Picture Gallery: 2007 Suzuki SX4
 Click Image to Enlarge |
Hatchbacks are all the rage these days in Canada and it is about time! Higher fuel prices in the past couple of years have led to an influx of small vehicles and in particular, fuel efficient vehicles with some cargo capacity in the form of a hatchback. Suzuki has recently released the 2007 SX4, one of very few small vehicles available with all-wheel drive.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
My tester was a JLX model, the top of the line SX4 available to us here in Canada. Equipped with features typically reserved for more expensive and larger vehicles such as: automatic climate control, all-wheel drive, cruise control, AM/FM /6 CD/MP3/WMA player (8 speakers w/subwoofer) and powered and heated mirrors, the JLX model starts at $21,495. My tester added an automatic transmission for an extra $1100.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The interior of the SX4 is not what you would expect of a vehicle starting at only $15,995. The door panels and dash are extremely well fitted; the radio and climate control do not look tacked-on as an afterthought as so many vehicles in this range are. Although some cost savings can be seen in the thickness of the door panels and some of the plastic bits on the interior, it is visually appealing and well built.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The high roof level of the SX4 allows for a higher seating position and an upright windshield for excellent forward visibility. The A-pillars are a little large which restricts visibility around corners, but small windows between the pillars provide extra visibility when required.
The rear seating provides ample leg room for a vehicle of this size, but is lacking in head room. The rear seat is raised a considerable amount, giving back seat drivers a good view of the road ahead, but anyone over 5′ 10″ will be cramped for head room.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
The ratio of cargo capacity to footprint is one of the strong features of a compact hatchback design. The Suzuki is no different: with its higher roof line and wide rear opening, large objects fit with ease. The only questionable design decision is the 60/40 split rear seats that do not fold flat into the floor like many of its competitors. Instead, the seats flip forward which increases the overall height of the cargo area but reduces its length a great deal.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
So …. how does it drive? Well, very well actually. Not only does it not look like a vehicle in the $15,995 price range, it does not feel like one on the road either. The drivetrain feels seamless and the 2.0L engine, with 143hp and 136lb-ft of torque, feels powerful enough to move this little guy around without issue.
The only time I felt wanting for more power was when merging with highway traffic. The automatic transmission tends to up-shift quite rapidly and as a result, the transmission rarely in an optimal gear for acceleration. If you are in a hurry you will need to be prepared to floor the accelerator to get a downshift and all the power you paid for.
 Click Image to Enlarge |
On the highway the Suzuki feels very well planted and larger than it really is. Noise is kept to a minimum with the engine turning approximately 2300rpm at highway speeds. Wind noise was a little more apparent in the Suzuki than some of its competitors such as the Honda Fit, but by no means is it intrusive.
With my short time behind the wheel of the Suzuki SX4 I was unable to test the AWD capabilities; this feature would be best tested come winter when difficult traction scenarios may be encountered. I was lucky enough - or possibly unlucky enough - to have a chance to test out the climate control / heater system in the SX4 and can say it works extremely well. Personally, I love the set it and forget capabilities of automatic climate control.
Suzuki certainly has provided Canadians with another excellent choice in the sub-compact hatchback arena and you would be doing yourself a disservice if you failed to test drive this little wonder in your pursuit of a vehicle in this category.
2007 Suzuki SX4 JLX
MSRP as tested: $22,595.00
For more information on Suzuki and the SX4 visit Suzuki Canada
to our site.
October 29, 2006, 10:14:34 pm
"
I think you mean increases the length but reduces the height. It is a shame that the seats are like that and, being a 5 door, the front passenger seat back does not flip forward. So, to me it fails the Ikea test; which consists of loading a tall Billy bookcase and shutting all the doors with room for two people in the vehicle...and of course being able to drive.
It also has a block heater built in.
I think James has it right. Because the rear seats fold up off the floor (increasing height) but come to a rest against the back of the front chairs (reducing length).
I don't understand why car makers can't have it when you fold down the rear seats it creates a flat floor instead of doing the lift and fold which takes up space and creates a sloping floor.
October 29, 2006, 11:05:59 pm I've looked into the SX4 a little bit... Great quality interior.
I had read a little bit more on the american sites and was dissapointed at the dealer's when I found out the Canadian top model is lacking ESP and the Remote starter. (both are in the U.S. sport version)
So why? I guess neither are really all that important but it ticks me off that Canadian versions of cars seem to miss the odd extra americans might get, yet we often pay more. (after exchange)
October 30, 2006, 12:43:44 am I think those rear seats places this car at the bottom of the list. They are raised to give more leg room but decreases head room and hinders the useable extra space.. This is beneath Suzuki enegeneering. Other then standard AWD, there are better choices out there.
October 30, 2006, 08:51:25 am The flip-forward seats work well on cars that have more bed length, such as the X-Trail, V50, etc. If Suzuiki had only added 2 or 3 measely inches in length, this would probably helped rather than hindered the SX4's cause. Headroom in the rear seat would be an issue for me if I were travelling in the back seat.
Having said all this - lockable 4wd, hatchback, peppy engine, etc., still make this a very viable sub-compact vehicle worth considering along with the Fit, Versa and Yaris.
October 30, 2006, 08:56:12 am
"
I think you mean increases the length but reduces the height. It is a shame that the seats are like that and, being a 5 door, the front passenger seat back does not flip forward. So, to me it fails the Ikea test; which consists of loading a tall Billy bookcase and shutting all the doors with room for two people in the vehicle...and of course being able to drive.
It also has a block heater built in.
I think James has it right. Because the rear seats fold up off the floor (increasing height) but come to a rest against the back of the front chairs (reducing length).
I don't understand why car makers can't have it when you fold down the rear seats it creates a flat floor instead of doing the lift and fold which takes up space and creates a sloping floor.
I see what you mean Quad. I was considering the "stuff" space for length rather than height. ( the Ikea problem)
It is an appealing vehicle as a "utility" vehicle, a run-about and a light "stuff" carrier. Since looking at it we have looked at the Mazda 3 & 5, Rabbit and Versa and we'd already looked at the Fit. So far, the Fit and Rabbit are tie 1st with the Mazda 5 third. This ranking may change when my wife test drives them all which will include the Impreza and the Matrix.
October 30, 2006, 09:04:18 am The rear seats in my RAV4 are similar to those in the SX4. In the RAV the seats fold and flip up like in the Suzuki but they can also be taken out completely which opens up a lot more cargo space.
I wonder why Suzuki hasn't chosen to do the same.
October 30, 2006, 10:02:47 am I wonder if Suzuki has access to the GM parts bin? This would be an interesting car with the supercharged engine out of the Cobalt SS.
October 30, 2006, 11:43:32 am
Interesting. Rabbit-and-GTI/5/Fit were the finalists for me when it came down to it.
I've seen the SX4 twice in white and think it wears it well. Quite nice. Overall I think the package is very nice but when you get up to $22Gs the Tucson/Sportage start looking like better alternatives, unless you're more interested in a strictly compact or urban vehicle.
October 30, 2006, 12:37:08 pm
Interesting. Rabbit-and-GTI/5/Fit were the finalists for me when it came down to it.
I've seen the SX4 twice in white and think it wears it well. Quite nice. Overall I think the package is very nice but when you get up to $22Gs the Tucson/Sportage start looking like better alternatives, unless you're more interested in a strictly compact or urban vehicle.
I agree. 22000$ is a bit high for a subcompact vehicule. You could get a Grand Vitara for just few K more. But a fully loaded Fit, Yaris will go also in the 22000$ range. I guess this is reality and the price to pay to save some fuel.
October 30, 2006, 05:17:28 pm For us, economy is not the whole story. This car will probably only do 10,000 kms/yr if that.
1. My wife has to feel comfortable driving it...she has not driven much over the last few years.
2. It has to pass MY test ( manual transmission***, good handling reasonable good warranty and service schedule)
3. It has to pass the Ikea test as outlined above as well as the much easier: twenty plants and 4 bags of compost test from teh garden centre.
My BMW does not pass test 1 or 3
*** CVT/DSG are acceptable
What we'd really like is a 2007 ( note that) Jetta wagon TDI with a 6 speed The new body wagon with a 100 bhp tdi...Then I could go to Georgetown VW and get a "powerbox" and that would be just pefect. But.... no 2007 diesels, the new jetta wagon not even announced yet.
October 30, 2006, 10:12:26 pm James, Good job with the Museum shot but fer christ sakes the rest of them are the same old parking lot again. Spice it up man!
Railton
October 30, 2006, 10:23:20 pm Railton, the problem is unlike most reviewers I need to get my pictures the moment I get the car! If I had a week to get photos it would be easy. Most reviewers would have the time to go out on the weekend, get the car clean head out to a nice spot and take some photos.
I do not have the luxury unfortunately.... I wish I did! It's always a rush when I get a new vehicle to get some shots before it gets dark!
October 30, 2006, 10:46:33 pm
I do not have the luxury unfortunately.... I wish I did! It's always a rush when I get a new vehicle to get some shots before it gets dark!
You only have the car for one day?
October 31, 2006, 12:49:16 am I drove both the automatic and 5 speed. I found the auto a bit lacking in power. 5 speed was acceptible. You can definitely feel the weight of this vehicle. Not a peppy lightweight feel like my Mazda P5. Handling was okay with a nice ride. I liked the flip and fold seats. I agree about the interior... very nice. Definitely worth checking out, especially if you need AWD.
October 31, 2006, 07:08:48 am Mdx5, I have the car for a week, but I start the blog right away, unless I pick it up on Friday, can't start the blog without photos.
Usually I get the car on Monday and my chance to get photos is Sat when the blog is done, there are exceptions. If I can get the cars on Friday I try to get nicer pics on the weekend before starting on Monday.
I only had the SX4 for 2 days I believe and it was raining both days
October 31, 2006, 07:39:43 am That's what I thought. Was confused as to why you said it's tough to get shots before it gets dark. Does the automaker supply some photos or can you use some other shots if you can't get a decent set for the first day blog?
Anyway, the pics in the parking lot look okay, nothing special. Atleast you aren't lying on the floor like Yap does so much.
October 31, 2006, 08:50:37 am Just for you, I'm going to get myself a blanket and try that
October 31, 2006, 10:03:04 am Hey Wing, for what it's worth, I don't care if you shoot every car pic in an empty grocery store lot... I'm looking for good, big, clear pics of the car with as many details as possible. One request though: the luggage space pic would be even more helpful with something like a bicycle or another common object to give a relative reference of size. Having never seen an SX4 in real life yet, I have no point of reference for how capacious that cargo area is with the seats flipped forward. The Honda Fit ads with the seats moved forward show a bicycle enclosed in the back of the car and that really helps to define how usable the space truly is.
I've been keeping a watchful eye on the SX4 lately. Knowing that Suzuki seems to have a hard go of selling their vehicles here versus their competitors, it probably won't be too long before we start to see some interesting discounts on these things. The mid-level car is pretty well equipped with a lot of Wing's top-level tester's features being a little unnecessary in an economy car (ie. auto climate control; body-coloured roof-racks [versus the usual black ones] and the 6-speaker stereo [versus std 4-speaker unit which still plays MP3s I believe]). At about $5k less than an Impreza, plus better fuel economy and to my eye, even better styling, it's a heck of a value.
Looking forward to the rest of the report, Wing.
October 31, 2006, 10:06:26 am Frame of reference is great as GD says....luggage space, passenger space, and heck, even parking it beside another vehicle gives a good visual comparison.
October 31, 2006, 10:08:52 am Yap's so small he doesn't need ta lie down.............using a blanket eh....HOT WINGS!!!
Sssssssss...!!!!!...yeah use an everyday object say a safety Pin or a match box...
October 31, 2006, 10:11:37 am
Great suggestion but how about just using a measuring tape?
Using a bike is good but how big is the bike? My g/f’s mtn bike on a 15” frame is much smaller than my road bike on a 58cm frame (still don’t understand why mtn bikes are in inches and road bikes in cms).
Anyway…keep up the good work.
October 31, 2006, 12:20:17 pm
Good idea. Golf bags and/or beer cases are good...
October 31, 2006, 12:35:30 pm BTW, Loudpedal, I agree that it'd be a heck of a neat little package to have the SC engine it... or, as I mentioned to Wing earlier, even just throwing a small (quick-spooling) turbo on the stock engine and bumping the power to 180 or so would make it a great little machine for less than $25k
October 31, 2006, 09:59:05 pm
Indeed, it is a bit dissapointing from the company that brought us the Swift/Metro/Firefly. The latest hatchback has gained 25cm in length, 14cm in width, 22cm in height and packed on a whopping 430kg compared to the 1989-1994 5-door Metro. On the inside, front headroom is up 2cm, rear headroom is down 1cm, rear legroom is up 8cm (but only 5cm of that is actually useable as front legroom has dropped by 3cm so the front seat occupants will be shoving their seats further back), front hiproom is identical and rear hiproom is up 11cm (why bother, it's not like it's enough to put 3 people back there without squishing). Cargo dimentions are pretty similar as well, although there is a somewhat more height. The Metro's hatch came within 5cm of bing wide enough to swallow a standard sheet of plywood, but judging by the pictures none of that extra 14cm of width made it's way to the SX4's hatch. On top of all that, the price has doubled while inflation since 1992 has only been 30% (even energy prices are only up 60%).
November 26, 2006, 10:07:56 pm OK .. I gotta say it ...
Nearly everyone I've talk to think the "Wolf Boy" commercials are just plain dumb. They might appeal to socially awkward kids .. but not grown ups with the cash to buy them.
If it was my call can marketing on this one ... if Suzuki keeps it up the "Wolf Boy" nonsense they just might shot themselves in the foot. Frankly I think it overshadows a fairly nice little car.
The interior is quite nice and so is the drive. However, it does feel like it needs another gear above 115+ km/h.
Oh .. and it's several thousand dollars extra for Canadians - with less standard features. Shameful
R.