By accessing this website, you acknowledge that Edmunds and its third party business partners may use cookies, pixels, and similar technologies to collect information about you and your interactions with the website as described in our
Privacy Statement, and you agree that your use of the website is subject to our
Visitor Agreement.
Comments
So why is it that the SX4 (which I really like), weights 1000 lbs less, has a much smaller 4 cyl, has over 125 less hp... Only gets 23/28 EPA. Yes it's going to be sportier and it does cost $10 grand less, but...
I wish the SX4 had better fuel economy. Heck, I could live with 23/28 EPA, IF the SX4 had a little more power. As it stands, the auto I drove is SLOW, and the 5 speed I drove is only adequate, not fun, just adequate. It certainly would make my next buying decision easier if Suzuki could offer a bit more.
got to say this little beast is sure fun and is saving me money :-)
0-60 MPH in the low 6's is pretty sporty in my book!
Thanks
D
http://www.suzukiauto.com/sr_07/sx4/
This is being done in case you downshift to slow or stop with the gas pedla fully released and then release the clutch so fast the engine revs cannot be raised fast enough to prevent loss of control...?
I know this isn't adviseable as common practice for a FWD or front torque biased AWD but has anyone tried actually downshifting to reach a reasonably high level of engine braking to see if the DBW engine control automatically raises the engine RPM so as to prevent loss of directional control?
"Thank you for contacting Suzuki Canada.
The described condition is a part of the emissions system with the fly by wire throttle. It holds the RPM for a moment to prevent excessive hydrocarbon emissions.
This is normal and can not be adjusted."
After receiving this explanation I was able to get another test drive in a 5-speed SX4 where the dealer let me have the car for more than an hour. I found that if you only lightly depress the clutch pedal while shifting instead of pushing it all the way to the floor, the hanging revs between shifts are all but eliminated.
Bottom line; It's a quirk of the engine that with time spent in the car will become a non-issue as you adapt to it.
The suspension on this new one, how does it hold up?? I have heavy duty vehicles now a Durango4x4 and GMC 3/4 ton 4x4 and a Jeep Cherokee. That get beat on my roads, but have great suspension so they can handle it...
I don't want to have to buy a new car again too soon
:confuse:
Or where I can go to read up on same?
...here's an article written by Jim Kerr, a Canadian auto mechanic and a teacher of auto shop. The article gives a basic overview of the 2007 Suzuki SX4's powertrain and compares it to other vehicles AWD and 4WD systems. It's well-written and should help give you a better view of how this fine new crossover from Suzuki offers so much for so little money. It still tops my futures list as I rack up miles on my 2001 Kia Sportage 4x4(presently 122,935 and running great). Here's the article link.
http://www.canadiandriver.com/articles/jk/060906.htm
2021 Kia Soul LX 6-speed stick
The SX4 manual I drove had a very light clutch pedal with the clutch engaging/disengaging close to beginning of the clutch pedal travel. I doubt there would be any risk of clutch burn-out with the clutch actuation point this far out in the pedal travel, as opposed to clutches that have there actuation points closer to the floor of the vehicle.
Anyone yet seen an owners manual and can answer the tire chiain question?
http://cars.about.com/od/suzuki/fr/ag_07sx4.htm
Have you ever owned an AWD car? I've never put chains on any AWD car I've owned, and I've been in some pretty deep snow. I guess if you were plowing really deep snow...
Yes, the thing has full-time AWD that works like 4*4 up to 30mph or so. In snow, it'll be exactly the thing you need
2007 Suzuki SX4 Preview
I'm deciding between the SX4 sport and the Subaru Impreza 2.5i sport wagon. MPG for SX4 is 2 mpg better and costs around $2,000 less.
reliability for the Impreza is much better and they have their symetrical AWD pretty much error-free as compared to a fairly new iAWD system for the SX4.
I think Impreza's cargo room is also better with back seats up but not sure with seats folded? not even sure you can have flat folded seat with the Impreza?
SX4 has rear side-curtain air bags but Impreza has IIHS top safety pick 2006 gold marks.
Impreza has 174 hp vs 143 SX4.
what are your thoughts on which car would be better?
In addition, there are some pluses that should be kept in mind regarding the sport version: it will come with keyless ignition, which I've enjoyed with my Prius. The SX4 has a high seating arrangement, which might be an advantage over the Sub. It has the advantage of offering options over the use of 4wd which the Sub doesn't.
The resale sounds like a big deal, but that really depends on how long you keep it. I had an '96 Legacy/Outback that cost $21,000 new. I traded it in with 80k for $5,000 in 2003. It needed major work on the steering system that cost me $1000 six months prior to selling it. Thus, I was out $17,000 for about 8 years of use, roughly $2,000 a year in depreciation. If you kept the $18,000 SX4 for 8 years with $2,000 a year in depreciation, you could trade it for $2,000 and be even with the Sub's depreciation (since the Suzuki warranty would have caught the repair in the Sub). If you plan on selling it within a couple of years, you take a bath with most cars (I sold an MDX after 3 years and lost $15,000!).
Finally, the SX4 is slow, of that I offer no argument. Speed, like many things, is a matter of taste. I've driven a Matrix for 3 years. It's "slow" by most standards (I have the AWD version). It doesn't bother me much. It just means you have to depress the accelerator a bit more aggressively when going from a standing position or attempting to pass. I say, drive the two cars, decide what's really important...then make the decision. (Of course, there are no 'sport' models to drive at this time...
Build quality of the whole car seems pretty good too
After about 2500 miles on ours so far it does feel more quick?
Subaru's do hold their value. Used Subaru's go for insane money around here. You are almost better off buying new. Suzuki's have not held their value well, which makes them a good value used... kind of like the Korean cars.
Both are pretty reliable vehicles. I think Subaru has a better AWD system, but I think the Suzuki one is fine too. Suzuki does have more stuff on it. I think the only place where Suzuki does a lot better than Subaru is beauty. The Impreza is one ugly car. I'd look at the Legacy wagon as well. With discounts, it's pretty close in price to the Impreza. I think I remember seeing one on ad last weekend for about $17k. The base Legacy Outback wagons are going for $18.5k.
The base SX4 is a good value at $15k. The Sport really creeps into Subaru territory though. I think the SX4 is meant for buyers stepping up to that price point. If you can afford the extra money and can deal with an ugly car like the Impreza, I'd go with the Subaru.
I too like better the looks of the SX4, the higher seats and rear curtain air-bags. We already have the sport model available (don't ask me why we get them here first) so I will test drive both.
My concern is rapid depreciation for any lower priced car. Get in an minor accident and the car can be totalled by the insurance company. They look at the market value and a $15k car is now worth $9k. Body repairs have gotten seriously out-of-hand. Doesn't take much to get to the approximate 50% of the car value, depending on how the insurance company figures it.
or
Maybe it unhooks the transfer case from the drive shaft; as the center dif is located on the rear dif which is strange to begin with. So MAYBE to reduce friction to save some fuel???
I don't know so maybe I should have posted as this is my best guess?
But that's right there in your owners manual.
Yes, I have a 2001 AWD RX300, most definitely front torque biased, but it is modified, 1.5" wheel spacers, so rear tire chains can be fitted when/if the need arises. It has. During the winter months I carry both sets but have yet to need to add the front ones. I run on summer tires, Bridgestone Turanzas, year 'round for quietness and comfort.
And "snow", regardless of depth, is almost never the issue. An icy roadbed, snow packed down to an icy layer (sometimes "hiding" under a layer of freshly fallen snow) , those are the conditions that require chains. Our own WSP has just issued an edict that when chains are required on our passes there will be NO exceptions. Too many people with wannabe, pretend, AWD, like my own RX, were causing our passes to be closed due to accidents.
I don't suppose the police are specifying which axles may or may not have chains on them? Yet anyway. :shades:
I prefer car AWD's and not the more top heavy car based SUVs. I've driven some, and they feel less stable to me in snow and ice.
In Oregon, they usually close the roads if chains are required. Makes sense to me.
http://167.131.0.179/Pages/RCMap.asp?mainNav=RoadConditions&staticNav=ChainLaws
I do think Suzuki's are pretty reliable. I would be a bit worried about the new GM Theta platform XL-7, although it does have a Suzuki built engine. Between the two, I think Subaru's are a little more reliable, but I wouldn't hesitate to recommend most Suzuki models.
i am from Quebec, Canada,(above NY state
moved in kansas last yr.
as far as I know, not many places in USA get as much snow as we get up there and NEVER in my life have I seen ANY car driving down the road with chains!
i think it is illegal anyways, most ppl drive with winter tires(maybe that is the difference??!!) or 4 season tires (the brave ones do that
we always had 4x4 trucks or AWD cars when i was a kid, I personally owned a 4x4 wrangler and a cherokee and i never needed to use chains on any of them.
the only thing i can think of that has chains on the tires are snow blowers
as i said, this is just my comments