Suzuki X90 - 'C***p' Or Not

Discuss other 'Zukis and other Kei class cars here

Moderator: Steering Group

Postby Ken Malone » Mon Feb 07, 2005 00:09

:evil: suspicious number!!! :twisted:
Ken Malone
 

Postby David Regan » Tue Nov 14, 2006 23:53

NOT!

I have purchased an X-90 and have to say that it is in NO WAY c**p whatsoever :flaming:
David Regan
 

Postby Dick Winchester » Wed Nov 15, 2006 01:24

One drove through our village a couple of weeks ago...First one I'd ever seen..... Then on Sunday I saw another one parked outside the shop in our local town..

Maybe they are all in Scotland! Would makes sense actually.. Cars like the old Fiat Panda 4x4 were ten a penny up here until they all fell to bits in an apparent act of mass suicide in the late 90s. It was the rust that got em..

So the X-90 would make a sort of substitute for a relatively cheap 4x4 although I can't quite see how you'd get a couple of sheep in the boot :lol:
Dick Winchester
 

Postby Ken Malone » Wed Nov 15, 2006 08:49

Two years ago I said I hadn't seen one - I still haven't! :lol:

I do like the look of them though - they look fun (assuming the performance is good).

I know it's not the same but I had a Suzy Vitara - hated driving it - too top heavy so it felt to me like it rolled like a boat but boy the engine was awesome - and it went through 3 foot river floods really easily.
Ken Malone
 

Postby Ian Linden » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:01

Ken Malone wrote:I know it's not the same but I had a Suzy Vitara - hated driving it - too top heavy so it felt to me like it rolled like a boat but boy the engine was awesome - and it went through 3 foot river floods really easily.


Actually, it's very similar, because the engine and chassis are the same. The suspension is a bit lower, and the tires smaller (with a different final drive in the diffs to compensate).

Mine has a lifted suspension using Australian components (Old Man Emu) and Vitara size tyres, and off-road it is quite a performer. The improved suspension has eliminated body roll as an issue, but the ride is also actually improved.

I guess the Suzuki spring rates and damper settings are not that good.
SCORE Treasurer & Membership Secretary
User avatar
Ian Linden
Steering Group
Steering Group
 
Posts: 4099
Images: 11
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 21:58
Location: St Lawrence, Jersey, Channel Islands

Postby Ian Linden » Wed Nov 15, 2006 10:10

Dick Winchester wrote:Maybe they are all in Scotland! Would makes sense actually.. Cars like the old Fiat Panda 4x4 were ten a penny up here until they all fell to bits in an apparent act of mass suicide in the late 90s. It was the rust that got em..

So the X-90 would make a sort of substitute for a relatively cheap 4x4 although I can't quite see how you'd get a couple of sheep in the boot :lol:


They come up on EBay quite often, but rarely in Scotland. The number in the UK is very small - I think less than 2,000. You can often pick them up for a song, but some are 2WD, so not much use in my view, although you can convert them to 4WD with Vitara components.

If you were to remove the boot lid, and fit some sort of tailgate to the back (seen it done), you could just about manage two sheep, with the advantage over a Vitara that you wouldn't smell them :D
SCORE Treasurer & Membership Secretary
User avatar
Ian Linden
Steering Group
Steering Group
 
Posts: 4099
Images: 11
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 21:58
Location: St Lawrence, Jersey, Channel Islands

Postby David Regan » Wed Nov 15, 2006 13:08

I'm loving mine. For an automatic, it's proving really nippy and you don't notice any of the gear changes.

There's no roll - it handles really well.

I drove a Jimney earlier this year and it felt like it was about to tip over! It was really narrow and just seemed to be top-heavy. The X-90 is wider and lower, feeling really stable and secure.

Haven't tried the 4x4 mode as of yet, but am sure it'll prove excellent in the snow and ice.
David Regan
 

Postby Ken Malone » Wed Nov 15, 2006 13:30

What Gas-Guzzler band is it Dave?
Ken Malone
 

Postby David Regan » Wed Nov 15, 2006 22:48

It's not. 8O

It costs £25.00 for me to fill the tank and that'll last me two weeks. About 250 miles in city traffic. Not bad, considering it's a 1.6 4x4 and automatic.
David Regan
 

Postby Ian Linden » Thu Nov 16, 2006 00:34

Ken Malone wrote:What Gas-Guzzler band is it Dave?


See http://www.bytestart.co.uk/content/taxlegal/9_15/vehicle-excise-duty-rates-2006-7.shtml

Only vehicles registered new from March 2001 are taxed according to Bands A to F, plus G after March 2006. Earlier vehicles are taxed according to displacement. The X-90 costs £175.

Note that Band G is not for 4x4s per se, contrary to the misleading statements in the media. Some people actually believe that all 4x4s are taxed in Band G. And some believe that only 4x4s are taxed in Band G.
SCORE Treasurer & Membership Secretary
User avatar
Ian Linden
Steering Group
Steering Group
 
Posts: 4099
Images: 11
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 21:58
Location: St Lawrence, Jersey, Channel Islands

Postby Ken Malone » Thu Nov 16, 2006 08:38

Hmnn - good to get the full picture - thanks.

I do like the look of the X-90 - would look nice in black or dark blue
Ken Malone
 

Postby David Regan » Thu Nov 16, 2006 21:33

So. When they finlly decide to put the charges up for 4x4 owners, will this affect the X-90?

Shouldn't do if it's only a 1590cc engine - should it?
David Regan
 

Postby Ian Linden » Thu Nov 16, 2006 23:51

David Regan wrote:So. When they finlly decide to put the charges up for 4x4 owners, will this affect the X-90?

Shouldn't do if it's only a 1590cc engine - should it?


It does not matter whether a vehicle is 4x2 or 4x4, or 6x4 for that matter, and I cannot see that it ever will. All that matters is the emissions per mile. They may well create more emission bands, and attach higher charges to them, but there will be no distinction on the grounds of transmission type, because it would be irrelevant. Band G is for "the most polluting vehicles". It is the media, not the government, who constantly associate that with 4x4s, as if "4x4" is the taxed feature, which it is not.

It is true that 4x4s tend to be heavier and less streamlined than "ordinary cars", so the extra weight and drag result in higher fuel consumption and therefore higher emissions. But since the emissions are the taxed feature, there is no need to distinguish vehicles by transmission type, drag coefficient or any other determinant.

There are no emissions data for vehicles marketed before March 2001, so it is probably impractical to attempt to extend the emission-based taxation to them. This will put a premium on pre-91 gas-guzzlers, unless they choose to create more displacement-related bands, to counter that tendency.

Btw, it is not the engine size which determines the emission level, although it is a factor; it is primarily the vehicle and how it is driven - clearly a more powerful engine will pollute more if the extra performance is used.

To illustrate this with the standard test, in which the vehicles are driven identically:

The 3 door Suzuki Grand Vitara emits 210g/km

The SX4 with the same engine (in slightly different tune, but virtually the same power and torque) achieves 165 (2WD) and 173 (4WD).

The difference is the weight and drag of the vehicles.
SCORE Treasurer & Membership Secretary
User avatar
Ian Linden
Steering Group
Steering Group
 
Posts: 4099
Images: 11
Joined: Fri Jan 18, 2002 21:58
Location: St Lawrence, Jersey, Channel Islands

Postby Anthony Hoyland » Mon Jul 23, 2007 17:32

Hi there people. I have owned my Suzuki X-90 for 4 years and it is a great little car. It drives well and never broken down on me. It is a good car. I recommend it to anybody who wants one. They fun to drive. They only made them for 2 years - N to R reg.

THANKS REGARDS ANTHONY
Anthony Hoyland
 

Previous

Return to Kissin' Cousins

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest