Topic: Test Drive: 2010 Suzuki SX4 Hatchback JLX

[Leviathan]

A friend has an 08 (I think) 5speed and it is a really nice car. Good bang for the buck - at the time he bought it anyway.  He had a 5speed Impreza for a 24hr test drive and, while nice, still chose the SX4 over it.

[Shnak]

In my experience, the SX4 gets similar fuel consumption to the Impreza's, which means it burns way too much gas for the size of the engine and the car itself. I'd choose the Impreza over the Suzuki every time.

If that's the case, shame on Suzuki.  Their car is lighter than the Subie.

The Suzuki is not that much lighter than the Subie. Plus the Subie's combined fuel economy is 13-14% worse.

SX4 JX AWD Manual
Curb Weight - 2902 lbs
EPA Fuel (City) - 10.7 l/100km
EPA Fuel (Hwy) - 7.8 l/100km
EPA Fuel (Combined) - 9.4 l/100km

Subaru Impreza 2.5i
Curb Weight - 3058 lbs
EPA Fuel (City) - 11.8 l/100km
EPA Fuel (Hwy) - 8.7 l/100km
EPA Fuel (Combined) - 10.7 l/100km

Those are the published numbers, ie. useless. Stickshift used his own observations which are much more meaningful, IMO.

It's too bad Suzuki can't put a more efficient engine in its SX-4, it's pretty much the only thing that holds it back. With great 0% financing over 60 or 72 months, $2k off MSRP, AWD and manual, it'd be a great little car to run around town. That damn engine would hold me back though...

[Shnak]

Not as much difference in Cargo capacity as one would think either. This is taken from the Canadiandriver comparison tool.

SX4 JX AWD Manual
Cargo capacity hatchback(seats up) -   457 litres (16.2 cu.ft.)
Cargo capacity hatchback(seats folded) - 1534 litres (54.3 cu.ft.)

Subaru Impreza 2.5i
Cargo capacity hatchback(seats up) -   538 litres (18.9 cu. ft.)
Cargo capacity hatchback(seats folded) - 1257 litres (44.3 cu. ft.)

And I wouldn't be surprised if passengers sitting in the back were more comfortable in the SX-4 than the Impreza, especially tall passengers. The SX-4's extra height is a huge plus.

[Thinking Out Loud]

The Suzuki is not that much lighter than the Subie. Plus the Subie's combined fuel economy is 13-14% worse.

SX4 JX AWD Manual
Curb Weight - 2902 lbs
EPA Fuel (City) - 10.7 l/100km
EPA Fuel (Hwy) - 7.8 l/100km
EPA Fuel (Combined) - 9.4 l/100km

Subaru Impreza 2.5i
Curb Weight - 3058 lbs
EPA Fuel (City) - 11.8 l/100km
EPA Fuel (Hwy) - 8.7 l/100km
EPA Fuel (Combined) - 10.7 l/100km

Didn't Suzuki have a SX4 diesel version over here last year that was being kicked around as a likely import candidate for 2010/2011?

[Sival]

And I wouldn't be surprised if passengers sitting in the back were more comfortable in the SX-4 than the Impreza, especially tall passengers. The SX-4's extra height is a huge plus.

Maybe even in front... the thing that annoys me with the Subarus I've been in (Outback 2008, Impreza circa 2006) is that the seats are so low, so close to the floor, that even in front, with the seat all the way back, my legs still aren't comfortable. Granted I'm tall, but still, Subaru is significantly worse than most cars I've been in. I don't know if their most recent vehicles still have that problem.

As to the published numbers on fuel economy, they're more useful than you think. As long as you know what they simulate, they're useful in themselves, and they're always useful in comparing cars. A car 10% more efficient on the highway than another in the ratings will tend to be 10% more efficient in real life on the highway too.

[John Meyer]

"Didn't Suzuki have a SX4 diesel version over here last year.."

Yes they did and it was tested by some automotive journalists but no reports were ever published.  Too bad as it would have been extremely interesting.

From my experience with the SX-4, if it had a diesel, I'd look at it as sort of a Japanese Golf/Jetta which is a compliment to all involved.

Would have been an extremely attractive package if Suzuki Canada could finally get its wonky pricing right.

[rrocket]

"Didn't Suzuki have a SX4 diesel version over here last year.."

Yes they did and it was tested by some automotive journalists but no reports were ever published.  Too bad as it would have been extremely interesting.

From my experience with the SX-4, if it had a diesel, I'd look at it as sort of a Japanese Golf/Jetta which is a compliment to all involved.

Would have been an extremely attractive package if Suzuki Canada could finally get its wonky pricing right.

They also had a full turbo/Rally Pak package.  Read a couple of reviews...not sure if Suzuki Canada carries the parts though.  Put it on par HP wise with the old WRX...

[Winterpeg]

  It's not hard to make small cars interesting.  The Honda Fit comes to mind....

I read DSport every month.  Best mag for import performance by a long shot.  They did a comparo between a Fit and the SX4.  I was shocked when 3 out of the 4 reviewers picked the SX4 over the Fit.  I mean...the import tuner crowd's love for Hondas (and their engines) is legendary.  Their main gripe?  The engine of the Fit!!  Not enough torque was the basic issue.

Just adding some fuel to the fire...

.....lack of torque for the Honda Fit?.....go figure.
I would say that for most autos....being the torque monster here and, sorry to annoy most of you, a slushbox puppy...
.........I know.....bad puppy.   

[Rupert]

There is a lot to like in this overall package. I echo the comment about the folded floor not being flat. Personally I would prefer a little step rather than an inclined rear folded seatback. I don't know what the ratio is for sales with and without AWD but think that this would make a great little wagon with 2FWD and a flat folded floor. If this is indeed made impossible by AWD body requirements it is a great pity. The Subaru dealership in my area also carries this brand but I don't know if this is common across the country. It would give greater representation if this were the case. Is CVT better than a regular automatic or more ecconomical pricewise or an improvement in operation or longer lasting?

[John MacDonald]

There is a lot to like in this overall package. I echo the comment about the folded floor not being flat. Personally I would prefer a little step rather than an inclined rear folded seatback. I don't know what the ratio is for sales with and without AWD but think that this would make a great little wagon with 2FWD and a flat folded floor. If this is indeed made impossible by AWD body requirements it is a great pity. The Subaru dealership in my area also carries this brand but I don't know if this is common across the country. It would give greater representation if this were the case. Is CVT better than a regular automatic or more ecconomical pricewise or an improvement in operation or longer lasting?

CVT's are supposed to improve fuel economy, that's it.  They are definitely not more reliable/longer lasting, or in any way better than a traditional auto (other than fuel economy of course).  I really hope that they can either improve them a lot or not offer them in vehicles that I might be interested in.

[Sival]

There is a lot to like in this overall package. I echo the comment about the folded floor not being flat. Personally I would prefer a little step rather than an inclined rear folded seatback. I don't know what the ratio is for sales with and without AWD but think that this would make a great little wagon with 2FWD and a flat folded floor. If this is indeed made impossible by AWD body requirements it is a great pity. The Subaru dealership in my area also carries this brand but I don't know if this is common across the country. It would give greater representation if this were the case. Is CVT better than a regular automatic or more ecconomical pricewise or an improvement in operation or longer lasting?

CVT's are supposed to improve fuel economy, that's it.  They are definitely not more reliable/longer lasting, or in any way better than a traditional auto (other than fuel economy of course).  I really hope that they can either improve them a lot or not offer them in vehicles that I might be interested in.

CVTs also tend to be faster than traditional automatics, though they don't feel like it because the engine sounds doesn't increase with speed. Plus, they are smoother to drive if you don't smash down on the gas pedal too often. They are just not involving to drive, but then again neither are automatics. I personally drive a manual car, but if I wanted an automatic, I'd pick a CVT if possible. One chooses an automatic not to bother and for smooth driving, the CVT just does it better than a traditional automatic.

[Sival]

The economy figures are for the AWD but I read that by default it runs in 2WD mode. So what are the figures for the SX4 in 2WD mode?

The fuel economy ratings are not for AWD mode, but for the AWD model, driven in 2WD mode. That's how they test the vehicles, to control the factors of the test, they run the car in a building with the two driving wheels on rollers, so the front wheels if FWD and the rear wheels if RWD. For AWD vehicles, they put the cars in 2WD mode and drive it with the front wheels on the rollers. So those figures are for the AWD model driven in 2WD mode, if you lock the car in AWD mode, then you should usually see worse fuel economy.

[Flinter]

The SX4 has rear drums and rear torsion beam? That surprised me.

The rear torsion beam is standard across all models. However, only the base models of the Hatchback and Sedan get rear drum brakes. The remaining models have rear discs.

[OBradley]

I purchased a new 2010 Suzuki SX 4 in spring of 2010.  It has only been driven the city in temperate non-winter conditions.  No ice, snow, or gravel on the road.  Much of the front end is pitted with paint chips.  They are everywhere, right down to the primer.  I take my car in for regular service intervals and keep it clean.  The finish is rapidly disintegrating.  I spoke with Suzuki corporate and they recommend I take it into the dealership.  I will do this and keep you all posted.

[TraceyH]

I'm looking at a hatchback for a first-time car, given my age and the entry into my chosen profession, and the Suzuki SX4 is my top-of-the-line pick at the moment, going against the Kia Rio5 and the Chevrolet Aveo5 (all 2010 models).

I've looked at the majority of the hatches that others have suggested it against, but I'm more in the mind that it should be comparable to the Subaru or the VolksWagen -- the Honda Fit was just a disaster waiting to happen (if you're female that is, which I am)! Let's be honest here -- I need to see everything about my car because otherwise I can't tell the spatial difference between where my car ends and gee, where that curb begins...

The Honda Fit had NO front. It disappeared off the radar and would make it impossible to drive (albeit, it had really, really comfy seats). The Chevy Aveo5 also has this problem; I sat in a black model and the front disappeared into the wind shield wipers. The Suzuki SX4 doesn't have that problem, which is a huuuuuuuugge plus for me. Also, comfy seats, and what I think someone else wrote here already, their female partner likes having the height of the seats. It's a definite plus, making it easy for me to see what I need to see and where I need to go.

Sure, another car might do the same... but the SX4 does have the items I want out of a first-time car: the sound system, the heated seats, the cruise control, the luggage space (and no donut!!), the folding seats, the easy-to-read dash, the comfort. I can't say anything about the drive yet, but from a visual aesthetic, I sincerely like the car over the others I've seen and discounted immediately (Nissan Versa, Ford Fiesta, Hyundai Accent, Pontiac Vibe, Honda Fit, Subaru Impreza).

(also: my mum drives a Sidekick and we don't have too many problems with it -- and it's running nicely still 15 years on!)

For one person, I don't need all the space that the other cars are compared to. Will it hold luggage for when friends come to visit and need an airport pickup? Yes. Will it hold all my students' classwork and projects that I need to mark? Yes. Can I buy lots and lots when I go on a shopping spree? Yes. Will it blast my CDs and iPod when I need to listen to music? Yes.

Well. I'm sold.

[dkaz]

And I wouldn't be surprised if passengers sitting in the back were more comfortable in the SX-4 than the Impreza, especially tall passengers. The SX-4's extra height is a huge plus.

The extra height is very much offset by the lack of legroom. This is a cramped car.

What happened to the days of small exteriors, big interiors?

[Trainman]

The economy figures are for the AWD but I read that by default it runs in 2WD mode. So what are the figures for the SX4 in 2WD mode?

The fuel economy ratings are not for AWD mode, but for the AWD model, driven in 2WD mode. That's how they test the vehicles, to control the factors of the test, they run the car in a building with the two driving wheels on rollers, so the front wheels if FWD and the rear wheels if RWD. For AWD vehicles, they put the cars in 2WD mode and drive it with the front wheels on the rollers. So those figures are for the AWD model driven in 2WD mode, if you lock the car in AWD mode, then you should usually see worse fuel economy.

So how do they test Subaru's?  Do the fuse thing and confuse the computer?  I can make my Forester into a FWD as per the owners manual but from what I have heard it is not a fun beast to drive like that.  And those who have done it say it gives worse fuel economy, not better.

As for the SX4, looks like it could be a winner with some price adjustments.  I guess that is why I see so few of them around compared to other Suzuki's.

[Mike]

And I wouldn't be surprised if passengers sitting in the back were more comfortable in the SX-4 than the Impreza, especially tall passengers. The SX-4's extra height is a huge plus.

The extra height is very much offset by the lack of legroom. This is a cramped car.

What happened to the days of small exteriors, big interiors?

My other car (gf's) is a 2008 Suzuki SX4 Sport Sedan.  We have had 4 adults and our gear in the trunk in the car on a 1.5 hour drive before, space was ok.


We have had the car now 2.5 years and only changed the oil 4 times, that is all the car has cost us (she doesn't drive much).

The sport sedan while not overly sporty sure gave us a lot of features for nder $20 0000 (price we got after rebates in 2008).

• 17" rims
• 6 CD Changer
• 9 speaker stereo (although not that great)
• skirt package
• automatic climate control

[CatsEye68]

I can understand why the car appealed to your GF since it came with a package of skirts. Hopefully they look good on her.

[Mike]