Topic: Used Vehicle Review: Suzuki SX4, 2007'2013

[Autos_Editor]

Suzuki SX4 offered a manual, AWD hatch to the delight of winter driving enthusiasts ' but watch for modifications.
Read More...

[hemusbull]

So sad this Fiat cousin disappears from here...It's a good value for money and together with Matrix were the best budget basic compact vehicles IMO.

[redman]

Defunct car company in Canada. Sub standard vehicle as evident by demand. Insurance companies hate defunct products with hard to acquire parts so higher insurance rates.
So the question stands "Why Bother" with Suzuki with better and varied options available to Canadians.

[Fobroader]

My moms had one for 5+ years. Bulletproof little car, lots of space, yes the stereo is HORRIBLE, great value and in winter with its awd a much better proposition than anything else in its class. I would not mind one as a commuter car.

[johngenx]

Owners of them (in Alberta anyway) seem to think the cars were minted in gold based on the ridiculous used asking prices, and for FWD models to boot.

 

[Flinter]

Ms. Flinter has had a 2007 SX4 JLX AWD (Manual) for over 8 years now and ~150K km.

IMHO its not in the same category and Toyota/Honda in terms of reliability. Outside of regular maintenance, in the 8+ years of ownership, we've had to replace:
- 2 front struts,
- Leaking seal in rear differential.
- 2 wheel bearings,
- alternator replaced 2 times,
- water pump,
- A/C compressor clutch.
- Recently, we are starting to hear some exhaust rattles which is about par for the course for an 8 year old car.

Regarding the alternator being replaced 2 times. Suzuki/Fiat positioned the alternator very poorly. It's best accessed from below the car or through the front wheel well. I suspect the low position results in lots of water, salt, sand etc. flying up around the alternator and a lower life.

The slip/grip AWD system is no match for a Subie  but with 4 good winter tires, the car is still very capable in winter. Over the years we've driven it in some horrible conditions, and we've always felt confident that it will get you there.

Fuel economy is not as good as many expect (9-10L/100km), but I don't think it's fair to compare this car to sub-compacts like Fit, Yaris, Fiesta etc. Given the size and weight of the vehicle, I think it's more appropriate to compare it to cars like the Golf, Matrix, Impreza.

Ms. Flinter has commented many times about the smallish fuel tank that results frequent pit stops. I understand that in 2010 the fuel tank was made slightly larger in the AWD model to try and address the range concern.

The engine and the six-speed manual transmission were updated in 2010. While the newer J20B shares the same bore/stroke with the earlier J20A, I've read that it uses a different block, different compression ratio, many changes to the internals and adds variable valve timing. I also understand that the J20B is a more fuel efficient engine and when combined with the newer six-speed manual the EPA (combined) fuel economy rating improved significantly. The six-speed was a welcome change as the older 5 speed does rev a little too high for our liking when cruising on the highway and that change can clearly be seen in the highway fuel economy ratings.

Here's our list of our likes/dislikes:

Likes
- The chassis and body has a very solid/substantial feel like the German brands.
- Reliability has been decent
- It is surprisingly fun to drive for an economy car.
- AWD has been very useful in the winter.
- Attractive styling and a pretty decent interior for an economy car. The interior has also held up very well for us.
- Small footprint makes it a very maneuverable daily driver.
- Hatchback design has lots of utility and cargo room.
- High roofline with lots of glass gives the car an open airy feel.
- Raised seating position similar to a CUV/SUV makes entry/exit very easy.
- Good bang for the buck.

Dislikes
- Fuel economy has not been great compared with similar sized FWD cars on the market. This might be less of an issue on the 2010+ models.
- Small fuel tank leads to frequent stops at the gas station. Again, this might be less of an issue on the 2010+ models.
- It could use a taller 5th gear or a 6 speed to improve fuel efficiency on the highway. This has been addressed on the 2010+ model.
- The car would be much better with another 20-30hp.
- The manual shifter is not up to the same standards that I've experienced in Honda products. Not sure if the newer 6 speed manual has improved in this area.
- The thick A pillar and triangle shaped side windows creates a bad blind spot for drivers of a certain height.
- The rear seats do not fold flat to the rest of the cargo area. On the plus side, you can flip forward the entire rear seat assembly which resulting in a large flat cargo hold.
- The turn signals are virtually inaudible.
- Obviously we are concerned about Suzuki's decision to leave the North American market and how that might impact service and parts going forward.

[Noto]

Dislikes
- Fuel economy has not been great compared with similar sized FWD cars on the market. This might be less of an issue on the 2010+ models.
- Small fuel tank leads to frequent stops at the gas station. Again, this might be less of an issue on the 2010+ models.
- The thick A pillar and triangle shaped side windows creates a bad blind spot for drivers of a certain height.

From my time in SX4 rentals, these were my major concerns (with fuel economy being #1).  I could never for the life of me get decent consumption, and it used more than the Kia Soul with the 2.0L Nu.  We're talking 9-10L/10km on the HIGHWAY (and these were all FWD).

[X-Traction]

Defunct car company in Canada. Sub standard vehicle as evident by demand. Insurance companies hate defunct products with hard to acquire parts so higher insurance rates.
So the question stands "Why Bother" with Suzuki with better and varied options available to Canadians.

I think demand for these cars had more to do with marketing and what everyone else is driving, as opposed to design and quality. 

As for parts, most of what you'd need for a car such as this are stock parts.  Brakes, for example.  In the very uncommon event that you need proprietary parts, Suzuki can still provide them.  Not to mention wreckers.  This is not much different from any car not in current production, which includes almost all of them.  You don't seen people on Suzuki forums trying to find proprietary parts.

[northsparrow]

Flinter,

Thanks for the extensive natural history of the SX4 which you have observed in the 'wild'.

You demonstrated that the Suzuki SX4 is actually quite mediocre.

Some day please provide us with as much detail about your BMW.

[Flinter]

Flinter,

Thanks for the extensive natural history of the SX4 which you have observed in the 'wild'.

You demonstrated that the Suzuki SX4 is actually quite mediocre.

Some day please provide us with as much detail about your BMW.

Yes, I would say the SX4 has been decent but certainly not exceptional in terms of reliability.

So far, the 128i has been pretty good on the reliability front. There has been a few recalls that were taken care of during the annual service. Otherwise, the only issue I've had in the ~4.5 year I've had the car was that the USB/Aux audio input to the stereo quit. Unfortunately, while repairing that issue, somehow the steering angle sensor calibration was messed up which required another dealer visit to fix. Can't really blame the car there.

[redman]

Defunct car company in Canada. Sub standard vehicle as evident by demand. Insurance companies hate defunct products with hard to acquire parts so higher insurance rates.
So the question stands "Why Bother" with Suzuki with better and varied options available to Canadians.

I think demand for these cars had more to do with marketing and what everyone else is driving, as opposed to design and quality. 

As for parts, most of what you'd need for a car such as this are stock parts.  Brakes, for example.  In the very uncommon event that you need proprietary parts, Suzuki can still provide them.  Not to mention wreckers.  This is not much different from any car not in current production, which includes almost all of them.  You don't seen people on Suzuki forums trying to find proprietary parts.

I stand by my original statement. I doubt few car people considered Suzuki prior to their demise any most likely none post N.A. departure. I sold cars for 8 years at various location and can attest that both Suzuki and Mitsubishi were frowned upon as a trade and consistently brought in the lowest trade in values compared to their original selling price and market.
What are your insurance rates like on the Suzuki compared to a comparable vehicle which is still in production. This is one pig you can't lipstick no matter how much you try.

[Flinter]

Dislikes
- Fuel economy has not been great compared with similar sized FWD cars on the market. This might be less of an issue on the 2010+ models.
- Small fuel tank leads to frequent stops at the gas station. Again, this might be less of an issue on the 2010+ models.
- The thick A pillar and triangle shaped side windows creates a bad blind spot for drivers of a certain height.

From my time in SX4 rentals, these were my major concerns (with fuel economy being #1).  I could never for the life of me get decent consumption, and it used more than the Kia Soul with the 2.0L Nu.  We're talking 9-10L/10km on the HIGHWAY (and these were all FWD).

Regarding fuel economy, it is tough to defend the SX4 FWD model against the competition. That said, the VW golf with the 2.5L 5 cyclinder had the same EPA combined fuel economy ratings as the SX4 AWD. However, the VW did make 20-30hp more power.

However, when you compare the SX4 AWD to other smallish AWD cars of that time. It is actually quite comparable. With the engine/tansmission updates introduced in 2010, the SX4 AWD actually is about 10% better that the Matrix AWD or the Subaru Impreza of that time. See attachments.

[pcsp]

We were lucky to have unloaded our 2009 last summer for a decent price (private sale). TWO brake jobs necessary with less than 60,000 km! Plus a variety of other problems, mainly the local dealer. If a used car buyer, however, is considering one and doesn't mind generally higher than average maintenance frequency/costs, a fuel bill 20-30% higher than comparable vehicles, no dealer network or support, higher insurance premiums, and a parent company that has vacated the marketplace, then go for it.

[Noto]

I can only speak from my experience.  Hell, 9-10L/100km on the highway is 2011 Subaru Forester XT territory!  My buddy who has a 2011 Impreza with the 2.5L NA 4-pot pancake may get mid-7s to low 8s, but never 9s!

[X-Traction]

Defunct car company in Canada. Sub standard vehicle as evident by demand. Insurance companies hate defunct products with hard to acquire parts so higher insurance rates.
So the question stands "Why Bother" with Suzuki with better and varied options available to Canadians.

I think demand for these cars had more to do with marketing and what everyone else is driving, as opposed to design and quality. 

As for parts, most of what you'd need for a car such as this are stock parts.  Brakes, for example.  In the very uncommon event that you need proprietary parts, Suzuki can still provide them.  Not to mention wreckers.  This is not much different from any car not in current production, which includes almost all of them.  You don't seen people on Suzuki forums trying to find proprietary parts.

I stand by my original statement. I doubt few car people considered Suzuki prior to their demise any most likely none post N.A. departure. I sold cars for 8 years at various location and can attest that both Suzuki and Mitsubishi were frowned upon as a trade and consistently brought in the lowest trade in values compared to their original selling price and market.
What are your insurance rates like on the Suzuki compared to a comparable vehicle which is still in production. This is one pig you can't lipstick no matter how much you try.

Are you saying "car people" are far more rational about the value of various cars than non-"car people"?  Hmm.

You may have the impression about lower tradein values.  You compare that to "original selling price".  Do you know the original selling prices, or do you mean msrp?  You'd be aware that Suzukis probably sell for a greater discount off msrp than Toyotas and Hondas.  Going by asking prices compared to msrp, you'll find that Foresters and Escapes lose value faster than Grand Vitaras, for instance.

We have a 2006 Grand Vitara bought new.  Despite being an all-new model, it has been by far the most reliable vehicle I've ever owned.  Truedelta numbers for native Suziki vehicles support this.  Insurance is no more expensive than similar other vehicles we've owned or own.  The GV renews for about $1300 per year, but of course that partly depends on the coverage.

[redman]

  ^^^
   ^^
     ^

I've done some comparison regarding the Vitara against the Forester, Escape, Rav4, CRV the list goes on. I can't find any evidence that cooperates your statement. Also you make it seem like it's a positive point to be further away from MSRP vs selling. That sort of mentality almost sang G.M.. Their fleet vs MSRP was so dramatically off, that many models become quickly upside down based on auction sales and demand. Trade in values erode the further MSRP is from actual selling price. The Vitara finished a decent vehicle but that becomes a secondary buying factor once a company pulls out of a country.

Car people know cars better than the average buyer who may buy with less insight, so yes they definitely more rational when it comes to vehicle purchases.

Here's a short list of similar Vitara competitors I'd get over a Susuki Vitara. Ford Escape, Chevrolet Equinox, Dodge Journey, Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, Mazda CX-5 and CX-7, Nissan Rogue, Hyundai Tucson and Santa Fe, Subaru Forester, Kia Sportage, Jeep Liberty and Patriot, VW Tiguan and Mitsubishi Outlander.
Point being that there are just to many options out there before considering a defunct player in the Canadian market, regardless of how good or bad the vehicle may be.
Not hating on the cars but...... "she's gone dude...let her go".

[X-Traction]

  ^^^
   ^^
     ^

I've done some comparison regarding the Vitara against the Forester, Escape, Rav4, CRV the list goes on. I can't find any evidence that cooperates your statement. Also you make it seem like it's a positive point to be further away from MSRP vs selling. That sort of mentality almost sang G.M.. Their fleet vs MSRP was so dramatically off, that many models become quickly upside down based on auction sales and demand. Trade in values erode the further MSRP is from actual selling price. The Vitara finished a decent vehicle but that becomes a secondary buying factor once a company pulls out of a country.

I don't know what sort of a comparison you did, but what I did was compare asking prices of various used cuv's against MSRP.  I didn't rely on "impressions".  I tallied up a long list of used vehicles offered for sale.  Though selling prices vs purchase prices would have been better information, I didn't have access to that information.  I think we agree that asking prices are partly shaped by purchase prices.  Just go look at the ads.  Private or dealer, the asking prices for used SX4's and Grand Vitaras are not obviously different from any other cuv's.

The numbers I compared indicated that asking prices vs MSRP for used Grand Vitaras were not much less than CRV's and Rav4's, and better than Foresters and Escapes.  As I said before, probably the GV's sold for a bigger discount off MSRP than the Hondas and Toyotas.  Certainly there was no indication the Grand Vitaras were cheap meat.

Here's a short list of similar Vitara competitors I'd get over a Susuki Vitara. Ford Escape, Chevrolet Equinox, Dodge Journey, Toyota RAV4, Honda CR-V, Mazda CX-5 and CX-7, Nissan Rogue, Hyundai Tucson and Santa Fe, Subaru Forester, Kia Sportage, Jeep Liberty and Patriot, VW Tiguan and Mitsubishi Outlander.
Point being that there are just to many options out there before considering a defunct player in the Canadian market, regardless of how good or bad the vehicle may be.
Not hating on the cars but...... "she's gone dude...let her go".

Your long list of "comparable" cuv's glosses over the fact the GV was distinctly different from all of the others.  It was the only one with a longitudinal engine and a low range.  The Forester had a longitudinal engine, but as imported lacked a low range.  Certainly the first generation Forester was simply not in the same class as the Grand Vitara, while costing more and being chosen for similar reasons.  The fact far more Foresters were sold supports my contention that there is more than value at play here.

Patriots and later Compass' could be optioned with a single low gear, but still had a transverse engine.  The point of the engine layout was that the GV had superior intrinsic handling dynamics because of perfect weight distribution. This was lost on the market, partly because Suzuki and the automotive press never mentioned it.  Other makers would have given the combination of characteristics a fancy name and promoted the out of it. 

The perception that Suzuki's are poor quality is not supported by truedelta numbers and my own experience.  Friends of ours recently replaced their aging Subaru wagon with a Grand Vitara, and are very happy with the Vitara.

When you consider what Kia and Hyundai have done, the quality and design of the Grand Vitara, it's clear Suzuki's problem was a marketing failure.

You didn't acknowledge my response to your claim that orphan vehicles incur higher insurance.  Don't all vehicles out of production face the same parts issues? Are the Suzuki forums full of people looking for parts? No, they're not.  If "orphan" vehicles are worth less, as you claim, wouldn't the lower writeoff values be reflected by lower insurance rates?  You can't have it both ways. 

fyi, the insurance for our Escape costs $200 more per year than our GV with the same coverage.

[redman]

Orphan vehicles are one thing and a non issue if produced in large numbers since third party parts exist based on demand. Orphan companies are completely different.  Third party parts will be expensive or not available based on low volume sales as evident in N.A. Owners will be stuck with costly parts channels and difficulty accessing parts new or used.

You can get competitive parts today for a 1968 Ford Mustang from many vendors based on high production volumes. Try that in 5+ years for a Suzuki. Which was a low sales vehicle in N.A.
Insurance companies will have difficulty accessing parts or pay a premium which will be reflected in Suzuki owner premiums.

[Flinter]

Orphan vehicles are one thing and a non issue if produced in large numbers since third party parts exist based on demand. Orphan companies are completely different.  Third party parts will be expensive or not available based on low volume sales as evident in N.A. Owners will be stuck with costly parts channels and difficulty accessing parts new or used.

You can get competitive parts today for a 1968 Ford Mustang from many vendors based on high production volumes. Try that in 5+ years for a Suzuki. Which was a low sales vehicle in N.A.
Insurance companies will have difficulty accessing parts or pay a premium which will be reflected in Suzuki owner premiums.

Even though the SX4 didn't sell in big numbers here in North America, you fail to mention that it was also sold in Europe and Asia as well for 8 years. In addition the same car was sold around the world as the Fiat Sedici.

Parts availability may indeed become an issue going forward, but I don't think your characterization of the sales volume is entirely accurate.

[redman]

Accurate to North America. Parts channels here as opposed to importing directly or through costly channels.

Fellow Blogger Sir O..put it best here when quoting W.C.
"The truth is incontrovertible. Panic may resent it, ignorance may deride it, malice may distort it, but there it is."-Winston Churchill

We are talking about here in Canada today post Suzuki Canada and not overseas.
Let's compare part pricing on a 85-89 Merkur XR4Ti vs a similar year Jetta for instance. Call C.T. Pick a part and tell us how you fare. No contest comparing price and availability.