortunately, a CRX (in good condition) would get ripped off within a week if parked in front of my house. Not to mention the Acura GRS that will also get ripped off for the engine.

I've heard Mr Shiftright say it before. I'd also like to see the Scion xA get the Corolla motor (a Scion GT 126 hp and ~2400 lbs) and also get a supercharged version of the Corolla motor (a Scion GTS 165 hp and 2400 lbs) and have them sell for ~ $16-17 K and $18-19 K, respectively. When you go above a horsepower to weight ratio (hp/lb) of 7.5 % or so in a front wheel drive, you will really get some awkward torque steer. Focus on improved handling, moderate fuel economy and comfort to justify the 19 K in a little car and don't worry about making a Frankenstein-type power car.

lilengineerboy

How about the Pontiac Vibe GT/Matrix XRS/Corolla S/Celica GTS 1.8 VVTi motor in an xA? It takes premium but is a step in the right direction.
There is some guy by my house that has 2 or 3 Ford Festivas sitting in his driveway and I saw a trashed Capri XR2 there over the weekend...Me thinks he is dropping the 1.6l turbo from the Capri in the Fiesta. I think that is the Mazda turbo motor.

boaz47

You are right of course. The only problem is they don't tend to do that with entry level cars. You have to move up a notch to get better handling or a bit more HP. The solution to the xA is the motor from the tC and some suspension from TRD. Problem solved. It just doesn't seem as if you can get a good motor below 2.0 for power and weight. Ok some 1.8s but that is so close. It isn't like it can't be done. The Focus and Mazda3 are noted as pretty good handlers. The RSX is no slouch nor is the new Civic SI. I don't know much about the Sentra SE-R or the Corolla S. But once you start on that path the HP wars begin.

boaz47

It would take a lot more than Motor to make the Fiesta into a runner. It had ever so typical econo car suspension. But if you had the time it would make a great sleeper.

lilengineerboy

The tC has the 2.4 out of the Camry I believe. That is a pretty plane jane motor and will need some serious attention to get the 100hp/liter goal mentioned. They do have a supercharger for it, though.
Another thought would be a healthy 12a or 13b with forced induction. It should be easy to get 100hp/liter from 1.3 liters if you go rotary. Grassroots Motorsports put a RX7 engine in a Sprite a few years back for a cover story project. Maybe an old Mini would take that as well...

boaz47

Light and powerful yes. But the RX7 took some spooling up to give it punch. Once on the pipe it was a hoot to drive. But you better row the gears to keep it there. And it burned as much fuel as a V-8. Would be just as easy to use a small v-6 for the street and have to torque to boot. But I like the idea for a Sprite. It is the same principal that they used to make the Tiger.

kyfdx

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.

I owned an '88 323GTX... that car was a hoot.. The AWD was there for handling purposes, and to get that massive 135 hp to the ground...

Really.. The MazdaSpeed3 could do without about 40hp and add AWD... More along the lines of an R32..

lilengineerboy

The issue is dimensions, I was trying to think of very small motors that would fit in very cramped engine bays. I was also thinking of things that were light enough that they wouldn't affect the over all balance of the car.
A Buick aluminum 231 in a TR7 did a lot to change the dynamics, but the SR20DET in a 240SX was offset by moving the battery to the trunk and going with the Japanese fixed headlight front end.

Mr_Shiftright

The new MINI will get a Renault engine for more power. So we'll have that delightful blend of English, French and German that has worked so well in the past.

snakeweasel

The new MINI will get a Renault engine for more power.

Yeah but it will give up the first time someone challenges it at a light?

british_rover

Nope because the German made transmission is holding a bayonet to the french engines back.

boaz47

Have we been reading each others mail? But the Old TR motor was heavy. There were a number of Chevy or ford swaps into MGs and TRs that worked quite well. I have a fireman living close to me that has a MGB with a 231. What a quick little car that is. Thank goodness tires have improved over the years.

Did you ever see a pocket rocket with a set of BFG scorchers? Some cities outlawed them I understand because kids used to light them up just to see the colorful patch they put down. When my son was still living at home we used to go to the import drags a lot. Those kids understood small and light with a bit more HP very well.

I know my experience with these new kids has tainted my opinion of how kids will accept the new sub compacts. I just can't see them forking out 14 or 15k on a new car with 108 or 109 HP and nothing else to work with. I truly believe they would rather get a used Civic, Sentra or something like that with potential for some degree of "real" performance rather than a Scion or a Fit or even a Versa. They just have too many options in the fairly new used car market to settle for a Sub Compact like the ones we see today. Now retired people might be another story. They have more disposable income and they value dependability over performance.

iluvmysephia1

turns...it can take it!

boaz47

The wheels aren't moving, is it stuck? I have a riding lawn mower that could take that road.

snakeweasel

Are you kidding a two year old in a big wheel could take that road.

Lets see it do this:

lilengineerboy

It looks like an AMC Pacer with a VW nose.




I'm not being critial, but man, odd bedfellows.

iluvmysephia1

2007 Suzuki SX4's body design blows the closest competitor of all of the pictures posted subsequently cleanly outta da water. Truly the SX4 is built well and looks great.

lilengineerboy

I am glad your excited about what could possibly be your next ride. Its nice to see the enthusiasm.

boaz47

That is wheeling. Have you been to my carspace? You should check out some of my Johnson Valley pictures from September. http://www.carspace.com/boaz47 But we digress.

snakeweasel

Oh come on its not that ugly

andre1969

to be an SUV in the same sense that a PT Cruiser or HHR or xB is an SUV. I mean, they're not "real" SUVs in the sense of a Jeep Wrangler, but they're not quite traditional cars either.

I think the problem is that "SUV" is starting to become a catch-phrase for any passenger vehicle that can elude classification as a car, but at the same time manages to side-step the stigma of being called a minivan.

Isn't the Caliber classified as an SUV too?

andre1969

I actually don't find them to be all that ugly, just odd. Well, those later models with the pretentious stand-up grille were kinda ugly, but I think the models with the simple, clean, low grille were kinda cool. In a geeky sort of way.

lilengineerboy

The story I heard was it was supposed to have a rotary engine that was developed with GM but at the last minute they chickened out and tried to cram too big an engine into the engine bay so it went into the interior.
Again, I am looking for a source to confirm that on the net but something along those lines is what I remember hearing.

iluvmysephia1

but the AMC Gremlin, now that was a car with....with...potential! I drove one in 1983 with the possibility of buying it but settled on a large boat called a Chevrolet Suburban instead. All 9 mpg of it.

The Gremlin, which IIRC had a 6 cyl.motor and automatic tranny, had decent acceleration and pickup, but I just didn't trust an AMC product. It was this weird green color. It would have been a good "car that your neighbor doesn't have" type of rig to enjoy. Sometimes I regret it but I bought the 13 year old Suburban instead.

boaz47

Well, that says all that has to be said. You are the very first person I have ever talked to that considered the Gremlin as having potential. I will grant you with being one of the most consistent people I have ever talked to about cars. Might I ask what your take was on the Aztec? Did you like the Pacer as well?

plekto

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

Then how come allmost all modern cars these days weight the same or more than my old Mercedes?

3000lbs. Size of a Totoya Camry. The new cars have a lot of dead-weight in them somewhere, that's for sure. GM and Ford - doubly so. 3600 lbs for the LaCrosse and about the same power to weight ratio as a 40+ year old design.(less if you consider the 300SE back then. 200HP to the rear wheels and 3100 lbs. Virtually no plastic, and at least 200 lbs more weight in sheetmetal than a Camry.

Makes you wonder what's up.

iluvmysephia1

was of the same sort of ilk I place upon those who somehow think that Subaru's are worthy of laying out hard-earned pesos. Unimaginable. The Pacer was a Subaru of old. Only, to show you how ill-trained the modern America's eye is for body design, people are buying up Subaru's like old Michael Jordan basketball cards.

The AMC Gremlin, though, had more potential in design. It was fun to drive in my test drive but I didn't trust the AMC branding.

The Pontiac Aztek is even uglier than the Scion xB, yet, to show us how little that always matters to people, the Scion xB sold fairly well. Not anything like the tC but it sold more than some might think it ever should have. The Aztek was ugly even when washed, waxed and shined up. The Gremlin is a better looking autombobile than the xB or the Aztek.

The 2007 Suzuki SX4 eclipses all these rigs with the greatest of ease with it's freeflowing body design and aggressive powertrain. The SX4 drivestance is one that says "take me for a spin and don't worry about slopping around in the mud, ice and snow for a while, either."

When you consider it's low entry price of $14,999 and it's long Warranty, 7 years and 100,000 miles, it is the brighest star in the 2007 group of vehicles by a longshot.

Mr_Shiftright

Scion has a pretty darn strong aftermarket. Many kids don't want to really go fast, they just want to look cool. What with police vigilance these days and strict speed laws, unless a kid is racing off-road in some venue he's dead meat trying to race around on public roads--and he knows it.

So I think the accessory market keeps the young interested in subcompacts.

I'm sure I or even more clever than I could build a Scion xA to tear the head off some old MGB for a lot less than the $12,000 it takes to buy a nice old MG-V/8.

The difference in speed tuning these days is electronics and bolt-on turbo kits. You can get a computer whiz to tweak your little Scion or Versa and you'd be amazed what he can do with very little in the way of actual hardware.

nippononly

OK, here's the deal, bottom line: we put iluv in a brand new SX4 and Shifty in his '06 ('05?) xA, and give them any course in any weather as long as it is on paved roads, and there isn't anywhere iluv will be able to go in the Suzuki that Shifty can't go in his Toyota. iluv might be a little quicker off the line though, if both drivers are evenly matched.

As for the SX4's off-pavement abilities, I think it will be a lot more show than go unfortunately, much the way the first Outbacks (and arguably ALL the Outbacks) were. It has little ground clearance, low-profile all-season tires picked for improved handling on-pavement (which always suck in the snow, trust me - I had one of the first Outback Sports, which used Potenzas), and open diffs front and rear.

And after all is said and done, the SX4 cost iluv $2K more than Shifty's xA cost him. Now, strictly on its merits as a little FWD hatch, it does OK at this price point - it has alloys and rear discs to Shifty's wheel covers and rear drums, and also has keyless entry at the base price. However, it has much lower fuel economy (it will consume a full 25% more gas). If you ignore the "offroad benefits" which are largely vapor IMO, it still makes a decent case for itself.

iluvmysephia1

I won't argue any of that with you. Your comments are well-thought out and cause a person to think about what you're saying. Ignore my Subaru comments(I'm sure you already are)if you respectfully disagree. An enthusiast doesn't always make a knowledgeable car person, as this thread is evidence of. Shifty in his Scion xA in 5-speed form would no doubt be able to follow the SX4 wherever it went, I agree.

Intersting comparison of rigs, actually, those two along with the Kia Rio5 are at the top of my list for that distant time in the future where all of the Arizona planets line up just right for me to trade in.

My test drive of a Polar White 2006 Scion xA in 5-speed form over in eastern Idaho revealed a car that would fit me very well. It's 5-speed shift setup was easy to move. Finding the right gear was easy and the car accelerated fine for my style of driving. Remember, I'm driving a 2001 Kia Sportage 4x4 that I'm not really afraid of holding up anyone behind me in as it is. To me going fast is a carnival ride I'm not very down with(old fogey's-use your powers of hip reason on that last comment, you can get it).

You're kind of wily nippon! Some early reviews of the 2007 Suzuki SX4 reveal a car that has decent but limited power and a solid drivestance. Not loud in the cabin(an improvement for Suzuki rigs)and an engine that will start fading out on higher rpm's. Is anyone confused by this information? Of course not!

The encouraging parts of the reviews are the reduced cabin noise with the SX4, low price, solid i-AWD powertrain capabilities that work well-they're there if you want to use them, yes, great Warranty, good handling and a fun to drive vehicle. Oh, and that physique!

I shouldn't leave out 4-wheel disc brakes, ABS with electronic brakeforce distribution, gobs of airbags including the ones now viewed as ultra-important-side curtain airbags, AM/FM/CD/MP3 w/4-speaker stereo, air conditioning, power w's/l's and m's, tire pressure monitor, mpg ghastly-an-o-met-ah, tachometer, tempguage, keyless fob, fender flares, roof rails and those nice little silver bumper guards front and back all come with the little crossover as standard equipment for $14,999 if you buy a manual-trannied SX4.

Oh, how very, very tempting it all is.

nippononly

in weighing your comparison, you should not forget that the xA has a far better stereo (with six speakers and steering wheel controls) than the base SX4 stereo. Of course, stereos are the easiest thing of all to upgrade aftermarket, if you so desire. But you should add that money to the price of the SX4 in comparing the two vehicles.

And Rio5? If you can get past the oh-so-crappy shifter and one or two other things, it may be your best value, if not the best driver.

iluvmysephia1

reading a brand new review from a brand new 2007 Suzuki SX4 owner here on Edmunds, they say that they purposely played their SX4's stereo on high volume for a few days to "break it in." They were pleasantly surprised at how well it sounded. We can take that FWIW but it's the first feedback I've read so far on the SX4's stereo.

Yeah, the Kia Rio5 is still in the running. I should test drive a Rio5 with manual tranny to see what the fuss is about the shifter...compared to the '01 Sportage 4x4 it may feel like a knife through hot butter!

plekto

The thing about the SX-4 that is interesting is how it's just a basic vehicle with off-road potential. For $15K, you could easily have enough left over to add in a few inches of lift and some decent BFG tires to turn it into something at least as capable as most of the other yuppie-toy SUVs. You couldn't buy a stripped-down Wrangler 2WD for $16-17K.

http://www.zukiworld.com/forum/index.php?PHPSESSID=f751b98f05f2b8546a4332cba3e9c- fdc&topic=13794.new
It's coming.

Original:6.9 inches
With 4 inch Kit and BGF tires: 11.0 inches.(bigger tires add a smidge)

If you can't off-road with 11 inches of clearance, you're a putz and deserve what you get. A Wrangler Rubicon has 11 inches, btw. A RAV-4? 7.5 inches. The Rav-4 is about 5K more money and not as capable as what even a puny 2 inch lift kit will accomplish.(4 is a bit overkill, I'm positive a 2 inch will also be offered)

british_rover

Err but I am going to take a wild guess and say the SX-4 does not have low range...

Without low range you aren't going to be doing much off-roading.

Probably the most capable non-low range equiped Vehicle is the Freelander and that is just because it has crazy traction control system and axle articulation.

You think anyone is going to make a 4 inch lift kit for something low production like a SX-4? I guess if you custom make one...

Off-roading is not just about ground clearance you need axle articulation and a strong chassis neither of which this thing is going to have.

The thing also has approach and deparure angle sof 16 something degrees that is no good at all.

snakeweasel

Err but I am going to take a wild guess and say the SX-4 does not have low range...

I think that the AWD lock that it has is really the low range seeing that it supposively disengages at around 35 MPH.

Anyway this car is not made for off roading.

nippononly

No, the SX4 does not have a low range. The 'lock' mode merely sets the torque split at 50/50 front to rear, fixed, as opposed to the AWD system which varies it depending on traction. Once again, a 'lock' mode with open differentials front and back is a little silly, but it does mean you have to have two slipping wheels (one at each end of the car) before you lose traction completely.

iluvmysephia1

I'm not one to want to wrench my rig between rocks. AAMOF-what is the big thrill about that anyway?

The 2007 Suzuki SX4 would have all the extra capability I would need for how I use rigs, period. A little extra traction here or there. Or, if I get several wild hairs standing on end some days and want to forage around at the ridgeline of Mt.Graham, I would want to engage the SX4's AWD-Lock capability for a tad.

It would work for me because 4WD is not the end-all in a vehicle for me. However, I have needed it several times with my '01 Sportage 4x4. The Sportsman's 4x4 was what got me out of several slippery-stuck situations and I would rather have it than not on my next rig.

But I don't need a real 4WD rig and I don't want to wedge my rig between rocks, climb into and out of canyons nor climb tall cliffs faster than the next guy. Doesn't interest me and it never has. If I want to get someplace like that I'll just park my rig and walk there with a pack on my back, eh?

plekto

Well, it certainly would work for mud, dirt roads, and all the other junk.

daysailer

to the subcompact discussion?

Whatever the SX4 may be, it is hardly a subcompact.

snakeweasel

Are you sure? I have read in one or two places that it is a low range 4WD. But then again it was in a few reviews that gave other info in error so take that for whats its worth. And if its not why does it disengage at high speeds?

wave54

Whatever happened to the subcompact discussion?

Agreed! At the top of the page under the forum title, it lists Fit, Versa and Yaris -- NOT SUVs, 1956 Ramblers and certainly NOT the SX4. That vehicle has its own dedicated forum.

wtd44

So... The other day I found myself at the Chevrolet store looking at Aveos. Do they have a reputation? The little hatchback sure fits the little car motif. The price starts under 12K bucks, and that made me stay to look a little longer. The sedan model looks huge by comparison. :shades:

wave54

The price starts under 12K bucks, and that made me stay to look a little longer. The sedan model looks huge by comparison.

The hatch (not redesigned for '07) starts under $10K. I have a 2004 sedan -- it was the 1st model year and I have suspension problems (plentiful creeks and groans, looseness, sway, body roll...), but basically not a bad car for the money.

Roomy for a big guy like me, quiet engine, reasonably economical and reliable. Have 95K miles, starts instantly and never misses a beat -- still have original plugs and wires.

Certainly not for the enthusiast, but for basic transportation it fits the bill for thousands less than its competition. Heard the suspension was improved for '06 and again for the '07 sedan.

plekto

10K on something used will get you a very nice midsize car. Sometihng made twice as well all around.

boaz47

Thank you. We come back to the subject. That is exactly what we have come to expect from a Sub Compact. For those thinking about basic transportation that fits the bill pretty well. It isn't till you hit 13 or 14K you run into the class problem. While some may not need a bigger car if they can get one for the same money they more than likely will. If you can get a lot more car for a few more bucks you will most often get the supersize impulse.

boomchek

Speaking of subcompacts the Smart cars are very popular here in Vancouver not only for hip trendy people, but also as promo cars for various companies.

Personally I'd go for something more conventional with a back seat and decent room as it costs about $21k CDN