Suzukis I've run in the past have needed lot more than 1,000 miles, more like 10,000 before they start to sparkle.
|
|
Remember Machika has bought a used one - should already be run in?
|
|
It has done a little over 4000 miles.
|
|
|
Remember Machika has bought a used one - should already be run in?
True. 4,000miles? That autobox must kill the performance - I recently had a go in a demo 2005 1.5 manual Swift and that was quite nippy. Bizzare!
|
|
It only knocks 3 mph off the claimed top speed. It reminds me somewhat of the Clio automatic we had a few years ago. That had a 1.8 engine but only 90 bhp. I don't know what the torque output was but above 70 mph one felt like giving it a kick in pants too. The claimed top speed of the Clio was almost identical to that of the Swift, if my memory is correct.
|
Tyre noise is a pain and a problem I have had before in Japanese cars using Japanese tyres. We swapped Dunlops for Avons on a Honda 4WS a few years ago and the rise and noise levels improved dramatically.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
The tyres on the car are Continental Premium Contact, the same as we have on the rear wheels of the C5, and they are quiet on that car. They are lower profile on the Swift though, so I suppose that could make a difference?
|
The tyres on the car are Continental Premium Contact, the same as we have on the rear wheels of the C5, and they are quiet on that car.
Machika,
You should know not to compare any car with the C5 (See other thread).
Ben
|
|
|
The more I drive this car, the more I like it. I am getting used to the ride and I love the handling. In order to get it to accelerate reasonably quickly up to 70 mph, it really needs to be held in 3rd gear, otherwise the acceleration is a bit leisurely.
One thing I have noticed, which needs to be remembered, is that the front air dam is very low. My wife was parking the car at a local DIY store recently, and she left the front end projecting over the kerb. The bodywork only just cleared the kerb, which wasn't terribly high, but it did make contact with the grass verge, which had a slight rise in it. There is a little scrape in the paintwork now but it could have been there before. She is now under orders to stay away from kerbs with the wheels and the front end.
There is a narrow rubber strip under the bumper too, which lowers the clearance even more. I should imagine that front end damage to these cars, caused by kerbs, is quite common.
|
|
I have a 55 plate Suzuki Carry van with the 1300cc engine ( doubtful the same one as in the Swift though ) and mines just hit around 6,000 miles. Its only recently that the engine has started to loosen up properly and average fuel consumption has jumped from 38mpg to 45mpg, so give it some time.
|
|
The automatic has the 1500cc engine.
|
Two things I have found that I don't like about the car:
1) It has a very inaccurate fuel gauge - it is now reading about one quarter full, having covered only 166 miles since the tank was filled.
2) The useless instantaneous mpg readout, which cannot be turned off and does not have the choice of an average mpg figure, as the C5 does.
|
Sounds like your fuel gauge is broken. I've just bought one of these cars (under the influence of the AliJazz thread), and the fuel gauge is at half empty after almost 200 miles.
Could it be the fuel sender unit? I'd get it checked.
This is the first car I've got with an mpg readout. I hardly thought about economical driving before, now I'm always conscious of the fact. For example, where I'd expect 5th gear to be more economical than 4th at 30 mph, 4th seems to be more economical.
Horses for courses, or whatever. Some black insulating tape over the readout should sort you out a treat.
David
Suzuki Swift 1.5 GLX
|
|
I'm convinced that the gauge reading is wrong (it had better be, or we have a seriously thirsty car). We are going to run it until the warning light comes on and then fill the tank to see what mpg figure we get. The tank capacity is almost 10 gallons and my wife got nowhere near that amount in when she last filled up (gauge showing empty but no warning light on).
|
Frankly machika I wouldn't be surprised. A sport 1.5 auto that's barely run in. Combined with a slightly misleading fuel gauge.
--
Espada III - well if you have a family and need a Lamborghini, what else do you drive?
|
|
I think it is more than slightly misleading.
|
I put the first tank full of petrol through my sister's Swift and I filled it up with about 8galls when the gauge was just above empty (no light on). It did about 37mpg which I expect will improve. Gauge seemed faily accurate to me - you could have a dodgy sender.
With an auto on a 1.5 VVT engine you are not going to get tremendous economy are you - especially if you 'drive it' a bit.....
|
I put the first tank full of petrol through my sister's Swift and I filled it up with about 8galls when the gauge was just above empty (no light on). It did about 37mpg which I expect will improve. Gauge seemed faily accurate to me - you could have a dodgy sender. With an auto on a 1.5 VVT engine you are not going to get tremendous economy are you - especially if you 'drive it' a bit.....
>>
If you look at the manufacturers figures, the manual version isn't a whole lot better than the auto (combined 43.5 against 40.9, urban 32.8 against 30.4), so I would expect to get around 35 mpg overall, with a bit more urban driving than extra urban. Also, the car has got almost 5K miles under its belt.
We used to get around 30 mpg from our 1.8 Clio auto and that was old technology compared to the Swift.
|
Yeah David! Another Swift driver!
I LOVE my Swift. Still. And thank you for letting me know about the mpg readout. I had wondered how I could be driving at so many different speeds in such a short time! So.. it isn't a speedo, huh?
Hooray for this lovely car. I have only seen one other one in NEwark. The Danes are more enlightened. I had to go to Copenhagen at half term and they were very popular there.
I still don;t know what the Illumi Cancel button means, but I am looking forward to spending the rest of my life finding out.
Happy driving.
Alijazz
|
Ali, could you tell me approximately what mpg you are getting out of your car, as I seem to recall that you have an automatic? I am going to take the car on run down to Lichfield today, as the fuel gauge says it is nearly empty, and I want to see if I can do the journey without the warning light coming on. It has only covered about 200 miles since the tank was last filled and the gauge is only just above the empty mark.
I am a bit concerned about the fuel consumption of this car, despite the fact it is an automatic, as Suzuki claim the car should only be about 2-3 mpg worse than the manual version. It should be returning figures similar to our C5 but, unless there is something seriously wrong with the fuel guage, it is nowhere near. With a tank capacity of almost 10 gallons it should easily go past 300 miles per tank.
|
Hi Machika,
I have to admit that I find the car heavy on petrol. Well, it's relative. It is very heavy on petrol compared to the Fiat Panda I had, which I literally used to fill up every two months.
I haven't done a long journey yet, to really see what's what. I shall pay more attention now and report back.
Compared to my husband's car (BMW) all fuel consumption seems negligible!
Sorry not to be of more help. I wouldn't risk running it down. I really do think Suzuki have been a bit optimistic with their figures. I've seen one or two comments about it in various customer reviews on the net.
Nevertheless, I still love my little/big car. I sometimes wonder if it is a little teeny bit to do with how I drive this car compared to others. It is a real pleasure to throw around country lanes, and I suspect that is not great for one's gas dollar, as they say.
Good luck anyway.
Ali
|
200 miles to a tank?
Welcome to my world!
|
I have some info to work on now that I have been out in the car today. The tripmeter was at just under 200 miles when I did the first journey of the day in the car, which was a round trip of 18 miles to my in-laws to sort out a washing machine problem. I then had a journey to Lichfield and back, which took in a visit to Castle Donington at the end of the journey, to do some shopping, and to fill up the tank.
The fuel warning light came on when I was in Lichfield, with the tripmeter reading about 240 miles. At the filling station in Castle Donington it was reading a tad over 270 miles. I had a job filling the tank, as when I put the nozzle in as far as it would go, it would not fill, as the pump kept cutting out, so I had to ease it out until it stopped cutting out. I only managed to get 36 litres (about 7.9 gallons) in the tank, which has a capacity of 45 litres, and that was after running with the fuel warning light on for 30 miles. Also, after brimming the tank, the gauge indicated that the tank was not quite full. Therefore, I am convinced there is something amiss with the gauge.
The fuel consumption works out at about 34 mpg, which is a little less than I was hoping for, but not far off. The first 200 miles or so of the tank of fuel were done on journeys of no more than 9 miles, so it's not too bad.
|
|
Yes, I would guess 35mpg in mixed driving for a car of this type, which is fair enough I think. Does sound like your gauge is a bit crook though...
|
Just found an Aussie long-term test on a 1.5 Swift. They did 10000km in the car and reckon it didn't loosen up until 7000km. Economy looks like it varies from low 30's to low 40's in mpg terms (converting from l/100km). They really seem to like the car anyway...
Report is here:
drive.com.au/Editorial/ArticleDetail.aspx?articleI...2
|
|
I have been advised by the local dealer to take the car in when the tank is as near empty as we can get it, so that they can remove the tank to carry out checks.
|
|
|
|
|
|
