[SilentKilla]

Hey Guys,

Certainly been a long time since i posted but im looking for some opinions on the next Vitara i get.

I'll be selling the current Vitara then moving on to a more town friendly 2010-2013 NGV.

Does anyone have recommendations on if the 3.2 V6 or 1.9TD in the NGV is a better choice for a town car that's still as capable as possible when going off road with a lift kit etc?

I realize you can only lift a NGV realistically 2" but i don't think the new 2015 Vitara's going to cut it, and they still aren't giving us that in diesel either...

Cheers for any help,

Chris.

[MrRocky]

The 2dr is alot more capable
4drs drag there ass everywhere plus the 2dr 2.4ltr motor is very zippy

[SilentKilla]

MrRocky wrote:

The 2dr is alot more capable
4drs drag there ass everywhere plus the 2dr 2.4ltr motor is very zippy

I should have mentioned ill be getting another four door, but am i discounting the 2.4L too easily compared to the v6 and diesel?

From an offroad perspective that is.

I was thinking the v6 would be great about town, but not quite as good as the diesel offroad? That's the part i'm not sure on, between all three motors.

[Chop]

Diesels aren't a good town car as the particle filter clogs, needs to be taken for a run often to clear it. And also the timing belt needs replacing at 75,000km

[zooks4life]

It really depends what u mean by town car, I drove 30kms one way in Sydney to work everyday and never had a problem with my diesel. Once I moved to parkes and my drive to work was 2ks, it clogs after 3-4 weeks. Again it's a simple fix of going on the highway for 20 mins to unclog but it's frustrating. And the timing belt is gay having to be replaced at 75. Don't know what the 3.2 is. Plus the 3.2 is auto wich would be better off-road.

[Gwagensteve]

As an offroad car I'd rate the 3.2 well above the 1.9 from what I've seen. The normal issues of small diesel/turbo/manual all gang up to make the diesel a bit of a dog in the bush from what I've seen.

The biggest problem the 3.2 has is the driver modulating all the HP.

Steve.

[steve125]

Bought a diesel new in 2008 (sold it in 2013), not bad as an all rounder but I wouldn't have one if it was mostly for around town (HATED the gearbox). The diesel is also not the latest tech, only 95Kw or so and no low down torque. You shouldn't be thinking, as far as GVs go, that diesel is better offroad. It's probably better than the V6 as an outback dirt road tourer, but for easy low range stuff I think you would be better off in the petrol.

If I was to choose again, it would be the 3.2, power plus auto. Only problem would be fuel consumption.

[SilentKilla]

Did they ever 'fix' the j24b, and would it be any lesser than the 3.2 offroad and around town (besides with the hammer down)?

Slowly starting to get the feeling the NGV is cursed with dodgy engines, but still hanging in there!

My research into the new engines so far might just be 'thinking to much' of it but are as follows:

2.4 - Prone to cracking in half, the whole thing. Might be from poorly maintained radiator systems.

1.9TD - Belt explodes causing failure of engine without warning even before its due to change, DPF gets clogged but can be removed for $$$, manual only and 'wish it had 6 speed' reports from owners.

3.2 v6 - Heavy nose in corners, the only way to get a 5 speed auto in the NGV. Fuelly shows about 11.5l per 100 which is pretty good.

2.7 v6 - Vehicle is getting on a bit with this motor in it, looking for 2010 or newer most likely but wont discount, j24b seems to have similar output than the older 2.7 v6 but better fuel economy.

I've also been looking at a Mitsu Challenger of the same year, i saw on this forum one member did just that. My thoughts on that is moving away from something thats a bit more town friendly into something that is somewhat more agricultural and suited to mainly heavier duties in general.

[MrRocky]

2.4 engines only die if coolant system in neglected.
I think on and offroad they can more than keep up with the v6 motors and dare say are probably quicker onroad

[Marko_SJ]

What makes a 120kw i4 quicker on road than a 165kw v6?

[henno]

Marko_SJ wrote:

What makes a 120kw i4 quicker on road than a 165kw v6?

I think he is referring to the H-series versus J-series which was alluded to above, and of which the gap is much closer.

EDIT: This bit:

SilentKilla wrote:

j24b seems to have similar output than the older 2.7 v6 but better fuel economy.

[Gwagensteve]

The 3.2 I briefly drove felt hilariously overpowered in low range.

[Marko_SJ]

henno wrote:

Marko_SJ wrote:

What makes a 120kw i4 quicker on road than a 165kw v6?

I think he is referring to the H-series versus J-series which was alluded to above, and of which the gap is much closer.

EDIT: This bit:

SilentKilla wrote:

j24b seems to have similar output than the older 2.7 v6 but better fuel economy.

Fair enough, but OP is including the 3.2 (in fact in the thread title), so when one doesn't specify...

[SilentKilla]

For 2.4 i4 vs 2.7 v6 there is 255~kg between the two in auto for 13kw/25nm difference, and a whole load of fuel economy gap between the two. I would only consider this 2.7 v6 motor if the rest were junk to be honest, i don't think that power difference is going to stop the 2.4 from winning in a straight line and fuel consumption differences would be significant.

I know its common to stick a big motor to an auto box when the manufacturer knows a normal driver will probably explode a manual box and/including some parts of the drivetrain. It does make me wonder where suzuki pulled a 5 speed auto with dual range from but? Is the N32A running a bellhouse that's compatible with other holden motors?

MrRocky wrote:

2.4 engines only die if coolant system in neglected.
I think on and offroad they can more than keep up with the v6 motors and dare say are probably quicker onroad

This statement is very interesting to me, specifically that the 2.4 is reliable and just as capable off/on road as the 3.2. I would be able to get a much newer model NGV if that's the case, at the moment im limited to 2010-2011 models with the 3.2.

Did Suzuki ever say anything official about the 2.4 cracking blocks and heads, was it ever beefed up internally to reduce the risk in a certain year model onwards?

[SilentKilla]

Founds some stats (to be confirmed):

2012 suzuki grand vitara 2.4L i4: 0-100 = 8.4 sec, 1/4 mile = 16.5 sec
2010 suzuki grand vitara 3.2L v6: 0-100 = 7.2 sec, 1/4 mile = 15.7 sec
2008 suzuki grand vitara 2.7L v6: 0-100 = 8.4 sec, 1/4 mile = 16.7 sec