New Swift : w-t-f?

[zCypher]

New swift specs

I don't understand why they'd do this? At least make it get 100mpg or something, so it'd be worth it. They brought back the old design? I don't think 60cu.in of displacement is quite enough... basically a bike engine in a car!

As I read it, I figured maybe it got great gas mileage to compensate for its patheticness and ugly design. Yeah it gets good gas mileage, but for a 1.0L 50HP car, it doesn't. I brought up VW.com to compare two models of the Golf. Even the 200HP V6 Golf gets nearly as good gas mileage as the 1.0L H0HP, and the 1.9L standard Golf of course (which is still significantly more powerful at 90-110HP) gets better gas mileage than the Swift, and it still maintains a larger size at nearly 2.0L (1.9 to be precise).

So does anybody have any ideas on this? Would you buy a new Swift? Would you buy a new Swift over a Golf?

Yes, I realize there is a price difference - but the argument for buying the Swift can't be "it's better on gas". Maybe "I can't afford anything better" though.

 

[ElFenix]

ack, european mileage figures!

i dunno... theres so little torque you have to buzz the engine up past 3k to get anywhere... that'll hurt the mileage numbers.

 

[zCypher]

Originally posted by: ElFenix
ack, european mileage figures!

i dunno... theres so little torque you have to buzz the engine up past 3k to get anywhere... that'll hurt the mileage numbers.

Are you referring to the Swift or the Golf?

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: zCypher

Originally posted by: ElFenix
ack, european mileage figures!

i dunno... theres so little torque you have to buzz the engine up past 3k to get anywhere... that'll hurt the mileage numbers.

Are you referring to the Swift or the Golf?

swift... the golf should have quite a bit more torque available a lot lower than the 3.3K RPMs that the zuk's 56 ft-lbs is available at.

 

[zCypher]

swift... the golf should have quite a bit more torque available a lot lower than the 3.3K RPMs that the zuk's 56 ft-lbs is available at.

Actually that's 52hp at 5700rpm, not even 3

Just making sure you weren't talking about the Golf there, hehe.

Anyway... The diesel golf has 90hp and gets 50mpg, the 2.0L gas has 115hp and gets 31mpg. The diesel is about $1300 more expensive. Hmmm... I'd still rather have the 200hp VR6.

 

[Pepsi90919]

are those US gallons or UK gallons?

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: zCypher
Yeah it gets good gas mileage, but for a 1.0L 50HP car, it doesn't. I brought up VW.com to compare two models of the Golf. Even the 200HP V6 Golf gets nearly as good gas mileage as the 1.0L H0HP, and the 1.9L standard Golf of course (which is still significantly more powerful at 90-110HP) gets better gas mileage than the Swift, and it still maintains a larger size at nearly 2.0L (1.9 to be precise).

Really? For reminder, here is the fuel-consumption of this Swift:

Urban: 6.8L/100km
Extra urban: 4.5L/100km
Combined: 5.3L/100km

For comparison: VW Golf V6 (finnish spec)

Urban: 15.5 - 15.8L/100km
Extra urban: 8.1 - 8.3L/100km
Combined: 10.8 - 11,1L/100km

VW Golf eats about twice as much gas as this Swift does.

As to the 1.9L Golf.... It's an diesel, they have small fuel-consumption by default. I looked at it's (100hp 1.9L TDI) fuel-consumption, and it's about the same as the Swift has.

EDIT: That said, I would rather stick toothpicks under my fingernails than get a Suzuki Swift.

 

[BurnItDwn]

HAHAHAHAHAHAH That thing is a little Go cart !!!

a 3 Cylinder ???
Its got less horsepower than most motorcycles,
I understand the need to conserve resources ... but this little cart has no class or no style ... ack

 

[Nemesis77]

Originally posted by: BurnItDwn
HAHAHAHAHAHAH That thing is a little Go cart !!!

a 3 Cylinder ???
Its got less horsepower than most motorcycles,
I understand the need to conserve resources ... but this little cart has no class or no style ... ack

Basically that car (and others like it) are meant for things like trips to the grocery-store and the like, and it does that just well. You don't need 200hp to haul groceries.

 

[The Stigenator]

I have driven the swift before.. and let me tell you it does fine.

We americans seem to believe that bigger is better. Try driving a SUV in India.. you will get the worst mileage ever. A small engine producing about 50hp is plenty to get to 100mph.

The swift is a nice car.. and while it isnt made for the US market (because of the no-replacement-for-displacement-nuts) the car does fine in the UK and rest of europe where sub 1.6L engines have the market compared to over 2.0L engines. Why you ask.. well in UK the bigger your engine the more "emmission tax" known as road tax you pay. Plus the small engine does its job and hence you can get around quite easily. Sure its not a power house but you can commute by it.

And by the way teh gas milage is set this way in the UK and europe.. its set by the number of liters required to get 100km That's teh EU rating for mileage.

Sure it doesnt seem much but when you convert your getting over 60mpg (US)

 

[Cyberian]

Basically that car (and others like it) are meant for things like trips to the grocery-store and the like, and it does that just well. You don't need 200hp to haul groceries.

True.

Isn't this the same car that was offered in the US as the Geo/Chevy Metro?

 

[Evadman]

How much does it cost? I would buy one just to toss in the bed of my truck and use for short trips. that would be cool.

 

[ObiDon]

Originally posted by: Cyberian

Basically that car (and others like it) are meant for things like trips to the grocery-store and the like, and it does that just well. You don't need 200hp to haul groceries.

True.

Isn't this the same car that was offered in the US as the Geo/Chevy Metro?

Yep. The hatchbacks were 3-cylinder Suzuki Swifts and the LSI version was a 4-cylinder car.
The Metro sedans were Toyota Corollas.

 

[WinkOsmosis]

Small engines do not necessarily mean good gas mileage.. economy depends on the amount of energy you use to accelerate more than the amount of friction in an engine. A 1.0L engine just limits the amount of acceleration you can do.

 

[Ultima]

The V6 gets half the gas mileage of the swift, and the 90hp is a DIESEL, not a gas motor.

That being said, I would never buy a swift. They're little deathtraps. I'd much rather go with a golf diesel.

 

[N8Magic]

Originally posted by: Ultima
The V6 gets half the gas mileage of the swift, and the 90hp is a DIESEL, not a gas motor.

That being said, I would never buy a swift. They're little deathtraps. I'd much rather go with a golf diesel.

The 1.9L is in fact a diesel, and it is not the standard engine in the Golf. That honor is reserved for the 2.slo (2.0L I4) engine.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: zCypher

swift... the golf should have quite a bit more torque available a lot lower than the 3.3K RPMs that the zuk's 56 ft-lbs is available at.

Actually that's 52hp at 5700rpm, not even 3

Just making sure you weren't talking about the Golf there, hehe.

Anyway... The diesel golf has 90hp and gets 50mpg, the 2.0L gas has 115hp and gets 31mpg. The diesel is about $1300 more expensive. Hmmm... I'd still rather have the 200hp VR6.

i was refering to torque, not HP. HP seems largely meaningless in day to day driving.

 

[Ultima]

Depends on if it has a CVT or not. For cars with CVT's, torque is 100% irrelevant as the car is always in whatever RPM is needed to produce the required power. HP matters for acceleration. All torque tells you is that a motor is better at off the line grunt (which matters with conventional transmissions). You'll probably have to rev a swift pretty high to get any useful acceleration out of it. Of course, torque is also good because less RPM's = less friction wear. Still, a CVT can make any engine seem torquey.

 

[N8Magic]

Originally posted by: Ultima
Depends on if it has a CVT or not. For cars with CVT's, torque is 100% irrelevant as the car is always in whatever RPM is needed to produce the required power. HP matters for acceleration. All torque tells you is that a motor is better at off the line grunt (which matters with conventional transmissions). You'll probably have to rev a swift pretty high to get any useful acceleration out of it. Of course, torque is also good because less RPM's = less friction wear. Still, a CVT can make any engine seem torquey.

How is torque irrelevant?

Seeing as HP is a function of torque, I think it is completely relevant. With no torque, you have no HP.

 

[Ultima]

What I mean is, on cars with a CVT there's no reason to care about torque. Power is power, torque is simply how much power you have at a given RPM's.

If the engine makes say, 80hp at 4000rpm then it will always make that power as long as it's running at that RPM. With a CVT, you can have it so that the engine is always running at 4000rpm, thus 80hp is always going to the ground. Torque is just the twisting force, hp is how much work is actually getting done. With conventional transmissions you need an engine to be able to make lots of power at low rpms (a "torquey" engine) or else the car would be very sluggish in the low RPM's. With CVT's though that doesn't matter cause you can keep an engine in high RPM's regardless of road speed.

 

[N8Magic]

Originally posted by: Ultima
What I mean is, on cars with a CVT there's no reason to care about torque. Power is power, torque is simply how much power you have at a given RPM's.

If the engine makes say, 80hp at 4000rpm then it will always make that power as long as it's running at that RPM. With a CVT, you can have it so that the engine is always running at 4000rpm, thus 80hp is always going to the ground. Torque is just the twisting force, hp is how much work is actually getting done. With conventional transmissions you need an engine to be able to make lots of power at low rpms (a "torquey" engine) or else the car would be very sluggish in the low RPM's. With CVT's though that doesn't matter cause you can keep an engine in high RPM's regardless of road speed.

I know.

I was just wondering if you were talking out your ass like some other car know-it-all's around here.

 

[AvesPKS]

The Metro sedans were Toyota Corollas.

Those were the Geo Prizms, not Metros.

 

[ElFenix]

Originally posted by: Ultima HP matters for acceleration.

A = F/M
A is acceleration
M is the mass of the object
F is force, and torque is rotary force.

P = W/T
W = F*D
tell me again, what exactly is HP?

 

[ObiDon]

Originally posted by: AvesPKS

The Metro sedans were Toyota Corollas.

Those were the Geo Prizms, not Metros.

Oh yeah, you got me! I knew that didn't seem quite right when I posted it!

 

[ObiDon]

I thought that torque gave you better acceleration (if that's what you're geared for vs. towing) and HP would just gie you a higher top speed irregardless* of what type of transmission you have.

Isn't that why people keep talking about those 900+ HP Surpras that still have relatively bad 1/4-mile times?


* Disclaimer -- I don't like this word. It was just thrown in to annoy people.