First times are always special. It's the wave of release after the seemingly endless ascent — longing and looking, reaching and waiting. It defines a truly special time in a young Web site's life, and it's how we felt as we took the keys to our very first long-term Suzuki, a 2009 SX4.
Loaded with all-wheel drive, an automatic transmission and a built-in Garmin navigation system, the 2009 Suzuki SX4 crossover represents a right-car-at-the-right-time proposition for a small carmaker existing on the fringe of a shrinking market. Crossovers have been the height of cool, the Honda Fit has been selling strongly and global warming was sure to kill us all, so we expected the Suzuki SX4 would speak to us about the future of small cars.
But that was a year ago. In that time we rolled the little Suzuki across 20,000 miles of real-life pavement; did the reality of owning a Suzuki meet our expectations?
Why We Got It
While new to our long-term fleet, the SX4 is not exactly a new vehicle. It debuted in 2007 and has been updated with the addition of a front-wheel-drive model and the expansion into a sedan body style. What the 2009 Suzuki SX4 brought to the table was its status as the U.S. vehicle with the least expensive built-in navigation system. Suzuki accomplished this feat by simply teaming up with Garmin to produce a unique adaptation of a portable navigation device for automotive use. It made you wonder why no one else had thought of it before.
Simplicity has always been Suzuki's message, and the time seemed right to gauge the appeal of this way of doing things. Moreover, the SX4's combination of American-style utility and international-style components (engineered in Japan, styled in Italy and manufactured in both Japan and Hungary) also seemed in tune with the spirit of the times. It was the right time to get a Suzuki.
Durability
Three things dominated our long-term experience with this 2009 Suzuki SX4: cruising range, engine power and an airbag warning light. But we'll get to that.
What makes the Suzuki SX4 really stand out is its price with standard navigation, and this feature got our attention from the first. This Garmin unit was almost universally praised by our staff, though Edmunds Automotive Editor John DiPietro wished it was closer to the dash. Vehicle Testing Assistant Mike Magrath said, "One of my favorite things is the built-in-but-take-outable navigation system. I dig Garmin. I like the interface, I like the graphics and I like that, unlike a lot of factory systems, it's got EVERYTHING IN THE WORLD on it." Not only did we appreciate the Garmin unit while it was mounted in the SX4, but it was also handy when Edmunds Automotive Editor James Riswick decided it would look better in his personal Z3.
Other automotive navigation systems can't operate in multiple cars, or while you're walking or hiking. Now if only the SX4 had the cruising range to make it out to some fun trails away from the asphalt. But hold your horses, we're getting there.
There was more to the 2009 Suzuki SX4 than just its Garmin navi, though. Editor in Chief Scott Oldham liked the smooth four-speed automatic transmission, though it was geared very tall to maximize fuel economy. Edmunds Associate Editor Josh Sadlier and Executive Editor Michael Jordan recommended the SX4 for parts hauling. The suspension earned the respect of Senior Editor Erin Riches, while it also became the subject of a technical walkaround by Director of Vehicle Testing Dan Edmunds.
Erin enjoyed the way the SX4 handled so much that she had the gumption to drive this runabout all the way to Oregon. She said, "I like the way this car's suspension is tuned. It doesn't feel like an aggressive setup, but the SX4 really feels planted on the road."
During said trip Riches covered 2,125 miles, appreciated the full-size, American-friendly driving position, complained about the wind noise and vaporized 84.891 gallons of 87 octane for an average of 25 mpg — fuel economy that's just a bit more than the 23.2 mpg it averaged during our term with us. It didn't seem so remarkable until we realized that the Honda Fit is something of a competitor for the SX4 and the 2009 Honda Fit Sport averaged 31.4 mpg during its own long-term test with us.
And so we get to the meat of the problems.
With a 1,995cc inline-4 engine, a four-speed automatic, and overall gearing that tried to make possible all-terrain friendliness, velocities above the national speed limit were a strain for the 2009 Suzuki SX4. We could tell because people complained not only about indifferent fuel economy (it's small, so why doesn't it get 100 mpg?) but also about a general lack of fun. John DiPietro averaged 26 mpg on a 230-mile highway trek, while Edmunds Senior Automotive Editor Brent Romans noted that we'd been adding only 10 gallons of fuel or so at our fill-ups even though the SX4 has a tank that holds 11.9 gallons.
It turns out that our SX4's gas gauge lacked courage and registered a worrisome lack of fuel even when we could have pushed on farther. Then again, a cruising range of about 50 miles is what you expect when the low fuel light is triggered, and the fuel economy we'd been getting meant we'd need a couple gallons to make it that far. We shouldn't have been surprised, since Photo Editor Kurt Niebuhr figured it out with 2,000 miles on the SX4's clock.
The final issue we encountered with our SX4 was an airbag warning light that kept coming back on even after a couple of dealer visits. We brought it in initially with some 3,000 miles on the odometer and were told that a plug was disconnected. A Suzuki dealership in Cerritos — the closest of three — fixed the plug problem immediately. But then the light came back on and we were told that a new seat bottom would have to be ordered. Easier said than done, as Suzuki supply lines don't seem to be as well stocked as you'd hope. And then, about a month later, our dealer informed us that its future as a Suzuki dealer might be limited and it had placed all parts orders on hold.
Frustrated, we opted for a channel we reserve only for the worst cases and called our contacts at the manufacturer. So we took the 2009 Suzuki SX4 by the technical facilities at American Suzuki Motor Corporation, hooked up a scan tool and found that no part was necessary. All we needed was an electronic update, which was accomplished on the spot. Since then, it does appear that at least two of our local Suzuki dealerships have closed up shop; this could be cause for concern for potential owners.
Total Body Repair Costs: $1,046.78
Total Routine Maintenance Costs (over [12] months): $57
Additional Maintenance Costs: 0
Warranty Repairs: 1
Non-Warranty Repairs: 0
Scheduled Dealer Visits: 2
Unscheduled Dealer Visits: 2
Days Out of Service: 2
Breakdowns Stranding Driver: 0
Performance and Fuel Economy
The EPA rates the 2009 Suzuki SX4 with AWD and an automatic at 21 mpg city/28 mpg highway and 24 mpg combined. While our average fuel economy was close to the EPA's combined figure (as it always is in our long-term tests), we seldom were able to approach the EPA's highway figure of 28 mpg. Only eight of our 96 trips to the pump resulted in a calculation of more than 26 mpg, and we certainly took more than eight purely highway drives. At the low end, the EPA says we should've averaged 21 mpg; 17 mpg was more common around these parts.
But this might have something to do with the SX4's lackluster performance and sluggish feel. During our initial round of introductory testing, the SX4's 143-hp engine powered it to 60 mph from a standstill in 11.7 seconds and it passed through the quarter-mile in 18.3 seconds at 76.4 mph. Maybe we expected too much from an all-wheel-drive vehicle that weighs 2,982 pounds.
Best Fuel Economy: 23.2 mpg
Worst Fuel Economy: 17.2 mpg
Average Fuel Economy: 23.2 mpg
Best Range: 276.3 miles
Retained Value
At the end of the Suzuki SX4's tour of duty, we'd racked up a grand total of 20,174 miles. This is just barely above our mandate of 20,000 miles, but above is above. Considering the mileage, condition and equipment on our test car, Edmunds True Market Value (TMV®) pegs the resale of our 2009 Suzuki SX4 crossover with Touring package and navigation at $12,792 — $5,387 below the original sticker. This equates to a depreciation of just about 30 percent, slightly above what we'd hoped for.
In comparison, our long-term 2009 Honda Fit Sport registered depreciation of only 23 percent. We were initially concerned about the residual value the SX4 would hold, since Suzuki still isn't exactly a household name, so we think 30 percent is perfectly acceptable. After all, nobody's trying to flip SX4s for a profit, although Vehicle Testing Manager Mike Schmidt might have wanted to try it.
True Market Value at service end: $12,792
Depreciation: $5,387 or 30% of original paid price
Final Odometer Reading: 20,174
The Year of Suzuki
If cruising range, engine power and fuel economy are what you're shopping for, then this 2009 Suzuki SX4 might seem to be bad news. The good news is, the 2010 Suzuki SX4 Sportback has a 150-hp inline-4 while a CVT with shift paddles on the steering wheel takes the place of the four-speed automatic. And just as important, the 2010 SX4 has a fuel tank that's larger by 2 gallons.
With the merger of Fiat and Chrysler, the Suzuki SX4 is the closest thing we have on these shores to what could be in the pipeline for future small Dodges. It's a useful package for daily utility that provides reliability and comfort, but there are those unfortunate excursions to gas stations and dealerships to consider.
The manufacturer provided Edmunds this vehicle for the purposes of evaluation.
Add A Comment »
victour says:
11:03 AM, 07/15/2010
Ok ! I bought the car as a general purpose vehicle. I have the 2007 this was built by Suzuki unlike there other sedans.. I don't drag race any more so 11 sec 0 to 60 I can live with.. I love the way the car Handles. when I bought the car the tires were deflated by 3 pounds.. smoother ride but I re-inflated them and the ride is still good and should help gas mileage.. as if I care.. My ranger pickup got about 21 hyway with the 2.3 almost had to downshift to second gear for some of the grades on the road... Semi's passing me..lol I love the Pep the gas mileage and the trouble free maintenance part .. So What if they stop selling them .. I got mine.. that way there will be a lot more parts around for Me.. I would never go to a dealer for service work any way.. talk about rip off... Not Near as fast as my Busa but I keep dry in the rain...
gordancin says:
07:15 AM, 04/14/2010
Everyone here note that the only reviews on the SX4 (and Suzuki) worth reading have actually come, not from any magazine nor website reviewers... but in the form of comments coming from 8str8rollin.
Bravo, 8str8rollin! Sensible observations without hype, childish drama nor needless smart-aleck comments.
These "researchers"? "reviewers"? I don't know but they could learn from your humility and level headed approach to writing. Thanks
vincine says:
06:51 PM, 04/06/2010
There are 62 AWD vehicles available divided among 20 brands.
Of these 62 AWD vehicles, 7 get better mpg then the SX4, and 55 get worse mpg then the SX4.
Of these 62 AWD vehicles, 61 cost more than the SX4 and 0 cost less then the SX4.
vincine says:
04:06 PM, 04/06/2010
In the Adirondacks we have a whole bunch of Subarus, and Vibes/Matrixes up here, but mostly we have Subarus and the bigger SUVs. Except now SX4s are poping ALL over the place, really. I saw a Honda Fit this winter. Really nice car. It was off on the side of one of our mountain roads. But Edmunds got it right, the SX4 milage is a deal breaker. I sure everyone would rather be in the Fit, in the ditch.
8str8rollin says:
01:28 PM, 04/06/2010
One more thing. GM NEVER owned Suzuki, and VW doesn't either. Back when GM purchased a 20% stake in Suzuki, it was a good move for both companies since GM used several Suzuki vehicles (such as Suzuki Cultus aka Chevy Sprint/Geo Metro and Suzuki Escudo aka Geo Tracker/Chevy Tracker) to help improve Chevy's dismal Average Corporate MPG ratings and meet CAFE standards.
Equally Suzuki purchased a stake in GM and also purchased 50% ownership of the GM CAMI production facility in Ingersol Ontario Canada, which allowed Suzuki to get it's foothold in the North American market, thru joint ventures such as the the above mentioned vehicles, both GM and Suzuki would share the expenses of introducing these models.
Thus it was a mutually benefitial arrangement for both companies, and when it came time to part ways, Suzuki simply bought out GM's stake in the company, and then Suzuki sold its off it's stake in GM as well as its 50% ownership of the CAMI plant.
During that time GM never had any control or say in the Japanese operation of Suzuki, and vice versa Suzuki never had any control over GM. It was merely a joint venture to sell Suzuki vehicles in North America and jointly develop new platforms for compact fuel efficient vehicles.
In the same manner, after Suzuki dropped GM (for obvious reasons), it sought out a new alliance, one that would strenghthen it's world position and allow for greater networking as well as technology sharing. That is when VW approached Suzuki with the proposel to have Suzuki design and build compact VW models to give VW a greater presense in India, currently one of the greatest car sales growth markets in the world, and where Suzuki rules the market with over 50% of sales.
In return, Suzuki and VW would jointly work on new technologies for hybrid vehicles, as well as technology sharing for exisiting vehicles, and possibly Suzuki accessing VW's extensive North American dealer network.
The deal went thru and VW purchased a 19.9% stake in Suzuki, and Suzuki reciprocated in a proportional amount and also purchased stake in VW. It would be equally absurd to suggest that because of this co-venture, that VW now "owns" Suzuki just as it would be to suggest that Suzuki's stake in VW means that Suzuki now "owns" VW. Either company at any time could buy back the stake from the other company and move on to form new alliances.
It will be very interesting how the co-venture between Suzuki and VW translates into each of it's cars. Maybe a VR6 Kizashi or a AWD Golf with Selectable drive? :)
8str8rollin says:
12:50 AM, 04/06/2010
Some rather odd comparisons are made when comparing the Suzuki SX4 to other cars. Remember, the SX4 was brought to market as the lowest priced All Wheel Drive car on the market.
It seems that if you are going to make realistic comparisons, it should be with cars that are intended for the same purpose and equipped similarly.
So to compare MPG's, you would have to compare it to other similarly priced All Wheel Drive vehicles with similar displacement to get an idea on the efficiency and efficacy of the SX4 drivetrain.
Let's say however just for the sake of rating efficiency, that you don't do the logical thing, but instead you go ahead and compare SX4 to Front Wheel Drive vehicles, well then at the very least you should match it to FWD's that have the same engine displacement and HP.
So when you see someone doing a comparison of the SX4 AWD (curb weight of 2943 lbs) to a car that not only is NOT All Wheel Drive, but one that also has a signficantly lower displacement engine (ie Honda Fit, 1.5 litre - 117hp, curb weight 2604 lbs) the first thing that pops into my head is.... is this person really this clueless on proper comparison criteria, or is there a purposefull intent here to mislead and distort?
I guess I would have to ask.... is it really that difficult for you to understand that a car that weighs over 300 pounds less, has a 117hp engine versus a 150 hp engine , is FWD and not AWD is going to get better gas mileage?
So again, think about it..... do you really think it makes sense to make that type of comparison?
As far as end users go, the SX4 whole niche was that it is a compact, versatile, and reliable All Wheel Drive car at the lowest price, so it was marketed precisely at the type of person that is looking for a good deal for an All Wheel Drive vehicle, the same person that wants the type of confidence of being able to take their daily driver to the mountains and over terrain that a vehicle like a Honda Fit would NEVER be able to traverse.
Now take ALL of that into consideration, digest it, and then realise that the Suzuki SX4 wasn't designed to compete with cars like the Honda Fit, but rather with cars like the Pontiac Vibe AWD, the Toyota Matrix AWD, the Subaru Outback.
What you will see when you do a REALISTIC comparison to vehicles that are actually of the same type as the SX4, then you will quickly see that when you take into account the difference in engine displacement, none of the other AWD vehicles that the SX4 actually competes with get any better gas mileage than the SX4.
And that my friends is the way a comparison should go. Compare AWD vehicles with other AWD vehicles. Then take into consideration engine displacement versus vehicle weight. Why is it so hard to understand that concept. And an even better question, how in the world do "professional car reviewers" miss this concept? It seems so basic that even an elementary student could understand it. When you do a comparison, you compare like to like.
And what about those other cars that the SX4 would actually compete with like the Subaru Outback, the Pontiac Vibe AWD, and the Toyota Matrix AWD?
2010 Subaru Outback AWD - 2.5 litre 170 hp, MPG = 19 CITY / 27 HWY (Price - 22,190)
(Subaru Website, Auto transmition, base AWD model)
2010 Toyota Matrix S AWD - 2.4 litre 158 hp, MPG = 21 CITY / 29 HWY (Price - $22,690)
(Toyota Website, Auto Transmition, base AWD model w/6 disc CD)
2010 Pontiac Vibe AWD - 2.4 litre 158 hp, MPG = 22 CITY / 28 HWY (Price - $20,670)
(Pontiac website no longer lists, Edmonds.com)
2010 Suzuki SX4 AWD - 2.0 litre 150 hp, MPG = 23 CITY / 29 HWY (Price - $18,814)
As you can see from a realistic and factual comparison, the SX4 rates quite well when compared to similar vehicles with similar configurations.
This is the type of comparison that Edmonds and all other "professional reviewers" should have done. And it raises many questions as why not even one review source (to my knowledge) has done a realistic comparison as I just did above, but rather instead compare the SX4 AWD to cars that are NOT equally equipped or of the same configuration (ie awd), such as the Honda Fit, Nissan Versa, etc.
In closing, I would encourage anyone considering the SX4 awd to do your own comparisons with other awd vehicles since you won't find realistic comparisons at edmonds inside line or other review sites either. They all just re-hash and repeat the same inaccuracies.
subcompact39 says:
07:07 PM, 04/05/2010
The SX4 gets some of the best (if not THE best) milage of any all-wheel drive non-hybrid vehicle on the market. Remeber folks: This is an AWD vechile. You can't compare an AWD SX4 with a FWD Honda Fit.
SX4:
2.0 liter engine
143 hp
AWD
21 city/28 highway
Fit:
1.5 liter engine
117 hp
FWD
27 city/33 highway
Of course the Fit is going to get better mileage. If an AWD Honda Fit comes out, then let's compare apples to apples.
charlesb says:
08:39 PM, 04/04/2010
A near twelve second zero to sixty miles per hour time is a deal killer for me. Too darn slow.
johnferinal says:
11:56 PM, 04/03/2010
Thanks for the update info, but this car is still a little piece of gas guzzling crap nevertheless.
mungmibear says:
02:18 PM, 04/03/2010
Suzuki is owned by Volkswagen