Edmunds dealer partner, Bayway Leasing, is now offering transparent lease deals via these forums. Click here to see the latest vehicles!
Suzuki SX4 MPG Real World Numbers
Curious to hear what new SX4 owners real world MPG numbers are?
0
This discussion has been closed.
Comments
We also looked at a Honda Fit which has a tad more room and off the line pep. But lacking AWD was a deal breaker and at this price point can't complain. The SUV we traded in netted about 15 mpg no matter who used it so its win for us.
as they say your millage may vary
You can find out in Honda Fit: MPG - Real World Numbers.
tidester, host
Suzuki SX4 curb weight 2900 lbs
28+ MPG avg.
He does drive faster than the speed limit(by about 5 MPH).
No cruise( he said if he had cruise, adn dorve the speed limit, he could probably hit 30MPG, as advertised).
Great Car. I hope the rest of the line up, over the next few years, mimics the SX4.... may have to buy a Suzuki myself, then!
Then again maybe I tell myself that as no Sports were available - LOL
John
Most cars I have owned while using the cruise control on a highway that is not flat, rather hilly. The system will hold you at the selected speed then when the hill comes up speed drops down a bit - maybe 2-4 MPH. Then the system starts to increase gas flow & kicks down to a lower gear to maintain that speed.
My other car is a Isuzu Ascender with a 4.2L inline six making about 293HP and at 65MPH it turns about 1800RPM. with a slight hill the speed stays the same but in 3rd at about 2800RPM.
My little Sx4 can climb a steep hill with no worries :-)
It is also disconnected all the time in AWD unless there is front wheel slippage, because all you do by putting it in AWD is "turn on" the rear electronic clutch pack. Nothing is physically engaged, though, until the computer detects wheel slippage.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The electronic clutch pack in this model is attached to the rear differential, so the driveshaft will turn any time the front wheels are being driven. However, this does not mean the rear wheels are being driven - that only happens when the computer detects wheel slip at the front and engages the rear.
Subaru's system in all its manual-equipped models is merely a viscous center coupling. This runs all 4 wheels at 50/50 front/rear all the time until slip is detected, at which point power is directed away from the slipping axle. No computer intervention at all. Now I have never owned an automatic Subaru, but I know the autos get a more sophisticated computer-controlled system.
The SX4's system is very similar to many of the more popular AWD soft-roaders out there today, including the CRV and RAV4, both of which run in FWD until slippage is detected. The RAV also has a 'lock' mode just like the SX4, with a lower speed threshold - I think it is like 25 mph when the RAV's 'lock' mode disengages (can't recall the exact speed).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
The "Full-Time 4WD" pickups were like that. You could jack up one wheel and the vehicle wouldn't move. Also if you spun that one wheel, you could explode the tire, because the wheel would spin at 4 times the speed shown on the speedometer. For example if you were spinning one wheel at an indicated 50 MPH, the tire would be going an actual speed equal to 200 MPH (if it hadn't already disintegrated).
I have a 4WD Toyota pickup that has an automatic disconnecting differential (ADD) in the front axle. One front axle shaft disconnects when you are in 2WD, and that allows the front driveshaft, and also the front ring and pinion to stop turning. The reduced drag is supposed to improve fuel economy slightly.
But the interior is not all I would like, I would say the SX4's is marginally better. And of course, not everyone has (or wants to spend) the extra $10 grand.
I would think if you are on the highway, in wet or dry but not snowy weather, doing highway speeds, you might want the car in FWD-only. The AWD probably cycles in and out of the rear axle more than you might think, because minor variances in rotational speed between the front and rear would cause short bursts of driving the rears, when the car would be using more gas. Over the course of a long highway trip, that could siphon off 1-2 mpg I would guess.
Most of the rest of the time, I think you would probably just leave it in AWD. Anyone think the AWD light on the dash is a bit bright? For me, that would be an incentive to leaving it in FWD as much as possible.
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
You are perfectly correct about "old school" 4WD like most of the Toyota trucks had up until about the year 2000. It's one reason mine have always had the rear limited-slip, or rear locker (several different trucks over many years). Then at least you need 3 slipping wheels before you are a fish out of water!
The downside to the old Toyota system was that while it was good for the longevity of the front axles, hubs etc when the 4WD was completely disengaged, they weren't receiving lubrication in that state, which was hard on them over time if they didn't get very good owner attention and maintenance. That is why the manuals began recommending that you drive in 4WD for 10 miles per month. The SX4 of course has none of these concerns - everything that might need lubrication is rotating all the time, and the electronic clutch pack is maintenance-free (at least, until the day it is fried - wouldn't want THAT repair bill!).
2014 Mini Cooper (stick shift of course), 2016 Camry hybrid, 2009 Outback Sport 5-spd (keeping the stick alive)
They tested a 5 spd. -- and only got 22 mpg. Yikes. That's what I consistently get with my 2004 Suzuki Aerio SX AWD automatic with 2.3 liter engine.
Driving 80% heavy suburbia with lots of lights and hills and 20% of traffic prone highways.
Currently showing 22.3mpg average, but I have reset that and did not go on highway since.
Snow storm traffic: 17 mpg - stop and go, AWD actually working all the time, speeds 5-25mph
Highway going 55-65 - easily getting 30-32 mpg
Normal suburban traffic: 21-23mpg.
I read a few comparisons here and what can I tell. I am a 6 foot tall very broad shouldered fella and I tried: Fit, Versa, Mazda3, Kia Rio, and few others. SX4 is the roomiest, I used to drive Chrysler Concordes since 1998 and had no problem transitioning for the SX4.
The cars fuel economy is compromised by its huge frontal area, that is due to broad and tall stance. Also the AWD components do add to the weight of the car.
AWD system is seamless, but I drive mostly in FWD mode. I am used to it. Reason for it to have the FWD button is not to engage the rear wheels and differential, yes in Auto it puts 100% to front wheels, but the clutches are still powered up and spinning.
I thought about a Subaru, but I did not like the ergonomics and it feels smaller. Don't think that it gets that much of a better fuel economy.
Seems like the mileage of the SX4 is better than the Subaru for highway and about the same in city traffic.
I think this is pretty much for 2.0 liter, 4 cyl car. :confuse:
I commute about 100 miles daily from West Va. to the DC area. Do any SX4 owners commute a like distance, and what kind of mpg do you get?
How far can you cruise on 1 tank of gas?
Will the SX4 stand up to the rigors of daily long commutes?
Will the Suzuki 5 speed or the auto give me better mpg?
Right now my XB delivers 32-34 mpg with the auto at speeds up to 70 mph and up to 340 miles per tank with 85% highway travel. She's been a great car with zero issues but the odometer just turned 70k and it's time to start my search for her successor.
The only real drawback that I see for me is the small gas tank. Why Suzuki only put in an 11 gal. tank is puzzling, unless they designed it for predominantly urban use.
Thanks to all,
Rob
I am days away from my 2007 SX4 Auto... I hope MPG is close to sticker - aways expect it to be a bit less.
Here's my three contributions to this topic:
1) Why the SX4: Cheap AWD, and in Minnesota it will help.
2) MPG: The SX4 is a lot better on fuel if you come from where I am = a supercharged 97 Grand Prix GTP, 0to60 6.8seconds = 16 MPG on Premium, 14 MPG on mid-grade (rated 26city 34highway) which may soon be for sale here. This is 'average city driving' - no lead foot, and no trying to be careful.
3) Here is todays humor / scary post:
I test drove a 2008 SX4 Auto two days ago, here is the conversation with the salesman in the back seat:
me: "Does the MPG display ever settle down and average?"
as it jumped between 59.9 and 11.5...
him: "If you press the button, it will switch to average."
I pressed it... and it said 14.3 MPG.
Not enough to scare me - It is nice to know the salespeople are not smart enough to press reset prior to letting a potential buyer drive it...
So - for those of you who are interested in MPG - a car will always get the MPG as a reflection of how you drive - if you floor it alot, like test-drivers: expect very low.
If you drive like grandma - you might, just might reach the sticker. (I got 32 MPG in my GTP on a 240 mile all highway trip, babying it all the way. I got 38 only once, me only in the car, back seat removed, and watching my (added) vacuum gauge and not letting it drop under 10 even if it meant slowing down going up hills... from full to very nearly empty on a very long road trip, cool outside temps, night, far from cities (no traffic) and almost flat road: 55 flat, slowest hill around 25 (just a hint for those who don't know how to get good mileage if the gas gauge is on or near 'E' - (if you do not have a vacuum gauge) keep your foot at the same place going up a hill as on level ground. I.e. at 55mph, an average hill might slow you to 35mph, but keeping the throttle at the same place will mean you won't increase vacuum, drawing in more fuel, and will save you money).
I learned a lot of old tricks many many years ago when I was playing with cars in H.S. like on a carborated car, replace the carbs secondary vacuum motor (which opens the secondary when you floor it) with a choke cable and spring. Choke in and primary only = better mpg. Choke out and spring tension = cam controlled faster secondary... a bit faster. Not really sure it that worked, but with the air filter top replaced with a aluminum plate from a camp set with a hole drilled in it - it sure sounded faster.
Cars were toys back then...
Not sure what I'll do on my new SX4, definitely add a vacuum guage, probably oil temp too.
Another hint: did you know oil temp rises when it needs changing? Right around 4 to 6000 miles it would go up 20 degrees, although I typically, usually change it at 3000 anyways. Except on my GTP which tells you when to change it - I change it at 50% life remaining - its easier.
Other advice - (yes, I'm full of it - take that any way you want
I might get the arm-wrest... maybe order the wide side molding.
Ok, thanks for letting me type - a favorite hobby. Glad to share, don't officially know if anything I said is true... but I think it is... (I do have a Minor in Automotive Engineering - at least its fun to say... and true...).
Todd
Free oil changes will be nice. Wonder if you could pay like $10 extra for synthetic?
First tank of gas got me 23.6mpg. (About 75% city/25% highway.)
Second tank of gas got me 27.7mpg. (About 10% city/90% highway.)
Both with "gentle" driving.
Hopefully this will improve somewhat as it breaks in more, but I'm not necessarily expecting a big difference. I live in the Seattle area, so there are a lot of hills that need a lot of gas to get up, in contrast to flatter areas where it's easier to do gas-sipping cruising.
I've been a fan of the "gentle" break-in on my last 8 cars. I try not to drive'em over 65 or at a continuous speed for the 1st 1200 miles. Hopefully your mpg will rise 1 or 2 more on your highway runs.
Yeah, the instruction manual recommends the "gentle" driving (no fast starts, hard brakes, varied speeds) for the first 600 miles.
On another gas related topic, it's odd that the gas tank size is a bit uncertain. A lot of sites (including the Suzuki Auto site) say it's 11.0 gallons, but the manual says it's 11.9 gallons. It also says it's 45 liters, which is closer to 11.9 gallons, so I'm inclined to believe it's 11.9 gallons, and that the 11.0 entries are from accidental dropping of the 0.9. But I don't want to deliberately run out of gas to test it though
I was hoping Suzuki would expand the tank to at least 13.5 gal. BTW, do you have enough miles yet for an mpg report?