RE: Driven: Suzuki Swift Sport

[stupidbutkeen]

ClockworkCupcake said:

I'm still intruiged by the assertion that the Mk1 has poor throttle response. The throttle response, low flywheel effect and high engine braking, were things I really loved about it and when I test drove the Mk2 I instantly felt it was lesser in all those respects.

However, having said that, we are all different and have different opinions, preferences and likes.

I find MY MK1 sharp on the throttle assuming im anything over 4.5k revs. the lack of torque means little 'lift' under that.
I still run standard set up and always get the eagle f1 tyres.(had car 2.5 years/18k and replaced front tyres from 205 cheap things-195 eagle f1 4 months after I bought it and then 2 months ago)
My plan is to keep it for another 1.5 years 10k miles then look to change and had been thinking the mk2 would be perfect for me.
I come from a base of changing my car every year so to keep a car for 2.5 years is amazing for me and I have found the car I really like. In the 2.5 years I have had it I have had no problems with it bar a new battery and new top mounts due to the 52 speed bumps I go over every day to get to work and home again.
The car feels planted in the bends but the rattles through the cabin are starting to drive me mad.

[VeeFource]

ClockworkCupcake said:

I'm still intruiged by the assertion that the Mk1 has poor throttle response. The throttle response, low flywheel effect and high engine braking, were things I really loved about it and when I test drove the Mk2 I instantly felt it was lesser in all those respects.

However, having said that, we are all different and have different opinions, preferences and likes.

When I blip the throttle on an upshift in my Mum's mk1 the engine doesn't respond unless I wait for it by keeping the accelerator pinned a few tenths of a second longer than feels right. A bit like a turbo'd car in fact. My mk2's engine doesn't need this and responds as fast as I can physically blip the pedal. To me that means it has much better response as I don't have to consciously think how to use it.

I can't say I've noticed any difference in flywheel effect, they both seem to rev up the same once the engines respond to blipping the throttle.

I can't see how the mk1 would have more engine braking. Assuming they both have good compression, they have the same stroke and compression ratios so would generate the same engine braking for an equal overall transmission ratio. If anything the mk2 would have more engine braking as it's slightly lighter though this would barely be detectable.

[dieseluser07]

VeeFource said:

dieseluser07 said:

So the engine noise is a lot quiter on the new one?

A fair bit yes, but it's easily liberated into the cabin. You'll need a fruitier exhaust to equal the noise on the outside though thanks to the blasted Euro reg's. A Milltek will sound like a mk1 stock exhaust does but is not cheap at £500

What do you mean liberated into the cabin??

Also i thought the mk1 sports exhaust was pretty damn quiet, so the mk2 exhaust is even quiter?

[VeeFource]

dieseluser07 said:

What do you mean liberated into the cabin??

Also i thought the mk1 sports exhaust was pretty damn quiet, so the mk2 exhaust is even quiter?

Liberated as in removing certain engine bay soundproofing so you can hear it more in the cabin. The stock exhaust is barely audible on the mk2, even when stood behind the car. And what you can hear sounds pathetically flaccid so the mk1 owns it in this respect, but then it had less stringent Euro regs to meet back in the day compared with what the mk2's up against.

[dieseluser07]

VeeFource said:

Liberated as in removing certain engine bay soundproofing so you can hear it more in the cabin. The stock exhaust is barely audible on the mk2, even when stood behind the car. And what you can hear sounds pathetically flaccid so the mk1 owns it in this respect, but then it had less stringent Euro regs to meet back in the day compared with what the mk2's up against.

Fair enough, so swapping the backbox should improve this? Looking at maybe getting the sport

[VeeFource]

dieseluser07 said:

Fair enough, so swapping the backbox should improve this? Looking at maybe getting the sport

I've updated my thoughts on the page ClockworkCupcake mentioned for further reading: http://datahamster.com/2015/04/25/suzuki-swift-spo...

You'll not regret going for the sport no matter which one you end up getting, to me they embody the perfect recipe for hot hatching on road. These 300bhp mega hatches are overkill in my opinion unless either you've money to burn or do some serious track day stuff, but each to their own.

[dieseluser07]

VeeFource said:

I've updated my thoughts on the page ClockworkCupcake mentioned for further reading: http://datahamster.com/2015/04/25/suzuki-swift-spo...

You'll not regret going for the sport no matter which one you end up getting, to me they embody the perfect recipe for hot hatching on road. These 300bhp mega hatches are overkill in my opinion unless either you've money to burn or do some serious track day stuff, but each to their own.

See i feel like i need to scratch a 200hp itch and get a clio rs or something but ive been in a swift sport mk1 and it felt pretty damn fun on b road, albeit slow it felt accelerating onto the motorway

[Ilovejapcrap]

Terminator Guy said:

I love the Suzuki Swifts, having lapped the Nurburgring 6 times in a rental race prepped by Rent4Ring in the first open session last year, with snow on most of the roads leading to the 'Ring. I held off a timid R35 skyline for the first few bends on lap 3 because the R888 tyres were hot and he couldn't round a corner to save his life.
Great car the Swift, and for me it utterly supersedes most Honda Civic and Jazz models, those odd small Merc things, anything small and French, and all Smart cars etc...

Me last year just about getting a Swift onto three wheels with snow on the trackside grass.


http://i.imgur.com/iqzDcEt.jpg

I'm doing that next year hopefully

[Ilovejapcrap]

[roly79]

The best colour i think ilovejapcrap nicely understated. The wife chose ours but glad we got the 5 dr.
How are you getting on with it ?

[Ilovejapcrap]

Well I got it Monday and have stuck 200 miles on so far, I have a van for work.

First thing I did was shoot round to see my best mate and mechanic after work. He stuck it on the ramp and had a look underneath. First thing he said was ohh old school nice simple and logical. Loved the fact it had no turbo no intercooler etc.

Then we locked up the garage and took it for a spin, I let him drive. He really rated it could not get over handling to say it had such a simple rear end set up, or the amount of kit inside, he also loved the engine.

I'm only 4 days into ownership, I've only done short distances except tonight took a friend and his wife to hull. I'm really falling for it rather bad. Like the look, love the handling, love the kit, find the seats nicer than my Audi A3.

Time will tell I guess but so far I'm well chuffed with my decision. ( spent 2 weeks looking at every car you can think of),

It's just such an honest fun car.

[gweaver]

Ilovejapcrap said:

Time will tell I guess but so far I'm well chuffed with my decision.

Glad you're gelling with it :-)

In other news:

Rumours from Japan said:

1.4 Boosterjet

Power: 150 HP @ 5,500 RPM
Torque: 180 lb.ft @ between 1500 to 4000 RPM
Weight: 1000 kg kerb weight

(from http://ssoc.co.uk/forums/showthread.php?5863-New-t...

These are the rumoured vital statistics for the next generation Swift Sport. It's sure to be a different animal.

[Mercury00]

An automatic option too, hopefully.

[Ilovejapcrap]

Mercury00 said:

An automatic option too, hopefully.

Hmm the thing I like about it is how simple it is turbos and auto box etc are taking away from its charm for me I think

[GT Glee]

Owned mine from new since April this year. It is the best driver's car I've owned - every time I pull up on the drive I feel a little more love for it!

Totally agree with previous comment about simplicity. This leads to greater reliability and even better, reduced weight.

I personally prefer the instant response of NA, and a higher rev ceiling means ratios can be shorter giving greater torque multiplication throughout the rev range.

The SS may 'only' achieve 121mph but I don't care. The short ratios work well with the revvy NA engine to squirt you from turn to turn while the incredible chassis allows you to maintain such pace with a high degree of confidence.

I've owned and driven (still do) much more powerful cars but with the different elements not gelling as well as they do in the SS it is evident to me why a car like the SS can string together technical roads so quickly. And the fun you are rewarded with in doing this is the best kind of fun in motoring IMO!

The comment re underrated is probably due to it being little known more than anything because I haven't read one bad review from either private or professional writer.

The chassis, brakes, engine, steering, gearchange, feedback and response are all right up there and gel in the SS. Own one long enough and you'll start to experience drives where you're not thinking about some hindrance in the car, but the drive itself, almost like an extension of your body. You think and the SS responds, and the reaction keeps your confidence high and the endorphins flowing!

Here's mine before a recent wash.. Loving it!

[Ilovejapcrap]

Just come back from my sisters in aspatria I get it more than ever the rough twisting back roads with odd cambers etc just made me realise how good a light car and revvy engine is.

In my Audi A3 I'd have been hard on the brakes at some points, in this it just slotted round with a little prod of the brake.

Great fun

[stefanschlau]

for those who question/doubt the mpg figure; as a 2016 swift sport owner/driver l can assuredly say that 45-50mpg IS achievable, even with a heavy right foot

[gweaver]

stefanschlau said:

for those who question/doubt the mpg figure; as a 2016 swift sport owner/driver l can assuredly say that 45-50mpg IS achievable, even with a heavy right foot

Do a brim to brim fuel consumption calculation and then come back and tell us that!
45-50 mpg is achievable, but not with a heavy right foot. The computer lies. You need about 60 mpg on the computer for a real world 50 mpg

Edited by gweaver on Monday 4th June 23:44