Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Suzuki Grand Vitara 2006 through 2008



  • revjim64revjim64 Posts: 78
    Can't you just get a repair maual for a 2002 Chevy or Geo Tracker.

    :shades: The Tracker is just a Suzuki G V with a Chevy Emblem.
  • revjim64revjim64 Posts: 78
    I have an 07 GV

    Does anyone know what valve adjustments need to be done at the 22000 mile service check up?

    Is it expensive to have the valve backlash adjusted?

    Is anyone having problems with valves and valve tap with the 06 or 07 Vitaras?
  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    So far we haven't heard of anyone having work done on the valve adjustment, and some of the '06 GV's have passed the mileage mark for this. We also have not heard of anyone having trouble with them. The inclusion of this in the service procedures seems to be more of a "covering all possible bases" rather than something that was known to be needed. As more '06's pass the mileage and elapsed time for this item, we'll get a better idea of what it means in reality. Estimates for the procedure range from someone listening for valve train noise, to an inspection and adjustment costing $300 - $1200. So you can see it's quite uncertain so far.
  • revjim64revjim64 Posts: 78
    Xostnot, are you a Service Technician?

    Do you know of any common problems with the 06 and 07 Grand Vitaras that I should look out for?
  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    I'm not in the automobile field. Sorry, by "we" I was referring to a far more active discussion of the '06-'07 GV on another forum. I avoid linking to it so it won't look like I'm "poaching" participants here. This site has a worthwhile discussion of the new generation Grand Vitaras, but there is another forum that is much more busy and informative. There is another site that is purely for the new GV, but it's not highly active.

    Having said that, there are a few things people have run into. There's no easy way for anyone but the dealers to know how common any of them are, but I think you can be assured the list is no reason for avoiding purchasing a Grand Vitara.

    Most people will have one or more from this list, but none will have more than a few, and extremely few will have the serious one, which is the vibrations. Ours was bought in Dec, '05, and has the ones with the (*). The '07's haven't been out long enough to know how many of these have been fixed, but I understand the vibrations, loose seat bolts, and faulty cruise controls have been fixed.

    - fast rear tire wear due to misalignment
    - slightly warped glass in rear-view mirrors*
    - drivers seat bolts not tight enough*
    - very rare bad battery
    - serious bad vibrations while driving
    - rough shifting of automatic
    - one case of overheated floor under heavy load
    - leather in front seat bottoms stretches*
    - condensation inside headlights or taillights*
    - cruise control doesn't work properly
    - one or two complaints about noise in the steering assembly

    You can also look up the NHTSA safety complaint listings for the GV. There are relatively few, especially if you don't count the duplicate entries.
  • We traded our 05 Verona and got an 07 GV. Suzuki offered $4750 in incentives plus a little extra for me being a firefighter. So all in all a little over $5000 in incentives which covered all the negative equity from that Verona. It rolled off the lot with 16 miles on it. It's pretty smooth running and shifting. We got the 5-speed automatic. It's nowhere near as smooth as the Verona though, but that's comparing apples to oranges. We just have 130 miles on it now but will keep you posted on it. A lot of cool features and the insurance is cheaper because of all the safety features. :)
  • js06gvjs06gv Frisco, TXPosts: 444
    I just found this forum and joined. I've read most of the messages posted on the site and agree with most of the pros and cons. I was extremely impressed with the GV when I discovered it last year, especially at the price ('06 Lux 2WD, MSRP $23,794 and paid 19K plus TTL). A year later, the impression hasn't been as long-lasting as I had hoped. The SUV looks great inside and out, gets many compliments, handles great, and my wife loves it(which I guess is all that should matter). But I'm a real car guy and very critical too. The gas mileage is horrible, road/engine noise continues to get worse, the rattles from the rear of the interior never go away, the ride is rough, and I'm dealing with the same tire wear issues as others I've read about on this site. My biggest disappointment, however, stems from me not putting my foot down when my wife chose "racy red" as the color. Looks great from a distance, but I never expected a manufacturer in 2006 would still be selling cars with single stage (no clear coat) paint! With 4 cars, this one stays outside and if I'm not quick enough in cleaning off the bird crap when it hits then I'm left with stains that won't wax out. There are also several "clouds" in the paint when you look at it in a certain light that wouldn't see on a clear-coated car. They were there when the car was new, and the dealer buffed some out but the car doesn't have the shine it should. Suzuki insists this is a clear-coat color, but my own testing and confirmation from paint manufacturers reveals it isn't. Funny, the wheels have clear coat on them, evidenced by the peeling clear on one of them. I had an appointment for a Suzuki rep to look at it earlier this week, as well as address the tire wear issue, but he cancelled the visit and I have no resolution as of yet. I love that Suzuki is the underdog out there and you don't see yourself coming and going. I even got my neighbor to buy one back when I was still happy with the rig. I really wanted to like this car but I'm disappointed that I will likely look elsewhere for a replacement. There are plenty of other minor issues that I can certainly live with, but maybe I expected too much for my 19K.

    2016 Kia Optima SX, 2015 Ford Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150 King Ranch, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6, 2001 Kawasaki Vulcan 800 Classic

  • norwoodsmnnorwoodsmn Posts: 168
    Welcome to Suzuki ownership. Not much can be added here that has not been said before, and you've said you've read prior posts. Love/angst. I think you have to be an owner who takes them on [intentional] at least minor off road excursions from time to time, to be able to justify putting up with the mileage they get in everyday driving. Even the new XL-7 with it's 3.6 liter motor, (ok, ok, a completely different vehicle), gets one or more mpg's highway, vs.
    Le Grand. I sure hope the rumored, (see the old posts),
    3.2 liter engine is in the wings for '08. If so, I still think a base awd GV could serve as a surrogate Subaru Outback/Forester, but for much less money in a more user friendly sized package. Such a new EFFICIENT mill should make quite a fair bit of difference mileage wise. That could restore the cost/benefit ratio re: owning one of these attractive rigs, including for day to day use, closer to where it ought to be RIGHT NOW.

    Suzuki has little excuse any longer to produce vehicles with the quirks listed in this blog, "minor" though some or even many of them may be. When and if that GENERIC problem IS overcome, and again they get decent mileage, etc., I'd probably buy another. Till then, I wonder if the Chinese or Koreans might just beat them to it? We could use another 4 cylinder, better mileage off road capable Suzuki again, (a modern Vitara), but I doubt Suzuki will build it. For myself, I'm pretty well past caring, other than obviously retaining some latent interest here. I continue to feel Suzuki has a number of more important things they should be working on other than marketing success. God, give 'em multi million dollar bonuses now for the sales numbers, or put that money into product refinement? I remain to be convinced Suzuki is "diverting" sufficient capital into product refinement. In that regard, they remain a long long way away from Toyota, Honda, or Mazda. Why? Thanks for another perspective here.

  • budman3budman3 Posts: 187
    Nwdsmn, So why do YOU constantly come here to remind US of things that were already said in past posts? You bash the GV and want it to be something it isn't and expect Suzuki to change it just for YOU. YOU will NEVER buy one and should put your energy towards something more useful. Can't imagine what that would be other than telling people what kind of car they should buy also. Wait, you already did that, TOO. There are people out there that buy things to fit their needs. That's why we have different manufacturers for products. If we all bought the same car, tv, home, we would all be boring, like YOU.
  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    remind US of things that were already said in past posts?

    Perhaps because he was responding to a noob? It's easy to scroll past messages you don't want to read.

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • revjim64revjim64 Posts: 78
    I have an 07 GV and I have 10,000 miles on it so far.

    I am getting about 17-18MPG (City/rural)
    Kinda sucks, but my old Ford F-150 only got 13Mpg.

    I also have an 2002 Chevy Impala, what a piece of crap!
    BCM problems, Steering shaft noise, bad passlock sensor, bad intake manifold gasket! I will never buy a Chevy again!!

    This Suzuki GV is my first Japaneese Car/SUV. So far no mechanical problems! Rides a little stiff, but the 4WD is awesome in the snow! I will report back in a year and see if my opinion is unchanged!
  • js06gvjs06gv Frisco, TXPosts: 444
    OK, I'll ask. Tidester, as I'm evidently being labeled a noob, please enlighten me as to exactly what that is?

    2016 Kia Optima SX, 2015 Ford Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150 King Ranch, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6, 2001 Kawasaki Vulcan 800 Classic

  • tidestertidester Posts: 10,059
    Hi, JS!

    Sorry about that - "noob" is short for "newbie" which simply means a person who is new to a given forum. We welcome new people (we were all new at one time!) and, generally, old timers are very helpful to those just starting out. We look forward to your continued participation. :)

    tidester, host
    SUVs and Smart Shopper
  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    I don't mind norwoodsman's comments. He's well informed about the GV, whether or not everyone always has the same opinion as he does. He's hardly been bombarding the topic with posts, and sheesh, no one else seemed to have much to say. We've all been known to repeat ourselves....
  • js06gvjs06gv Frisco, TXPosts: 444
    Thanks. I should have been smart enough to figure that one out.....Anyway, I'm a new Santa Fe Limited owner now, so look for me over there.

    2016 Kia Optima SX, 2015 Ford Mustang GT, 2013 Ford F-150 King Ranch, 2000 Pontiac Trans Am WS6, 2001 Kawasaki Vulcan 800 Classic

  • bm000092bm000092 Posts: 70
    Looks like may be the GV has a quality control issue?
    Again it is hard to be affirmative since you don't ear often from the people that don't have any complaints on most of the Forums and a lot more from the ones that in fact have something to say, just like the news on TV.
    However I can say that I'm still please with my 06 GV. After 18 months, 2 winters with lot of salt/sand/small rock, it still looks almost new. No paint stain, swirls,..., yes some few dents from small rocks, but not worse than my previous vehicules, it's to be expected here. No rattles yet, no vibrations (my Cherokee did at 30 and 60 mph), in fact no problems at all. I get decent mpg (average of 22mpg (US gal.)in city, and 27mpg on highway (30 mpg my best). I think that the 2.7l V6 engine is performing as expected as well, it is not big (many L4 are almost as big), it's not a race car, but peppy enough, doing fine for the every day driving and powerful enough to tow my 2000lbs pop-up without problem. It fufills my needs for winter driving to get me to the ski slops, towing, accasional off road for fishing, it gives me back what I paid for, and hey, it's fun to drive.
    You see them a lot in my area (there is over 10 dealers with 40 miles), and everyone I see with are pleased.
  • allie9allie9 Posts: 1

    I bought a 2007 GV at the end of Feb. and had a mandatory government inspection yesterday (moving to Alberta). My 1998 dodge neon passed and my 4 month old GV failed because of tire wear. Some spots did not even have 2mm left of tread. Has anyone else experienced this type of wear? I know it was a cold winter this year, but I didn't think it would cost me a pair of tires to stay gripped on the ice for 2 months. I can't find any recalls on the web, but I haven't done anything weird with my car, so I'm thinking there's got to be someone else out there with this prob. I'm bringing it in on Monday, so I'll update you. Please anyone with info!!!

  • norwoodsmnnorwoodsmn Posts: 168
    Hi again xostnot, nice to hear from you too. Unfortunately, I saw the current edition of Consumer Reports (auto issue), on the news stand today. I don't dare let pass from my finger tips here, what they said about the new GV's reliability rating, as obviously someone here would accuse me of making it all up.
    So not to offend anyone, let me just focus on what their data says re: prior years, (bear with me here), specifically the 2001 to 2004 Grand Vitara's and XL--7 models. What does it show? Literally a patchwork quilt of widely varying specific quality issues, from year to year. Using common sense, (ooops, that should get me into trouble here too?), the data shows that you'd be better off buying a used 2002, vs. a 2004, reliability wise, when I'd honestly thought by '04 they'd have the bugs worked out, right? What does this have to do with the new GV? Let me help at least one individual [again] here. When the quality control issues keep cropping up and are not resolved in subsequent model years, and especially when and if nothing is said about it, well then hey, what you see is what you get, again, and again, and again. And again, and, (etc), seems too bad it's beyond the grasp of some here as to why it just might be important to do a squeeky wheel act, vs. aping and ostrich. Lots of sand down there in the southwest, I guess...

    The bigger motor, (3.2l), if it ever shows up down there under the hood of them, (please, please), is not a raw power thing. Why?, guess what, it, would have to be more fuel efficient. than the 2.7, and what pray tell would be wrong with wanting that, yesterday?

    Again, look at all the Suzuki SUV data in the current Consumer Reports, see, (gasp) the truth about the predicted reliability of the new GV, look at the older historic data, and see what "it" might tell you, and make up your own mind about weather or not it just might be possible there is, [for a long time now], AMPLE REASON for Suzuki to begin investing FAR more capital into quality control.... Quite right, though I kick the tires on 'em at the local dealership regularly, having my other two Suzuki vehicles serviced, regrettabley until they at least address the mileage issue, (and more, I would hope!), they've lost me, perhaps for good....
  • bm000092bm000092 Posts: 70
    That problem has been reported a couple of times. I even think that there is a TSB in Canada about it: the problem is related with rear wheel alignment. They are suppose to correct it under warranty, and eared that some had their tires replaced under warranty as well.
  • I just had my tires rotated on my 06 GV, quite surprised at the tire wear on the front, but the service guy said that was typical on 4X4's.

    Where can I research current (and past) techical service bulletins and recalls for Suzuki? I found this link:

    But you have to pay for each TSB !? Seems to me if there is a known issue with a vehicle under warranty, Suzuki should alert the owner.

    Besides that and a few hiccups with this new vehicle, I'm a happy owner.
  • norwoodsmnnorwoodsmn Posts: 168
    Alignment/O.E. tire quality? Thanks for adding to the discussion. It expresses some of the good news which naturally we'd all like to be hearing here. Just "a few hiccups". But what I continue to wait for is to see Suzuki reliability in market wide measurement reports, (like Consumer Reports, and their first one just issued re: the new Grand Vitara), to show steady incremental improvement over time. Generically, going back thru the data mentioned however, it appears to be dejavu, (more of the same). With the quantum leap in Suzuki's proven marketing abilities now, and yes, their great advancement in general product design, why isin't it finally time for reliability to catch up? Put another way, would we be having this discussion if the badge on the butt read: Toyota or Honda? That's my sole point, and it's a point I take no pleasure is having, (mostly in vain?), attempted to make to new to the breed owners. Specifically, if you want to own them long term, be prepared yourself to demand more when more is needed from Suzuki. It is needed, the odd blind cheerleader notwithstanding....
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    You can get TSB summaries from the Edmunds Maintenance Guide (maybe that's all the Pitstop has unless you pay?). The NHTSA has the summary listings too and occasionally they'll have full text of something.

    TSBs are advisory in nature and the dealer doesn't have to perform them if they don't think the problem exists. So take your service manager donuts or something. :shades:

    You, Your Vehicle and the Technical Service Bulletin
  • bm000092bm000092 Posts: 70
    TSBs are not the same country to country.

    My tires still look pretty good after 20k, they should last 50k, so I don't think that yours should wear more than any other types of car (4x4 or not).
  • steverstever Posts: 52,683
    The Denver in the username made me assume CO and not BC - I must be automatically translating KMs to miles now. :shades:

    Don't know about Canadian TSBs. Anyone know a source?
  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    The premature rear tirewear issue is being reported, not regularly, but occasionally. Enough that unless the mileage is high, Suzuki should replace the tires also. Most owners, including myself, are reporting very slow tire wear. It's important to rotate the tires on the schedule provided, and it's not clear everyone is doing that. The GV's rear tires are cambered in a few degrees, and without rotation they will wear out the inside edges of the rear tires early.

    It takes eneregy to wear tires out, and those with the alignment problem should also be getting bad mileage. Not to mention poor handling. Besides the risk of a blowout, this is a safety risk in another sense. Fast wearing tires mean the tires are always in a bit of a skid. On slippery surfaces or cornering with marginal traction, this will greatly contribute to premature loss of control. I that sense, I believe Suzuki is remiss in not contacting owners of the new generation GV's to check them for this problem. I believe it is irresponsible for them to wait until people come back with their rear tires shot, let alone letting misaligned vehicles go off the lot to begin with. If you're in the US, it's important to report this sort of thing to the NHTSA website. Suzuki can't ignore that.

    I watch closely a much more busy GV discussion site, and I don't recall anyone else reporting premature front tire wear. Not that it's impossible. Claiming it's due to the 4wd is an indictment of the service person's honesty or competence. 4wd as installed on the GV is as likely to affect tire wear as it is to affect tire pressure.

    As for the reliability, Consumers Reports inconsistent stats may reflect a small data sampling. Consumer's Guide ratings for the GV changed dramatically between '06 and '07, while the vehicle did not change significantly. Anecdotal information, such as on the discussion sites, suggests Suzuki is putting out many well built GV's, some with significant problems, and the odd real lemon. Michael Karesh's Truedelta reliabilty website has stats provided by GV owners, but still the sample size is relatively small. Only Suzuki knows for sure what the real quality rating is. Presumably they kow that consistent bad ratings will hurt them eventually, as good ratings will help their sales. Maybe the new GV is so popular they're just churning them out too fast sometimes. JD power reports the number of problems per new car averages 1.25, with Suzuki worse than average at 1.5. Not enough reason to avoid a brand you like.
  • k10whosunk10whosun Posts: 1
    My wife and I both have the the new GV, I have a 2006 Black and her a 2007 RED. I have had the black one about 1.5 years now and the tire wear concerns me as well. I took off the cover to the rear 5 wheel and you can really see a difference in the tread. We live in PA up in the mountains and this last winter was the first real winter I had my GV. It goes good as long as you don't have to make any quick turns. It seems to slide a bit, but I think it is due to the tread wear. The 2007 I am also seeing the same tread wear again. Does anyone know if it is just that brand of tire. The 06 Black is only a 2 year lease and I know they are going to want new tires on it when I return it. The tires should have at least lasted 3 years. Most of the cars I have ever had always had tires last at least 3 years. Keep in mind I only have 20K on my Black GV 06. I am not too impressed with the tire wear. However my wife and I love everything else about the GV. It is a great buy and good quality for the money. Just wish they would fix the tread wear issue.
  • bm000092bm000092 Posts: 70
    If they all wear even, you shouldn't be too concern. I don't experience any excessive wear, but I don't think that they are the best durability wise. My personnal opinion is that these tires are a trade in between good grip and durability.

    About winter conditions handling, well, these EOM tires are not great, I did buy winter tires just 1 week after I got my GV January 2006. With winter tires it is the best vehicle I drove in snow.
  • xostnotxostnot Posts: 232
    There are plenty of us with completely normal, if not slow, tire wear. In fact, I'm going to get really tired of the oem tires before they wear out. It's been quite a while since I had a vehicle that wears the tires as slowly and evenly as this one. If there are GV's without this problem, which there certainly are, then there's no reason Suzuki can't fix it. So far as I know, all examples of each model have the same tires. If you'd rather not fight Suzuki, have you tried having a topnotch alignment shop look at it (or both of them)?

    Any car with a problem like this is not going to have normal traction levels on any surface, and it will be much worse on slippery surfaces. Ours has always struck me as having phenomenal traction, so your perception of sub-optimal traction while cornering may very well be due to misalignment. I can't overemphasize the difference in "sticktion" between a tire rolling freely and one that's skewed, even very slightly.

    On another GV discussion, I encouraged an owner to report the condition to the NHTSA website, which they report they have done.
  • bj9996bj9996 Posts: 7
    Hi, I changed my OEM tires just after having the GV for about a year. The OEM rubbers were Bridgestone Dueler H/T D687.

    First of all, I noticed that the rear cambers of the GV were off by a few degrees as per mentioned by xostnot. Got that fixed and do periodical rotations.

    Secondly, the OEM rubbers were wearing out pretty fast as well! The treads were only about 25% left when I replaced them after 12 months, with 35k kms on the clock.

    Thirdly, the OEM rubbers were not grippy!!!!! I noticed this just after a few months driving the GV.

    In my opinion, those OEM rubbers were not built for durability nor were they being built for road from my own experience. Their main purpose was just for comfort for highway driving.

    Now using Federal Tires after reading and hearing good reviews about them and so far not encountering any problem.
  • bm000092bm000092 Posts: 70
    Hi bj9996, I have more or less the same experience as xostnot in the sense that me too it's been a long time since I got a car that was wearing the tires as slowly and evenly, but him and I don't have the same EOM as yours, here (in Canada) we get Yokohama Geolanders. On another forum in France that I'm participating with, they have the same Dueler as yours and they have the same comments as you (wear fast, not too grippy).

    About the negative rear camber, it is designed that way. I wouldn't be able to say how many degrees is the camber on mine, but by the look, it's about the same as you often see on BMWs. On mine it doesn't affect how the rear tires are wearing, but on the other hand I'm use to rotate my tires every 10K km.
Sign In or Register to comment.