 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Australian Car Forums / General Car Topics (Australian group) / May 2006Suzuki Grand Vitara
Gday all. Wife is looking at a 'basic' 4wd and was wondering about the Suzuki Grand Vitara's. Probably the 2.0Lt 4 cyl version. It would not be used for serious 4wd'ing - only some stuff on smooth'ish dirt roads. Any thoughts on this car? Cost is around $29,000 for the auto (new)...plus all the extra costs. > Gday all. > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Cost is around $29,000 for the auto (new)...plus all the extra costs. Even though it's a lot more comfortable than earlier models (non grand ones), the Grand Vitara is still quite capable off road. On road, well, it's good but has the usual small 4WD features of choppy-ish ride etc. I think the bland styling is a shame though, they look like a lot of other small 4WDs to me.  Signatureant Why go to all the hassle and expense of a 4WD if all it will be doing is smooth unsealed roads? Do yourself a favour and get a small wagon instead, save yourself about 10 grand! It will handle dirt roads fine, wet or dry. The usual precautions when driving on unsealed roads will of course apply. SignatureVYBerlinaV8 > Why go to all the hassle and expense of a 4WD if all it will be doing is > smooth unsealed roads? Do yourself a favour and get a small wagon > instead, save yourself about 10 grand! It will handle dirt roads fine, > wet or dry. The usual precautions when driving on unsealed roads will > of course apply. Save $10grand, hell you can buy one for $10 grand. > Why go to all the hassle and expense of a 4WD if all it will be doing is > smooth unsealed roads? Do yourself a favour and get a small wagon > instead, save yourself about 10 grand! It will handle dirt roads fine, > wet or dry. The usual precautions when driving on unsealed roads will > of course apply. Last time I checked there weren't any V6 small wagons on the market. And the savings is far less than 10 grand - probably only a couple of grand. e.g. A Corolla Conquest wagon costs $25,300. A Grand Vitara costs $28,990. The question becomes why do you want a V6? A 4cyl wagon, such as a Lancer wagon, or base model Corolla (both of which can be had for around 20-22k with some bargaining) will easily outperform a small V6 4WD. They will also get better fuel economy, be cheaper to service, cheaper tyres, nicer to drive, etc. There is also the option of the Holden Viva, which starts under 20k. Hey, the choice is up to the buyer, it just doesn't make sense to me to purchase features I will never use. SignatureVYBerlinaV8 > The question becomes why do you want a V6? A 4cyl wagon, such as a > Lancer wagon, or base model Corolla (both of which can be had for > around 20-22k with some bargaining) will easily outperform a small V6 > 4WD. They will also get better fuel economy, be cheaper to service, Base model Corolla is quite sad indeed. Worse equipment levels than a base model Yaris! Only 1 airbag, no power windows, no ABS brakes. At least it has air cond... if you don't mind crusing around in a pov-pack vehicle, then go for it. The OP said he wanted the four-pot version though, not the V6. The V6 in all likelihood only overcomes the Vitara's extra weight to allow it to keep up with four cylinder wagons like the Astra and Corolla anyway :) Marco > The OP said he wanted the four-pot version though, not the V6. The V6 > in all likelihood only overcomes the Vitara's extra weight to allow it > to keep up with four cylinder wagons like the Astra and Corolla anyway > :) The V6 engine in the Vitara is a *very* under-powered little beast that struggles to cope at the best of times. My old man bought a Grand Vitara V6 a couple of years before he passed away, and it was probably the most gutless thing I've ever driven this side of a Morris Minor. I'm not kidding, on the open road with a slight head wind, it would *struggle* to make 85km/h. A good car aside from that, but that engine was bloody ridiculous. -- Regards, Noddy. Your a w.nker The Grand Vitara is not gutless now it now comes in a V6 2.7 litre engine Get back to your little Red Convert with Big Ears >> The OP said he wanted the four-pot version though, not the V6. The V6 >> in all likelihood only overcomes the Vitara's extra weight to allow it [quoted text clipped - 14 lines] > Regards, > Noddy. > Your a w.nker The Grand Vitara is not gutless now it now comes in a V6 2.7 > litre engine Holy sh.t! A *big block* :) > Get back to your little Red Convert with Big Ears Idiot. If you think a 2.7 litre Vitara isn't gutless then you have no idea. Oh, and go f.ck youself. -- Regards, Noddy. Gutless yes if you need to carry around an fat piece of sh.t like yourself. Try a V8 for you and your oversize friend . You're just a petrol rev head who thinks you have to have a big engine to drive over the limit and break all the rules. I don't need a powetrain for most driving unlike some of those dead hoons who found out the hard way. if you diet now you can be gutless too >> Your a w.nker The Grand Vitara is not gutless now it now comes in a V6 >> 2.7 litre engine [quoted text clipped - 12 lines] > Regards, > Noddy. > Gutless yes if you need to carry around an fat piece of sh.t like > yourself. > Try a V8 for you and your oversize friend Lol :) > You're just a petrol rev head who thinks you have to have a big engine to > drive over the limit and break all the rules. How did you know? > I don't need a powetrain for most driving unlike some of those dead hoons > who found out the hard way. > if you diet now you can be gutless too If you *had* a f.cking clue, you wouldn't look like such a moron :) -- Regards, Noddy. The 2.0 is ab-so-lutely gutless as has already been pointed out. The Vitara does have low range, which is of no use since you are not going off-roading. I would look at the Forester, CRV or RAV-4 if I were you, or just buy a car. "the fonz" <arthur.fonzzarelli@gmail.com> wrote in message > I would look at the Forester, CRV or RAV-4 if I were you, or just buy a > car. Agreed. The Suzuki is quite a capable off-roader apparently, but on the black-top it gets left behind by any soft-roader. -- Regards, Noddy. > "the fonz" <arthur.fonzzarelli@gmail.com> wrote in message > [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > The Suzuki is quite a capable off-roader apparently, but on the black-top it > gets left behind by any soft-roader. I thought the later ones got a 3 Litre (powerhouse) V6? They're not such a heavy item, so that should be adequate IMHO given that you could probably wring the things neck day to day for a very long time. Actually, the V6 Vitara Grande I thought about buying a few years back - where I get the 3L idea - had the very best/tidiest engine-bay layout I'd ever seen in a production car. SignatureToby. quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur > I thought the later ones got a 3 Litre (powerhouse) V6? 2.7 litre engine. > They're not such a heavy item, so that should be adequate IMHO given > that you could probably wring the things neck day to day for a very > long time. They're actually heavier than my Cherokee. -- Regards, Noddy. Cherokee now that's Old technology and useless as tits on a Stallion. >> I thought the later ones got a 3 Litre (powerhouse) V6? > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > Regards, > Noddy. > Cherokee now that's Old technology and useless as tits on a Stallion. Prove it? SignatureRegards Dan Prove God exists? >> Cherokee now that's Old technology and useless as tits on a Stallion. > > Prove it? > Prove God exists? I don't believe in God now don't avoid the question prove that Jeep Cherokee's are useless! SignatureRegards Dan > Prove God exists? So, you can't prove it, but you "just know" :) Jeez! I wonder why it is that cocksucking morons like you make themselves look like an even *bigger* idiot every time they post..... -- Regards, Noddy. >> Prove God exists? > > So, you can't prove it, but you "just know" :) > > Jeez! I wonder why it is that cocksucking morons like you make themselves > look like an even *bigger* idiot every time they post..... And you get called a troll. :-) SignatureRegards Dan > Cherokee now that's Old technology and useless as tits on a Stallion. Compared to what? A Grand Vitara? For f.ck's sake :) -- Regards, Noddy. > > Cherokee now that's Old technology and useless as tits on a Stallion. > > Compared to what? A Grand Vitara? > > For f.ck's sake dontya geddit? All that matters is if it has dohc and other technological marvels. The fact they are poorly developed and a pushrod engine in a certain vehicle makes for a _better overall package_ is absolutely irrelevant. what a moron you are, worrying about what you actually get out of the vehicle. SignatureJohn McKenzie tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com sweep.day@accc.gov.au Beaker was a tweaker uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au abuse@federalpolice.gov.au > dontya geddit? All that matters is if it has dohc and other > technological marvels. The fact they are poorly developed and a pushrod > engine in a certain vehicle makes for a _better overall package_ is > absolutely irrelevant. Totally. > what a moron you are, worrying about what you actually get out of the > vehicle. And here I was thinking that the starter motor on my Jeep makes more power than the engine in a Vitara. I should be well & truly reamed :) -- Regards, Noddy. >>dontya geddit? All that matters is if it has dohc and other >>technological marvels. The fact they are poorly developed and a pushrod [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > And here I was thinking that the starter motor on my Jeep makes more power > than the engine in a Vitara. Which engine did your fathers Vitara have? The 2.7 in the current model makes more power than your Jeep but something like 60nm less torque. Daryl "D Walford" <walford@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message news:445ef4b3$0$514$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader- > Which engine did your fathers Vitara have? It had the 2 litre V6. One of the most totally f.cking ridiculous engines ever put in a car in my humble opinion. > The 2.7 in the current model makes more power than your Jeep but something > like 60nm less torque. I've driven a couple of them, and while they're better than the miserable 2 litre (and that's not really hard), they're still a long way short of being a "usable" engine. Especially when you consider that the Grand Vitara ain't a particular lightweight. -- Regards, Noddy. > "D Walford" <walford@iprimus.com.au> wrote in message > news:445ef4b3$0$514$61c65585@uq-127creek-reader- [quoted text clipped - 5 lines] > One of the most totally f.cking ridiculous engines ever put in a car in my > humble opinion. What about the Mazda 1.8L V6? in the MX-3 (Eunos 30X) 100 kw @ 6800 rpm 160 nm @ 5300 rpm. Dunno why they even bother making a 6 cylinder engine at all when a 4 potter could do the same job. Waste of 6 cylinders really. SignatureRegards Dan -- Regards Dan >> It had the 2 litre V6. > What about the Mazda 1.8L V6? in the MX-3 (Eunos 30X) 100 kw @ 6800 rpm 160 > nm @ 5300 rpm. > Dunno why they even bother making a 6 cylinder engine at all when a 4 potter > could do the same job. > Waste of 6 cylinders really. IIRC, Suzuki were once quoting some pommie from the 1930s, who apparently "proved" that the most fuel efficient capacity of engine was about 330cc per cylinder. They used this to justify their 3-cyl 1.0L and 4-cyl 1.3L engines... Following this logic, the ideal capacity of a 6-cyl would be just under 2.0L... What size was that Suzuki V6 again? Maybe it takes the same pistons, rings, rods, valves, etc as the 3 and 4 cyl engines? Hell, with a bit of effort they could have used two 3-cyl heads. :-) The next question is where did their 2.6L V8 and 4L V12 get to? :-p Hmm. IIRC, Lambo V12 engines were originally about 4L... SignatureAthol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace. I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss. >>> It had the 2 litre V6. > [quoted text clipped - 10 lines] > per cylinder. They used this to justify their 3-cyl 1.0L and 4-cyl 1.3L > engines... Err, yes. And it's very probably right. Also the pretty fair little Daihatsu triples are in there. > Following this logic, the ideal capacity of a 6-cyl would be just under > 2.0L... Pomme stuff aplenty and early holdens. Yup. I reckon the only reason that formula has seemingly left us is that the poor little bastards would have a hernia running A/C and electricals we insist on having. And slushboxes - don't forget the older bastards sucked up HP like there was no tomorrow. > What size was that Suzuki V6 again? Maybe it takes the same pistons, > rings, rods, valves, etc as the 3 and 4 cyl engines? Hell, with a bit of > effort they could have used two 3-cyl heads. :-) They didn't? :-) > The next question is where did their 2.6L V8 and 4L V12 get to? :-p > > Hmm. IIRC, Lambo V12 engines were originally about 4L... Then there's the 45 Cu. In. (737cc) per pot gag, for best volumetric efficiency/torque balance. Somewhere between 330 and 740 CC's should be the best (another) balance? Like 500 neat, ferinstance. Like a 3 litre 6 - allow a bit more for a V handicap:-) A 2 Litre 4 A 4 Litre 8 A 1 Litre twin. A 6 Litre 12. And then there's aircraft engines. All torque and bugger all RPM. The better ones that don't sh.t themselves in dire ways are still sitting at 45 Cu In per pot. And what was that straight eight Alfa with two cranks and a supercharger drive separating them? Bloody magic, I reckon. So. I have the answer!! A 2.5 litre 6 off boost has to be a reasonable performer in volumetric efficiency. Add an intercooled supercharger (I question non intercooled superchargers and turbos, intercooled or otherwise, 'cause you have to sacrifice a tad too much efficiency in CR for them.) Anyway, voila - a decent engine of both kinds - country AND western. Still, there's always the bastard child - the LS2 - suitably buggered about with computer control and on 45 Cu In - just for the knuckle draggers to play with. But really, that engine should be well over 7 Litres to make them happy - and have a Caroma Carby sitting on top. With Induction scoop on bonnet. Hell, why not a traditional screaming blower. Come to think of it, the designers of those Detroit diesels have a LOT to answer for. SignatureToby. quidquid latine dictum sit, altum viditur > >>> It had the 2 litre V6. > > [quoted text clipped - 43 lines] > A 1 Litre twin. > A 6 Litre 12. Have you heard the George Carlin rant about the 10 commandments? (*if not it's well worth a look for. It covers such things as salesmanship and psychologically 'nice' sounding figures) > So. I have the answer!! > A 2.5 litre 6 off boost has to be a reasonable performer in volumetric > efficiency. Add an intercooled supercharger (I question non > intercooled superchargers and turbos, intercooled or otherwise, 'cause > you have to sacrifice a tad too much efficiency in CR for them.) > Anyway, voila - a decent engine of both kinds - country AND western. There's a bm with a supra 2.5 with a supercharger in sports sedans that does quite well I'm told. SignatureJohn McKenzie tosspam@aol.com abuse@aol.com abuse@yahoo.com abuse@hotmail.com abuse@msn.com abuse@sprint.com abuse@earthlink.com fraudinfo@psinet.com sweep.day@accc.gov.au All this could be yours, I should know I own it all uce@ftc.gov admin@loopback $LOGIN@localhost $LOGNAME@localhost $USER@localhost $USER@$HOST -h1024@localhost root@mailloop.com president@whitehouse.gov vice.president@whitehouse.gov abuse@iprimus.com.au abuse@cia.gov abuse@fbi.gov abuse@asio.gov.au abuse@federalpolice.gov.au I thought we were discussing the merits of a Grand Vitara for non 4WDing duties. I guess that conversation's finished! SignatureVYBerlinaV8 What a bunch of Egotistical halfwits. you're all trolling this newsgroup Suckers with a capital C (cocksuckers) Ps Noddy enjoy the $$$$$$$$ guzzling and polluting Cherokee > I thought we were discussing the merits of a Grand Vitara for non 4WDing > duties. > > I guess that conversation's finished! > What a bunch of Egotistical halfwits. University educated. > you're all trolling this newsgroup Yeah, we live for it. There's nothing more in our lives as important as waiting around for ridiculous comments from fuckwits like you. > Suckers with a capital C (cocksuckers) Oh-ma. You swore :) > Ps Noddy enjoy the $$$$$$$$ guzzling and polluting Cherokee Oh yeah, definitely. It get's better mileage than my old man's 2 litre Vitara ever did :) -- Regards, Noddy. > What a bunch of Egotistical halfwits. > you're all trolling this newsgroup > Suckers with a capital C (cocksuckers) > Ps Noddy enjoy the $$$$$$$$ guzzling and polluting Cherokee Were aint the ones chucking a tantrum because you couldn't prove your statement about the Cherokee's. You dug a blackhole that Stephen Hawking couldn't prove. And you call us halfwits pot kettle black at full speed. SignatureRegards Dan >> What a bunch of Egotistical halfwits. >> you're all trolling this newsgroup [quoted text clipped - 6 lines] > You dug a blackhole that Stephen Hawking couldn't prove. > And you call us halfwits pot kettle black at full speed. Particularly funny considering Nods Jeep is on gas. : ) Fraser >> You dug a blackhole that Stephen Hawking couldn't prove. >> And you call us halfwits pot kettle black at full speed. > > Particularly funny considering Nods Jeep is on gas. : ) Good call :-) SignatureRegards Dan > Good call > :-) Yeah, it costs around the same to run per week as my old lady's Getz :) -- Regards, Noddy. > Yeah, it costs around the same to run per week as my old lady's Getz :) Reminds me of when I worked out that my 350 HG cost the same to run as my father's 1.3L '85 Suzuki Swift (leaded, carby engine - too high compression for regular ULP). Guess which was more fun to drive. :-) SignatureAthol <http://cust.idl.com.au/athol> Linux Registered User # 254000 The state of infrastructure in New South Wales is a disgrace. I'm a Libran Engineer. I don't argue, I discuss. > Reminds me of when I worked out that my 350 HG cost the same to run as my > father's 1.3L '85 Suzuki Swift (leaded, carby engine - too high > compression > for regular ULP). Guess which was more fun to drive. :-) Umm.... :) -- Regards, Noddy. |
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.