[Svarez]

Hey guys, looking at upgrading my car in the near future and I’m pretty interested in the 4x4 Grand Vitara (05+ models) but I’m not sure what engine would be best suited for my needs. Im interested in the diesel but the issues with dog have sort of out me off, is this a common problem in the diesels? I do quite a bit of 4wding in soft sand as well as a few long drives every week or two. I would be looking at putting a lift, larger tyres and a steel bullbar on it. Would the GV struggle with these mods done to it?
Any help will be appreciated, cheers.

[MrRocky]

The diesels are very expensive to repair
V6 is the pick of the lot, the 2.4 4cyl is ok if its been looked after mechanically with special attention paid to the cooling system.
Fuel consumption wise theres no difference between the v6 and the 2.4 in the 4dr.
A small lift and tyre upsize makes them good in the sand but they lack a little clearance for the rocky stuff

[Svarez]

Thanks for your help, I’m looking at the 5 door version. Would the fuel consumption be pretty bad after the lift, tyres and bullbar are installed?

[ZUZUKI]

It's certainly going to be worse than it was before that gear was on.
Extra weight, wind resistance & over gearing.
The early cars had a 2.7litre V6 - the H27A. Not a bad choice, but if you can find one, the 3.2litre V6 from 2009-10-11 is really the bees knees in these wagons.
Might be a bit scary, fuel consumption wise, compared to your current Bravo, with a corresponding lack of range, but it won't lack go.
They are top of the range, badged as "Prestige" with leather trim, 18" alloys (a pain, but smaller rims fit), sunroof, etc.
Bullbars are not listed by ARB or Ironman to fit them, as the bars don't have provision for the pop out washer jets to clean the projector style headlights on this model, however there are a few running around with bars fitted - the owners deleting that feature, which is probably not legal.
I love my SQ625 GV, but if I ever replace it, it will be with a NGV 3.2.
Rgs, Michael

[shep]

I owned a 2.4 auto gv for a while. Nice to drive but higher fuel consumption then my wrangler and coolant started leaking from the block when it had done 90000km. Also auto gear ratios were terrible.

I would look at either a v6 or a completely different make/model

[Svarez]

My bravo is actually pretty bad on fuel, I’ll usually get about 450-500kms to a tank which is 70L I think, that’s with most driving around town and a few longer trips as well as some low range driving on the beach. It has lots of torque but absolutely no power (no turbo). Doesn’t the 3.2L only come in the 5 speed auto? I’m not really into driving autos so a manual would be the go for me and I think the 2.7L comes in both auto and manual, is this right?

[Svarez]

My bravo is actually pretty bad on fuel, I’ll usually get about 450-500kms to a tank which is 70L I think, that’s with most driving around town and a few longer trips as well as some low range driving on the beach. It has lots of torque but absolutely no power (no turbo). Doesn’t the 3.2L only come in the 5 speed auto? I’m not really into driving autos so a manual would be the go for me and I think the 2.7L comes in both auto and manual, is this right?

[Svarez]

My bravo is actually pretty bad on fuel, I’ll usually get about 450-500kms to a tank which is 70L I think, that’s with most driving around town and a few longer trips as well as some low range driving on the beach. It has lots of torque but absolutely no power (no turbo). Doesn’t the 3.2L only come in the 5 speed auto? I’m not really into driving autos so a manual would be the go for me and I think the 2.7L comes in both auto and manual, is this right?

[Chop]

I own a diesel 2010 model. And I would never have a v6 suzuki motor again, purely on how bad the economy is.
Now I'm not saying the diesel is better because it has its quirks and if your not onto them it could be costly and catastrophic but I tow with mine daily, work trailer and get 9 litres per hundred and towing the campertrailer I'm in the high 10-11.5 litres per hundred.
My 03 SQ625 was thirsty as 14 litres towing my work trailer.

My diesel has an arb bullbar, once fitted it changed the economy a little, and a very small change again once I put the old man emu lift and 245/65r17 tyres on.

As for the DPF , if it is a city car its likely to have had issues or will have issues. I tow with mine and on 100kph roads pretty much straight away so burn it off nearly everyday.
The timing belt should be done at 75,000kms and alot of owners baulk at the cost and either drive it and run the gauntlet or put it on the market with around 80,000kms if it makes it that far. It was very common to see them for sale with those kms on them.
Mine when I got it for a 2010 had only 40,000kms, had a good service history. And I think that is the key with the diesel, a good service history and being done on time. 7500km oil change is the recommended interval, parts and labour are expensive for them unfortunately so if you were to get a bad one it might leave a sour taste.

[MrRocky]

The 2.7 v6 4dr will get 12.5 - 13ltrs per 100 km when driven sensibly which isnt that bad considering. The 3.2 v6 can be difficult to source parts for due to its rarity.
As for the diesel, call a dedicated suzuki workshop/wrecker (not a dealer) in your local area and ask there opinion on the diesel. Given the replacement cost of some parts (which may exceed the purchase price of the car) i think you would have to be crazy to buy one for the sake of saving 2ltrs per 100 on consumption

[Gwagensteve]

(Beaten by MrRocky)

I know this sounds like nit picking, but 2.5l/100km being the difference between acceptable and "so bad I'm never having one again" ?? Goodness- I've gone from a daily that did 10l/100km to 20l/100km around town.


We've had all varieties of NGV in the club here. The 3.2V6 felt great because it had power and was auto, both of which were able to cover for the tall gearing. The diesel was exactly as bad as you'd expect a small diesel with a tall gearing and a manual would be. My take - it's too small an engine and a manual with road-biased gearing does it no favours. Land Rover have proven you can put a low power/small capacity diesel in a heavy car and it's fine (defender) if you get the gearing and traction control calibration right. Suzuki don't seem interested/able to get this right.

That's quite apart from the reliability issues, which raised their head and led to the sale of the diesel car.

[Svarez]

Chop wrote:

I own a diesel 2010 model. And I would never have a v6 suzuki motor again, purely on how bad the economy is.
Now I'm not saying the diesel is better because it has its quirks and if your not onto them it could be costly and catastrophic but I tow with mine daily, work trailer and get 9 litres per hundred and towing the campertrailer I'm in the high 10-11.5 litres per hundred.
My 03 SQ625 was thirsty as 14 litres towing my work trailer.

My diesel has an arb bullbar, once fitted it changed the economy a little, and a very small change again once I put the old man emu lift and 245/65r17 tyres on.

As for the DPF , if it is a city car its likely to have had issues or will have issues. I tow with mine and on 100kph roads pretty much straight away so burn it off nearly everyday.
The timing belt should be done at 75,000kms and alot of owners baulk at the cost and either drive it and run the gauntlet or put it on the market with around 80,000kms if it makes it that far. It was very common to see them for sale with those kms on them.
Mine when I got it for a 2010 had only 40,000kms, had a good service history. And I think that is the key with the diesel, a good service history and being done on time. 7500km oil change is the recommended interval, parts and labour are expensive for them unfortunately so if you were to get a bad one it might leave a sour taste.

Do you have any pics of your rig? Would love to see it. I’ve looked into the problems with the DPF a bit and I feel as if the type of driving I do would easily be able to let the DPF regenerate enough. My driving style is a bit aggressive you could say and I do quite a bit of long distance driving in rural areas so the steel bullbar is a must. Would I still be likely to have problems with the DPF?

[Chop]

Gwagensteve wrote:

(Beaten by MrRocky)

I know this sounds like nit picking, but 2.5l/100km being the difference between acceptable and "so bad I'm never having one again" ?? Goodness- I've gone from a daily that did 10l/100km to 20l/100km around town.


We've had all varieties of NGV in the club here. The 3.2V6 felt great because it had power and was auto, both of which were able to cover for the tall gearing. The diesel was exactly as bad as you'd expect a small diesel with a tall gearing and a manual would be. My take - it's too small an engine and a manual with road-biased gearing does it no favours. Land Rover have proven you can put a low power/small capacity diesel in a heavy car and it's fine (defender) if you get the gearing and traction control calibration right. Suzuki don't seem interested/able to get this right.

That's quite apart from the reliability issues, which raised their head and led to the sale of the diesel car.

9 litres from 14 litres is a tad more than 2.5 litres. Might be nit picking.
I did mention above, they're expensive for parts and to fix. The not having a suzuki v6 again is probably more an accumulation of they're getting old and they wont be in a future car I'll want and need. They're also not that cheap if things start going wrong with them.
Timing chains , if you need to get to them and oil leaks are rubbish with them.

Anyway mine does what I need, touring and towing the camper.

[Chop]

Svarez wrote:

Chop wrote:

I own a diesel 2010 model. And I would never have a v6 suzuki motor again, purely on how bad the economy is.
Now I'm not saying the diesel is better because it has its quirks and if your not onto them it could be costly and catastrophic but I tow with mine daily, work trailer and get 9 litres per hundred and towing the campertrailer I'm in the high 10-11.5 litres per hundred.
My 03 SQ625 was thirsty as 14 litres towing my work trailer.

My diesel has an arb bullbar, once fitted it changed the economy a little, and a very small change again once I put the old man emu lift and 245/65r17 tyres on.

As for the DPF , if it is a city car its likely to have had issues or will have issues. I tow with mine and on 100kph roads pretty much straight away so burn it off nearly everyday.
The timing belt should be done at 75,000kms and alot of owners baulk at the cost and either drive it and run the gauntlet or put it on the market with around 80,000kms if it makes it that far. It was very common to see them for sale with those kms on them.
Mine when I got it for a 2010 had only 40,000kms, had a good service history. And I think that is the key with the diesel, a good service history and being done on time. 7500km oil change is the recommended interval, parts and labour are expensive for them unfortunately so if you were to get a bad one it might leave a sour taste.

Do you have any pics of your rig? Would love to see it. I’ve looked into the problems with the DPF a bit and I feel as if the type of driving I do would easily be able to let the DPF regenerate enough. My driving style is a bit aggressive you could say and I do quite a bit of long distance driving in rural areas so the steel bullbar is a must. Would I still be likely to have problems with the DPF?

[Chop]

Memory cove

[disco]

Gwagensteve wrote:

I know this sounds like nit picking, but 2.5l/100km being the difference between acceptable and "so bad I'm never having one again" ?? Goodness- I've gone from a daily that did 10l/100km to 20l/100km around town.

When I did the research for mine (2.4) the extra fuel consumption was "so bad I wasn't interested" in the V6. But the reason wasn't the cost of the petrol, but the range. I was planning to do a lot of outback trips (such as the Gibb) and the range is bad enough, I didn't want to further reduce it. Carrying unleaded is a pain. But now I think about it, I ended up doing that anyway.