RE: Suzuki Jimny versus... the Lake District

[anonymous-user]

Whilst I generally prefer NA engines, I think this may have suited the 1.0T boosterjet engine better.

More power, but more importantly, more torque, at a more useful engine speed (half that of the 1.5 NA).

[300bhp/ton]

schaeffs said:

Love these as well and am in the market for a relatively cheap and cheerful car for my soon to be 17yo son. The one thing that stops me pulling the trigger is the frankly awful EuroNcap crash test result. Maybe I'm being over-critical but how can a similar sized Polo be so much safer?

Mostly because NCAP is a load of tosh. Go read up how they actually get to their ratings and see for yourself.

[AFourCab]

BathyThermo said:

Whilst I generally prefer NA engines, I think this may have suited the 1.0T boosterjet engine better.

More power, but more importantly, more torque, at a more useful engine speed (half that of the 1.5 NA).

That could be why it isn't turbocharged. The engine speed at which a turbo is providing most of its torque puts it right where the tyres start to lose grip. Before the boost threshold, turbos tend to be pretty gutless. Proper off-roading requires linearity, surely?

[Ocellia]

..."from the get-go"?????
Are we all amurrican now?
There's a perfectly adequate english word -'start', or 'beginning', without resorting to stupid phrases you might think are cool.

[anonymous-user]

AFourCab said:

That could be why it isn't turbocharged. The engine speed at which a turbo is providing most of its torque puts it right where the tyres start to lose grip. Before the boost threshold, turbos tend to be pretty gutless. Proper off-roading requires linearity, surely?

Perhaps, but think how many off roaders have been turbocharged?

Most Landrovers for years, decades even, and the vast majority of Japanese stuff too for a long time, excluding the Jimny, and some of the bigger stuff, Mitsubishi used an NA V6 for a long time, Toyota have had NA petrol and diesel V8s.

Still, just my 2p, but turbocharged cars these days aren't as lag/boost as they used to be, and can make good torque from 1500rpm or even below, compared to old Subaru's that never came on boost to 3k or so

[Dan Trent]

AFourCab said:

BathyThermo said:

Whilst I generally prefer NA engines, I think this may have suited the 1.0T boosterjet engine better.

More power, but more importantly, more torque, at a more useful engine speed (half that of the 1.5 NA).

That could be why it isn't turbocharged. The engine speed at which a turbo is providing most of its torque puts it right where the tyres start to lose grip. Before the boost threshold, turbos tend to be pretty gutless. Proper off-roading requires linearity, surely?

I'm an off-roading numpty but from the experience on the day the ability to very finely judge throttle response and the zero lag when you did need a bit of a burst to get you up and over something was a boon. I'm guessing cost/simplicity will be another one, given the whole fix it with hammers vibe will count in many of the markets it's sold in.

Sure, a bit more grunt would be handy. But put it this way, I don't think there were many points on the road where I was thinking 'golly, I wish I could go a bit faster...' Given how low-geared the steering is and the way the tyres squeal at even modest cornering speeds I think 101hp is enough to be going on with! Sim will be able to verify, after we came back from another shoot along the Helmsley road, mainly on the doorhandles. He said he realised why there was a grab handle for the passenger, put it that way.

Dan

[300bhp/ton]

I believe the JDM market get a tubo charged smaller displacement engine. Pretty sure this was the case with the previous model Jimny also.

[anonymous-user]

300bhp/ton said:

I believe the JDM market get a tubo charged smaller displacement engine. Pretty sure this was the case with the previous model Jimny also.

In Kei car spec. a 660 (ish) cc engine.

[tankplanker]

Drove one last week and loved it. Does not need more power as it simply doesn't have the on road grip or body control to drive like a Fiesta ST. Plenty of power to keep up with modern traffic, it really does not struggle sub motorway speeds if you accept its not meant to be a hot hatch or even a mildy warm hatch.

For motorway it could do with a 6th gear to knock at least 500rpm off a 60mph cruising speed, that would help enormously. I wouldn't recommend one if you need to do a lot of motorway driving.

Put my name down for one after the test drive, dealer told me I was number 65 in the queue and to expect one in about 18 months time. I'd much prefer it now but I'm prepared to wait as it doesn't have any (new) competition at that price point. I might get an old Disco or Jeep to tide me over till my Jimny turns up.

[schaeffs]

300bhp/ton said:

Mostly because NCAP is a load of tosh. Go read up how they actually get to their ratings and see for yourself.

I wish that were so - read a lot on it over the years...

[Burnham]

tch911 said:

lots of stuff

Thanks for your post. I'm also going to keep an eye out for one as a 2nd car (maybe to replace my wifes S3). We either do really short local runs (which this is good for), or really long motorway stints (which is what my car is for).

The only downside is that the residual values will likely stay quite high if people are still on an 18 month waiting list for one over here.

Edited by Burnham on Monday 20th May 15:13

[unsprung]

fido said:

If only they made it a tad bigger.

this

at the moment it's a bit too kei car for my tastes; the result feels more "deprivation" than "restraint"

just my two cents, of course; I'm glad the Jimny exists

[Dan Trent]

unsprung said:

this

at the moment it's a bit too kei car for my tastes; the result feels more "deprivation" than "restraint"

just my two cents, of course; I'm glad the Jimny exists

I reckon if you consider it a 4x4 2+2 and the rear seats for occasional use it makes some kind of sense. Forget it as a family car or alternative to a regular crossover. But as a second car/fun car/cheap novelty the size is less of an issue. And that's my two cents. Oops, tuppence. Already had a ticking off for using an Americanization in the story...

Dan

[caelite]

300bhp/ton said:

schaeffs said:

Love these as well and am in the market for a relatively cheap and cheerful car for my soon to be 17yo son. The one thing that stops me pulling the trigger is the frankly awful EuroNcap crash test result. Maybe I'm being over-critical but how can a similar sized Polo be so much safer?

Mostly because NCAP is a load of tosh. Go read up how they actually get to their ratings and see for yourself.

This, I wouldn't give it much thought, they are very robust wee cars for typical 17 year old learning, the driveline is robust as hell, you can whack them off of kerbs, potholes & speedbumps without much worry of causing it real damage (I got at least 30cm of air off a snow drift once in mine), in a low speed shunt they will stand up better than anything else their size. The feedback you get from the solid axle setup feels uneasy at first, which is likely to keep his speed down, but once you get used to it you can chuck it about quite well.

And, whilst it may matter more for your 17 year old son than yourself, they can be tarted up to look quite cool with fairly insurance friendly modifications (privacy glass, painted steel wheels (declared as wheel trims) & a slightly larger than stock set of beefy all terrains):



That shape with potentially LEZ friendly euro 4 VVT can be had for £2-3k, the older ones are floating about for £1-2k, unlike other small hatches these seldom drop below a grand with MOTs, as farmers like to snatch them up.

[unsprung]

Dan Trent said:

...for using an Americanization in the story

d'oh !!

yes, I realize that some might get mad at colorful use of the language

PS: illuminating prose and photos, this article

[300bhp/ton]

unsprung said:

fido said:

If only they made it a tad bigger.

this

at the moment it's a bit too kei car for my tastes; the result feels more "deprivation" than "restraint"

just my two cents, of course; I'm glad the Jimny exists

It's more about it's heritage. The Jimny really hails from the Willys Overland GP1, aka the "Jeep". And is a very similar size to some of the latter version and other vehicles spawned by the Jeep, such as the Series 1 Land Rover.

Suzuki have just been more true to their original vision than most of the others in terms of physical size.

[Sim Mainey]

Dan Trent said:

Given how low-geared the steering is and the way the tyres squeal at even modest cornering speeds I think 101hp is enough to be going on with! Sim will be able to verify, after we came back from another shoot along the Helmsley road, mainly on the doorhandles. He said he realised why there was a grab handle for the passenger, put it that way.

I can indeed confirm that a ton of horses is plenty for the Jimny. I can also confirm that Dan knows the Helmsley road very well and the grab handle is very useful when things get, er, 'animated'.

As has been mentioned a sixth gear wouldn't go amiss for motorway driving, the drone gets irritating pretty quickly.

[unsprung]

300bhp/ton said:

It's more about it's heritage. The Jimny really hails from the Willys Overland GP1, aka the "Jeep". And is a very similar size to some of the latter version and other vehicles spawned by the Jeep, such as the Series 1 Land Rover.

Suzuki have just been more true to their original vision than most of the others in terms of physical size.

yes, you're right

after reading your explanation, I went and had a look backwards:

[anonymous-user]

Dave Hedgehog said:

There are roads in london in worse condition than those 'tracks'

No there aren't.

Suzuki don't need a big PR budget to push the Jimny, people are falling over themselves to try and get one.

BathyThermo said:

Whilst I generally prefer NA engines, I think this may have suited the 1.0T boosterjet engine better.

More power, but more importantly, more torque, at a more useful engine speed (half that of the 1.5 NA).

Petrol turbos aren't well suited for off-road use, you want linear delivery. The lower revving more torquey nature of diesels don't pose the same problem for adding a turbo.

I can't think of many (any?) proper 4x4s with turbo petrol units?

100bhp in the new Jimny is plenty. If you want more, you're probably buying the wrong car.

Dan Trent said:

I reckon if you consider it a 4x4 2+2 and the rear seats for occasional use it makes some kind of sense. Forget it as a family car or alternative to a regular crossover. But as a second car/fun car/cheap novelty the size is less of an issue. And that's my two cents. Oops, tuppence. Already had a ticking off for using an Americanization in the story...

Dan

Kind of agree with that. Mine is my daily driver and is fine for me/wife/son. If the front seat passengers are sub 6ft, there's plenty of room for adults in the back. For longer trips for a family holiday our bland euro-box hatch is going to be more economical and won't need a roofbox to take the luggage.

[ChocolateFrog]

tankplanker said:

Drove one last week and loved it. Does not need more power as it simply doesn't have the on road grip or body control to drive like a Fiesta ST.

Funny you should mention the ST. I love the look and philosophy of the Jimny but it's in the ball park of a cost comparison with the Fiesta ST.

The ST isn't as classless and would almost certainly depreciate more quickly but for 99% of driving would be infinitely better and it's amazing what winter/all season tyres would do for the other 1%.