RE: Suzuki Swift Sport: Spotted

[Mr2Mike]

mnx42 said:

Mine had Conti 5's when I bought it but now got 3's. As you say the choice is very poor ( I only ever seem to get offered Conti's or a Hankook tyre thats name eludes me) so I too was considering going down the 205/45 route next.

Hankook Ventus V12 EVO, I'm pretty sure Suzuki used to fit these from the factory.

I notice Tyreleader list the Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3 in 195/45R17, I thought these had been discontinued ages ago? An excellent tyre in it's day, but IIRC it was launched back in 2004!

[mnx42]

Mr2Mike said:

Hankook Ventus V12 EVO, I'm pretty sure Suzuki used to fit these from the factory.

I notice Tyreleader list the Goodyear Eagle F1 GS-D3 in 195/45R17, I thought these had been discontinued ages ago? An excellent tyre in it's day, but IIRC it was launched back in 2004!

Thank you for the info!

[VeeFource]

Ron99 said:

My Swift Sport has never given me a reason to call it 'too slow'. I think it's just right.

My only grumbles would be:
I'd like the accelerator to either have a firmer return spring or mapped so as to be a little less sensitive and not quite so eager at the slightest pressure.
Slightly less exhaust/engine noise when revving hard would be nice.
I'd prefer more comfortable seats with a little more width, especially as the bolsters have hard plastic under the foam.
I'd prefer a bit more sidewall on the tyres to give more pothole resistance and maybe a tiny bit more 'give' in the suspension but not much more.

The latter two grumbles apply to a high proportion of modern cars. Although I grumble about the seats, at least I can find a good driving position with plenty of kneeroom and headroom whereas even cars like the (larger) Fiesta I end up with my knees wedged behind the steering wheel and my head almost touching the sun visor or top of the door frame.

Is this a mk1 or mk2? The mk2 addresses most of your grumbles over the mk1, but it's funny how different people's opinions are because I went to great lengths to make my mk2 as raw as the mk1 which is the magic a lot of people say the mk2 lost. That said it is still far superior at high speed cruising with the 6th cog and cruise control. It also has less snatchy throttle and a firmer return on the pedal spring and I agree that those are definitely worth having. I also agree that it's more than quick enough 98% of the time which I'm happy with given the running cost benefits.

[Tim662]

Ron99 said:

What's the current legal / insurance / MoT situation if fitting a full matched set of tyres that are a slightly different sizes to those in the handbook?

I've got 205/40/R17 Eagle F1 Asy3's on my 2014 sport. Rang the insurance and asked if they'd mind, chap said he wouldn't have thought so but went and double checked. Didn't care.

Car has just passed an MOT with no advisories at the supplying Suzuki main dealer.

[Ron99]

VeeFource said:

Ron99 said:

My Swift Sport has never given me a reason to call it 'too slow'. I think it's just right.

My only grumbles would be:
I'd like the accelerator to either have a firmer return spring or mapped so as to be a little less sensitive and not quite so eager at the slightest pressure.
Slightly less exhaust/engine noise when revving hard would be nice.
I'd prefer more comfortable seats with a little more width, especially as the bolsters have hard plastic under the foam.
I'd prefer a bit more sidewall on the tyres to give more pothole resistance and maybe a tiny bit more 'give' in the suspension but not much more.

The latter two grumbles apply to a high proportion of modern cars. Although I grumble about the seats, at least I can find a good driving position with plenty of kneeroom and headroom whereas even cars like the (larger) Fiesta I end up with my knees wedged behind the steering wheel and my head almost touching the sun visor or top of the door frame.

Is this a mk1 or mk2? The mk2 addresses most of your grumbles over the mk1, but it's funny how different people's opinions are because I went to great lengths to make my mk2 as raw as the mk1 which is the magic a lot of people say the mk2 lost. That said it is still far superior at high speed cruising with the 6th cog and cruise control. It also has less snatchy throttle and a firmer return on the pedal spring and I agree that those are definitely worth having. I also agree that it's more than quick enough 98% of the time which I'm happy with given the running cost benefits.

Mine's a mk2, reg'd Feb 2016.

[Ron99]

Tim662 said:

I've got 205/40/R17 Eagle F1 Asy3's on my 2014 sport. Rang the insurance and asked if they'd mind, chap said he wouldn't have thought so but went and double checked. Didn't care.

Car has just passed an MOT with no advisories at the supplying Suzuki main dealer.

Thanks. I'll bear that in mind in the future.

Just this afternoon my TPMS flagged up a slow puncture in one of the front tyres. I'm hoping it's not the alloy that's distorted and allowing air to escape.
I was quite surprised that my local tyre shop's all-in price for a pair of Conti 5 tyres was £10 per tyre less and available a day sooner, than Black Circles.

[Ilovejapcrap]

This needs pictures of peoples sports

Mine the day I picked it up

[horsemeatscandal]

Wahoo. Mine likes the fog.

Edited by horsemeatscandal on Wednesday 25th April 09:48

[r11co]

Ron99 said:

Just this afternoon my TPMS flagged up a slow puncture in one of the front tyres. I'm hoping it's not the alloy that's distorted and allowing air to escape.

Is this a common issue with the standard alloys? Reason I ask is that OSF on ours has a very slow leak that requires topping up a couple of PSI every 6 weeks or so between TPMS warnings. I took the wheel off and found no obvious punctures, put soapy water around the rims and on the valve and spotted no bubbling, but by co-incidence the problem started after an encounter with a pothole that at first appraisal appeared to have caused no damage.

No obvious run-out or wheel wobble either.

[GT Glee]

Ron99 said:

My Swift Sport has never given me a reason to call it 'too slow'. I think it's just right.

My only grumbles would be:
I'd like the accelerator to either have a firmer return spring or mapped so as to be a little less sensitive and not quite so eager at the slightest pressure.
Slightly less exhaust/engine noise when revving hard would be nice.
I'd prefer more comfortable seats with a little more width, especially as the bolsters have hard plastic under the foam.
I'd prefer a bit more sidewall on the tyres to give more pothole resistance and maybe a tiny bit more 'give' in the suspension but not much more.

The latter two grumbles apply to a high proportion of modern cars. Although I grumble about the seats, at least I can find a good driving position with plenty of kneeroom and headroom whereas even cars like the (larger) Fiesta I end up with my knees wedged behind the steering wheel and my head almost touching the sun visor or top of the door frame.

I agree regarding performance. It is quick enough, and besides, 99% of the time I only use the power to get to the next turn. Handling is what the Sport is all about and because of this, rarely is the all the power used anyway.

What kind of footwear do you have on while driving your Sport? Do you drive with a lot of angle in your legs?

Have you looked at your tyre pressures? The supplying dealer filled mine to 42psi all round! The rear easily shifts around while cornering with this pressure and is actually good fun, but the fronts sniff out more of the road which of course changes the ride quality.

I typically run 32/33psi with the rear slightly higher. It feels like it has the right balance of compliance without losing too much response.

I'm 6ft and feel that I have acres of space, and the ergonomics are excellent. Having reach adjustment makes a huge difference for me because I sit far back preferring straighter legs against the pedals for better modulation. The interior is definitely front biased but this added to the appeal because I am the one driving it.

[Ron99]

If it ain't got a dirty bum and if it ain't got flies all over the front bumper, you ain't driving it properly.
-

[Ron99]

GT Glee said:

I agree regarding performance. It is quick enough, and besides, 99% of the time I only use the power to get to the next turn. Handling is what the Sport is all about and because of this, rarely is the all the power used anyway.

What kind of footwear do you have on while driving your Sport? Do you drive with a lot of angle in your legs?

Have you looked at your tyre pressures? The supplying dealer filled mine to 42psi all round! The rear easily shifts around while cornering with this pressure and is actually good fun, but the fronts sniff out more of the road which of course changes the ride quality.

I typically run 32/33psi with the rear slightly higher. It feels like it has the right balance of compliance without losing too much response.

I'm 6ft and feel that I have acres of space, and the ergonomics are excellent. Having reach adjustment makes a huge difference for me because I sit far back preferring straighter legs against the pedals for better modulation. The interior is definitely front biased but this added to the appeal because I am the one driving it.

Footwear are thin-soled shoes which I find give a better feel. I'm also over 6ft and have large feet (size 12-13 and even some 12/13 are too narrow) so my choice of footwear is limited. I tend to sit far back, with the seat at or near the end of its runners.

Tyre pressures mid-30s front, low-30s rear. Tyres are Contisport. Pressures are the best compromise I can find between handling and pothole resistance.

[Ron99]

r11co said:

Is this a common issue with the standard alloys? Reason I ask is that OSF on ours has a very slow leak that requires topping up a couple of PSI every 6 weeks or so between TPMS warnings. I took the wheel off and found no obvious punctures, put soapy water around the rims and on the valve and spotted no bubbling, but by co-incidence the problem started after an encounter with a pothole that at first appraisal appeared to have caused no damage.

No obvious run-out or wheel wobble either.

I'll let you know later if the tyre fitter notices anything when the car gets new tyres this afternoon.
The tyre with the slow puncture is OSF but the one which takes the worst pothole hits is the NSF which isn't losing pressure.

[Mr2Mike]

Ron99 said:

If it ain't got a dirty bum and if it ain't got flies all over the front bumper, you ain't driving it properly.

I've noticed the back gets into a disgusting state far quicker than any other car I've owned, clearly a very low pressure area that sucks all the crap back.

This is mine:

Edited by Mr2Mike on Wednesday 25th April 13:18

[Ron99]

r11co said:

Ron99 said:

Just this afternoon my TPMS flagged up a slow puncture in one of the front tyres. I'm hoping it's not the alloy that's distorted and allowing air to escape.

Is this a common issue with the standard alloys? Reason I ask is that OSF on ours has a very slow leak that requires topping up a couple of PSI every 6 weeks or so between TPMS warnings. I took the wheel off and found no obvious punctures, put soapy water around the rims and on the valve and spotted no bubbling, but by co-incidence the problem started after an encounter with a pothole that at first appraisal appeared to have caused no damage.

No obvious run-out or wheel wobble either.

Just got back from having a new pair of Conti 5 tyres put on the front. The fitter said the rims look to be in very good condition with no signs of damage.

[Ron99]

Mr2Mike said:

I've noticed the back gets into a disgusting state far quicker than any other car I've owned, clearly a very low pressure area that sucks all the crap back.

Yes, very messy at the back. Some peculiar aerodynamics going on there.
Quite possibly the resulting drag is why I find high-speed fuel consumption to be a little on the thirsty side and possibly why the Swift Sport's claimed top speed isn't particularly high.

I've also noticed when driving in rain or lorry-spray at medium-high speeds, that there's a peculiar streaking flow of water coming off the front of the car (lower windscreen/upper bonnet) and it passes between the side windows and the wing/door mirrors which makes those mirrors difficult to make use of.

[Mr2Mike]

Ron99 said:

I've also noticed when driving in rain or lorry-spray at medium-high speeds, that there's a peculiar streaking flow of water coming off the front of the car (lower windscreen/upper bonnet) and it passes between the side windows and the wing/door mirrors which makes those mirrors difficult to make use of.

This is annoying, it means the mirrors are pretty useless in heavy rain. Wind deflectors apparently don't help this from what I've read, something to fill the space between door and inside of mirror is needed.

[Ron99]

Something I meant to discuss but forgot was fuel choice.......

My understanding is that the mk1 Swift Sport (2005-2011) was designed for 98-RON fuel and some owners reported engine issues using 95-RON.

However, the mk2 (2012-17) is claimed to not have problems running on 95-RON. It even says 95 on the fuel flap.

So what have Suzuki done with the mk2 to allow it to run just as well on 95 as 98, unlike the mk1?
Or, as I suspect from trying different fuels in mine, the engine of the mk2 will run on 95 but will run even better on 97-99.

[Mr2Mike]

Ron99 said:

So what have Suzuki done with the mk2 to allow it to run just as well on 95 as 98, unlike the mk1?

Presumably better engine management since they didn't reduce the 11.1:1 compression ratio from the Mk2.

Ron99 said:

Or, as I suspect from trying different fuels in mine, the engine of the mk2 will run on 95 but will run even better on 97-99.

Mine definitely feels stronger and delivers slightly better mileage on super unleaded, so I am pretty convinced the ECU takes advantage of higher octane fuel.

[Ron99]

Mr2Mike said:

Ron99 said:

So what have Suzuki done with the mk2 to allow it to run just as well on 95 as 98, unlike the mk1?

Mr2Mike said:

Presumably better engine management since they didn't reduce the 11.1:1 compression ratio from the Mk2.

Yes, the engine design appears to be similar and still has the same M16A designation. But if it's engine management then for the mk2 to happily run on 95 where the mk1 might not, points to the mk2 holding back when using 95 (retarding ignition timing).

Mr2Mike said:

Ron99 said:

Or, as I suspect from trying different fuels in mine, the engine of the mk2 will run on 95 but will run even better on 97-99.

Mr2Mike said:

Mine definitely feels stronger and delivers slightly better mileage on super unleaded, so I am pretty convinced the ECU takes advantage of higher octane fuel.

I agree. Mine feels stronger with 97-99 than 95 and I see 1-2mpg improvement with 99.


But but but.....
The common belief, even on here, is that 97+ only benefits turbo engines and most people on here seem to hold the belief that there's no gain in performance nor economy from higher grade fuels.

Edited by Ron99 on Monday 30th April 10:57