Suzuki 4cyl's only rated at 30MPG?

Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
11,284
Location
Spring HIll
The car reivew in today's paper was about a new Suzuki 4dr hatchback. All else aside, what struck me was these little econobox is only able to achieve an EPA rating of 30MPG with a manual trans!! 30MPG is nothing to get to excited about nowadays. My old 4-banger Saturn achieves 33MPG with the A/C on and 35-38MPG without. Why buy an "economy" car when the MPG is nothing special? Even GM's 4 cyl Ecotech engine gets better MPG across the board!
 

Bill in Utah

Staff member
Joined
Nov 11, 2002
Messages
12,849
Location
UT
My Dad went and test drove the Station Wagon and really liked it. Price was very good. But he did not think for this car the EPA MPG was good at all. The dealer even gave him a list of folks who bought the car to call and ask how they like the car and dealership. (They get free oil changes as long as they are on the list!) The EPA MPG no one got close! [Frown] The best MPG was reported as 26. My Dad passed on the car and spent almost twice as much and bought his Saturn VUE. They are on Vacation from Utah to WY to SD to ND to MT (1280 miles in 3 days) and so far with 4k miles on the clock, the best MPG is 28.7. This is driving all highway, A/C on, temps in the 80s-90s and quite a load in the outfit. Not bad. I think the Suzuki needs to spend more $$ in engineering and get their engine to be more frugal in the MPG. Take care, Bill
 
Joined
Apr 6, 2004
Messages
453
Location
ON, Canada
I think you were looking at Reno. Suzuki Reno = Chevy Optra 5 = Daewoo Lacetti or Lanos (reworked a bit). It has not been engineered by Suzuki at all, they had to re-badge some pretty old design. 2.0L @ 126HP is underpowered by modern standards and is quite inefficient. It is almost certainly an old Opel engine. My Suzuki Aerio SX (2.3L @ 155HP & 152 ft-lbs., Automatic) is rated at 25/31MPG, my real fuel economy has been 27/35MPG on average during almost 2 years of the ownership.
 

JHZR2

Staff member
Joined
Dec 14, 2002
Messages
46,576
Location
New Jersey
I had a gripe about this some time back. And its not just suzuki either... To have ford focus commercials that claim "great fuel economy", and then state 32 MPG highway in the fine print on the bottom, or saturn commercials that ask "whats the point of fuel economy without power", and then show that it has 140 hp and 32 mpg are absurd. My saab has 175 hp and is 34 mpg highway. The corolla has 130 or so hp, and is rated at ~41 mpg highway. Maybe its time for the EPA to recognize that even if a tiny 4 cyl car puts out a little extra CO or NOx, its minimal in then of these cars, compared to one emissions exempt big 8 or 10 cylinder SUVs. IMO, only COMMERCIAL sale vehicles (with adequate proof) should be exempt from emissions regulations, and the degree of regulation should be tiered based upon engine size and vehicle mass, so a car like the focus can claim in a TV commercial that it gets good mileage, and have a 40+ number displayed. JMH
 
Joined
Nov 18, 2004
Messages
1,967
Location
Kitsap, WA
Buddie bought a hemi dodge pickup that NEVER ever achieved the city numbers! After haggling, inpections and testing , the service manager traded rigs with him and drove it for a few tanks (with a light foot I bet). Long story made short they bought it back minus the salestax. My 02 accent has always bettered the epa 36hyw with 39 to 41 the norm, every tank any kind of driving. That's even with the option'd bigger motor, lower gearing, closer ratio GS package.
 
Joined
Jan 6, 2004
Messages
453
Location
stanwood, wash.
Am sticking to the old tryed and proven "Suzuki"s that got 'good' gas milage! '98 Swift(Geo Metro's) 43-45mpg!! There CHEAP to buy and own if you can find any, trouble is everyone that has one are holding on and driving the wheels off them at $2.20+++ per gallon for gas! (I just so happen to have TWO of them, the '98(107thou so far) and an '01(43thou) waiting under cover for the '98's demize. Both are paid for and the plan is to go the next 8 to 9 years with no car payments!-as long as another tree doesn't drop in front of me at 50mph in a wind storm like what happened to #2 metro on way to work in 94-guess I can say I am covered this time if it happens again, as long as I live though it, being I have a second now for insurance) Have already proven they will go the distance--#4 '96 still running with 250++ on it and #1 '88 Sprint went 254thou when sold-still running!!!
 

ToyotaNSaturn

Thread starter
Joined
Apr 11, 2003
Messages
11,284
Location
Spring HIll
Ford 500, Base model, 3.0L 24V V-6 with CVT trans: Fuel Tank Capacity: 19 gal. EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway) Automatic: : 21 mpg / 29 mpg Range in Miles: (City/Highway) Automatic: 399 mi. / 551 mi. Chevy Impala, 3.8L OHV V6, 4spd Auto: Fuel Tank Capacity: 17 gal. EPA Mileage Estimates: (City/Highway) Automatic: : 20 mpg / 30 mpg Range in Miles: (City/Highway) Automatic: 340 mi. / 510 mi. After seeing these two cars, I'd rather buy one of these in the 12-13K range after a year or two of deprecitation than one of those "economy" cars.
 
Top