RE: Suzuki Swift Sport: Spotted

[gweaver]

Otispunkmeyer said:

V88Dicky said:

Otispunkmeyer said:

Currently looking at swapping my Abarth for one of these. Can anyone tell me range on a tank? I definitely need 300 -330 miles before needing a refill. Commute is mostly A roads. 30 miles each way.

370 mile range @ 40mpg

Easy peasy

Well... good news to my eyes. I had read of one long term review at a mag where he'd struggled to get 280 from it. Ditto a lad on Youtube (MR DJC) who commented that he liked the economy and was getting 290 from it.

Depends how hard they are ragging it but Honest John Real MPG reports 42 MPG from owners and Spritmonitor a perhaps more realistic 37. With a 42 liter tank @ 37 it should be 300+ easy. Perhaps Suzuki QC isn't great and there are good engines and bad ones

I do mostly short journeys in mine and the worst I've recorded was 37mpg. I've refueled 43 times and my average is just over 40mpg (brim to brim), with over 50mpg achievable on a very sedate long run. I'd say that 40mpg is very achievable on an A-road commute, maybe 35 or 45 if you are heavy or light footed.

[Mr2Mike]

Otispunkmeyer said:

Currently looking at swapping my Abarth for one of these. Can anyone tell me range on a tank? I definitely need 300 -330 miles before needing a refill. Commute is mostly A roads. 30 miles each way.

Easy.

I do a 60 mile round commute in my Sport over a mix of A and B roads and some start/stop town traffic and typicaly return mid 40s without really trying. By leaving home early and returning late to avoid the town traffic and driving with economy in mind I have hit 53 mpg. The worst so far is 38mpg which included quite a lot of merciless thrashing.

[Klippie]

Some information regarding the MPG on the Sport...the computer reads roughly +7mpg, to get anything over 40mpg you'll have to drive it very gently.

[Mr2Mike]

Klippie said:

Some information regarding the MPG on the Sport...the computer reads roughly +7mpg, to get anything over 40mpg you'll have to drive it very gently.

Mine is about 4-5mpg optimistic, so hovers in the high 40's most of the time.

[gweaver]

I once saw 62.8mpg on the display, after 150 miles. Was I doing it wrong?? :-D

[Ron99]

Mr2Mike said:

Klippie said:

Some information regarding the MPG on the Sport...the computer reads roughly +7mpg, to get anything over 40mpg you'll have to drive it very gently.

Mine is about 4-5mpg optimistic, so hovers in the high 40's most of the time.

Mine (reg Feb-2016) tells the truth.
I've checked it a few times using brim-to-brim calculations and it's always within 0.5mpg.

One thing I noticed is the fuel gauge calibration isn't linear. There are 1.75 gallons 'hidden' above the full line plus 1.25 gallons 'hidden' below the empty line which will make nonsense of anything other than brim-to-brim type calculations.

[Ron99]

Mr2Mike said:

Klippie said:

Some information regarding the MPG on the Sport...the computer reads roughly +7mpg, to get anything over 40mpg you'll have to drive it very gently.

Mine is about 4-5mpg optimistic, so hovers in the high 40's most of the time.

Found a scrap of paper in the glove box for mine:

Fuel tanked brimmed at 28502 miles.
Fuel tanked brimmed at 28905 miles.
Fuel required to brim tank at 28905 miles: 38.08 litres (8.38 gallons).
Distance travelled between two brimmings: 403 miles.
403 miles / 8.38 gallons = 48.1mpg.

Trim computer said:
Distance travelled: 403 miles.
48.1mpg.

I think it's quite possible the mpg of my car might improve slightly as the miles pile on because I get the feeling the mpg has been gradually improving as the miles clock up (every brim-to-brim mpg figure I calculate is slightly higher than previous figures) and the engine still feels a bit tight.

[Frimley111R]

Plug Life said:

Visit Specsavers ASAP, the BMW is more than 11" wider.

According to the internet they are both 1700mm wide (give or take a few mm)

[Frimley111R]

gweaver said:

HannsG said:

Selling my Panda 100HP soon. Seriously tempted by one of these.

I've seen some of your posts on the Fiat. I test drove one and didn't gel with it. I can see the appeal though.
In my limited experience, the steering and ride of the SSS is much better, but the Panda wins easily on practicality.

How? Its much smaller.

[EDLT]

The article mentions the ride is "firm", how firm is it? I've got an FN2 Civic Type R which is probably a bit too stiff for b-roads.

[nickfrog]

anonymous said:

[redacted]

I have a suspicion that 215 vs 136 has more to do with it than aspiration method. What's a "turbo" driver btw ?

[Mr2Mike]

Ron99 said:

One thing I noticed is the fuel gauge calibration isn't linear. There are 1.75 gallons 'hidden' above the full line plus 1.25 gallons 'hidden' below the empty line which will make nonsense of anything other than brim-to-brim type calculations.

Fuel gauge stays on full for ages and then seems to plummet once it reaches about a 1/3 full.

EDLT said:

The article mentions the ride is "firm", how firm is it? I've got an FN2 Civic Type R which is probably a bit too stiff for b-roads.

Definitely less stiff than an EP3 at least. It feels fine to me, not harsh but nicely controlled damping. Tyres make a good difference on a light car like this however. I've just gone from SportContacts in 195/45 to Eagle F1 AS3 in 205/45 (due to lack of choice in the smaller size) and it's noticeably quieter and smoother on the Goodyears.

[Otispunkmeyer]

EDLT said:

The article mentions the ride is "firm", how firm is it? I've got an FN2 Civic Type R which is probably a bit too stiff for b-roads.

Pretty much every review I have read or watched sings the praises of the ride. They nearly all say it rides bumps and lumps with aplomb and much better than it has any right to. I would expect a little firmness as it is a sporty car, but they've left a decent amount of body roll in there it appears. Basically someone one has nailed the suspension set up for the B-road.

[VeeFource]

EDLT said:

The article mentions the ride is "firm", how firm is it? I've got an FN2 Civic Type R which is probably a bit too stiff for b-roads.

The ride is certainly far more supple than the mk1. If anything I thought it felt a bit too comfortable for a sporty car, to the point I decided to polybush the front wishbone bushes. Now it feel just right and with the benefit of increased steering feel which is totally worth the bit more road noise in my view.

[Ron99]

Frimley111R said:

gweaver said:

HannsG said:

Selling my Panda 100HP soon. Seriously tempted by one of these.

the Panda wins easily on practicality.

How? Its much smaller.

The Swift doesn't have as much room inside as you'd think. My wife's 2016 Viva (A-segment car) has roughly the same boot and rear space as my 2016 Swift Sport (B-segment car).
The only difference regarding internal space is that the Swift has much more room for the driver to adjust the seat and steering column for a more comfortable fit, especially knee room behind the steering wheel.
In fact, I can only just squeeze my knees behind the steering wheel of a Fiesta whereas my wife's Viva is OK (unlike many A-segment cars) and my Swift gives me plenty of knee room.

[CDP]

nickfrog said:

Ron99 said:

A true small car is a rarity nowadays.

There are plenty around but they are simply not called what they used to be called. For instance, if you find the Golf has become too big, then just buy a Polo, which is probably the size the Golf used to be 15 years ago.

Can you imagine how big a Granada or Senator would be by now?

[mrbarnett]

HannsG said:

Selling my Panda 100HP soon. Seriously tempted by one of these. Wife wants me to go get a car for £15K+.

Why would I? Cheap motoring is what I'm after

Same. Currently drive a Panda 100HP and am happy enough, but when the time comes to move it on, this is what I'll get. I love that it'll spin past 7000rpm, but has cruise control, DAB and Sat Nav.

Funnily enough, I'm saving for something a bit special as a weekend toy and when my girlfriend asked me how much I was going to spend, she looked decidedly unimpressed when I said it would be five figures. She'd rather I spend my money on cushions and holidays...

[Dale487]

CDP said:

nickfrog said:

Ron99 said:

A true small car is a rarity nowadays.

There are plenty around but they are simply not called what they used to be called. For instance, if you find the Golf has become too big, then just buy a Polo, which is probably the size the Golf used to be 15 years ago.

Can you imagine how big a Granada or Senator would be by now?

About the same size as a Mercedes G65 6X6 & probably have 6 wheels too.

[Dale487]

mrbarnett said:

HannsG said:

Selling my Panda 100HP soon. Seriously tempted by one of these. Wife wants me to go get a car for £15K+.

Why would I? Cheap motoring is what I'm after

Same. Currently drive a Panda 100HP and am happy enough, but when the time comes to move it on, this is what I'll get. I love that it'll spin past 7000rpm, but has cruise control, DAB and Sat Nav.

Funnily enough, I'm saving for something a bit special as a weekend toy and when my girlfriend asked me how much I was going to spend, she looked decidedly unimpressed when I said it would be five figures. She'd rather I spend my money on cushions and holidays...

Cushions don't appreciate in value but an Elise or 997 911 might - other weekend toys are available.

[M1C]

What are peoples thoughts on the Mk2 vs the Mk1? I'd like a 5dr Mk2 for family reasons....


I used to have a Panda 100HP which i loved...but i drove a MK1 SSS during the same time...and i begrudingly had to admit it was 'better' in a few areas...it just...had a proper 'my first warm/hot hatch' feel to it, revvy engine, lovely gearbox, proper sporty seats,, good driving position, great handling, felt very lively. I liked the minimalist/basic interior too. Steering wasn't great, lacking in feel..but i loved pretty much everything else.

I've read some reviews that say the MK2 lost the Mk1 magic...is this true?