Well, I was really looking forward to getting the GV stuck in snow this weekend, but unfortunately someone had plowed the road we drove up.

There may be a workaround for being unable to put the automatic transmission in 2nd gear for downhill engine braking, on the model with the low range. The automatic has these approximate ratios:

1st - 3.5
2nd - 2.0
3rd - 1.4
4th - 1.0
5th - 0.7

The transfer case is about 2:1, so in 4Low, you have:

1st - 7.0
2nd - 4.0
3rd - 2.8
4th - 2.0
5th - 1.4

So if you're in a situation where you need 2nd in 4Hi, you can put it in 4th/4Low, or if you need 2nd in 4Low, you can put it in 1st/4Hi. Since descents typically have a variety of pitches of varying steepness and roughness, this will require making choices between using the brakes more than necessary, or not going at quite the right speed, or stopping/starting to switch between the two ranges. But at least the ratios are available.

This does mean using the 4Low for more than crawling, but I decided I would never need to use 2nd in 4Low when on dry pavement. You get really bad mileage in 4Low, even downhill.

Incidentally, this is not a problem that showed up with the '06 GV. Friends with us yesterday have a 2003 Tracker with the 4-speed automatic and low range, and ran into the same issue of being unable to put it in 2nd gear in either range.

I should also add that I've finally found a way to make the driving position comfortable. Not perfect (which would require a telecopic steering wheel, but close enough.

 

Originally posted by mkaresh@Mar 29 2006, 07:36 AM
Does the GV lock the center differential automatically in 4Lo? Many systems do this. If not, then this should be a viable workaround. Even if so, if the road is slippery enough probably not an issue. Does the owners manual mention a maximum speed for 4Lo?

Yes it does lock the center differential in 4LO....As for the speed i think you can go as fast as you like/can.... :thumbsup: .....but ONLY on sliperry surfaces..

 

Yesterday we had the first chance to test the 06 GV's traction and clearance on a gravel road, rather than in snow.

Some background information. Our part of the world has a lot of mountains, and they used to be heavily covered with forests. The roads used to log those trees are built to a low standard, and are not maintained after the trees are gone. We also get a lot of rain. To keep the logging roads from washing out into the streams and rivers, "cross ditches" are dug. The steeper the hill, the more numerous and deeper the ditches in the old logging roads.

The ditches aren't supposed to have angles greater than 25degrees. However, if the rear wheels are still on the downhill part of a ditch when the front wheels reach the bottom of the 25degree uphill portion, the effective angle is 50degrees. Which is beyond what any ordinary 4x4 can handle. Fortunately most of the ditches are not that severe, but they still pose clearance problems. The gravel removed to create the ditch is piled on the downhill side, which makes the ditch more effective, but adds a breakover angle problem.

It's even more complicated. Many of these ditches are not perpendicular to the road, but are at diagonal angles. Or if there is room, you can decrease the effective angles of the ditches by taking them diagonally.

Now the problem with this is that taking the ditches straight creates clearance problems, but taking them diagonally exposes the achilles heel of 4wd systems.

I also want to refer to a typical test given new 4wd vehicles to demonstrate their traction control systems. It's called "elephants feet". It comprises lumps and dips, arranged so that each diagonal set of wheels is alternately carrying the weight of the vehicle, or unloaded to the point of being in the air. Obviously a 4wd with no traction control system would halt with two diagonally opposite wheels spinning. In the videos demonstrating this test, typically one sees an unloaded wheel spinning, then being snubbed by the traction control system.

The problem with the elephants feet test is that it is always built on flat ground. Our diagonal ditches are the functional equivalent of the elephants feet. However, our ditches are on grades. The steeper the hills, the more ditches.

So this weekend we had the GV on this sort of road for the first time, and I was quite curious to see how it did. We have been up this same road with a '91 Nissan Pathfinder, which had a limited slip rear differential. It was near its clearance limits, and and only had a traction problem on a ditch we never reached this year.

Most of the ditches went fine. We went up and back down in 4L Lock. I was surprised at the clearance, and only gently scraped the bottom somewhere in the middle once. We frequently dragged the mudflaps, and put a few scratches on the muffler. To my surprise, we never touched the rear license plate bezel. I was glad we have the flat mudflaps, because the shaped ones probably would have been damaged.

However, two of the ditches were awkward diagonal ones, on uphills. On the first of these, the GV halted with the two unloaded wheels spinning, and the traction control system chattering away from underneath. I tried it again, same result. I moved a rock to allow a different angle, and it went through ok, although the traction control system activated.

A little higher up was another ditch which looked the same. The GV went through this ok, again with the traction control system chattering at the unloaded wheels. On the way down, I stopped in this ditch, and got out to find one wheel was in the air.

So what's going on here? It's obvious the traction control system doesn't do the job all the time. This is exactly what I was afraid of when I discovered in the GV's "fine print" that the ESP is disengaged in low range. But the traction control system was at least partly active. It could be that it works up to a point of differences in stress, such as would be exaggerated while climbing. But again, that is exactly why I wanted a vehicle with a traction control system. The Pathfinder had a limited slip rear differential, which also worked great up to the point where it would start slipping, and it did work fine on this particular road.

Later, I thought I could have tried a couple of other things, such as applying the brakes to act as sort of a crude supplementary traction control system, while adding throttle to keep moving. Or put it in the high range so the ESP was fully engaged again. It also occurred to me that the GV's drivetrain and ESP may be set up like this deliberately, to keep you from exceeding the forces the drivetrain components are capable of handling.

Anyway, the higher portion of the road contains all sorts of more interesting difficulties the Pathfinder barely made it through, but that stretch is still covered in heavy snow this year, so we didn't get to try that stuff.

On the way down, we found the transmission's new software still does not allow engine braking in 2nd gear in the low range, and on the highway on long uphills, it still will do that annoying double downshift.

I'll post some pictures soon of the outing, and note that here when the photos are up. Sorry for the long-winded explanation, but I thought most people would like to hear the details.

 

Originally posted by geevee@Apr 9 2006, 09:12 PM
.....

Very nice report...
So Geevee, your conclusion about the Traction Control in a few words ....???

 

Originally posted by tlg@Apr 10 2006, 09:39 AM
Very nice report...
So Geevee, your conclusion about the Traction Control in a few words ....???

Quoted post​

There's room for improvement.....

But overall I was pleased with how well it did. It is not quite as good as an old Pathfinder, but it's not useless either. The automatic in low range allowed much slower and controlled creeping through and over obstacles than would a standard transmission, and you can thereby prevent or limit damage to the relatively vulnerable underside.

A few other things we've noticed on these back roads. One is that the cabin is very well sealed against dust entry.

However, the engine compartment is not sealed against wet grime that intrudes through the front of the hood opening, and sprays back through the engine compartment.

The other is that the doors that eliminate the rocker panels are supposed to mean your pants don't get dirt on them. Well, mud manages to easily get up inside the bottoms of all the door openings, where you get it on your clothes anyway. And you have to open the doors to wash it out. So it's actually not as great a design as the promotions suggest.

 

i have noticed that many new cars have been designed so that dirt collects, but old cars don't, this must be something to do with safety and structure of new vehicles.

 

Originally posted by kazoo@Apr 11 2006, 04:45 AM
i have noticed that many new cars have been designed so that dirt collects, but old cars don't, this must be something to do with safety and structure of new vehicles.

Quoted post​

Went off road last night with a bunch of Land Rovers, another 2006 GV, a Jimny, a raised Vitara and a raised 2003 GV. It was on land reclaimed from the sea. Plenty of ruts, mud and shrubs. Used the full range of 4H, 4H lock and 4L lock. Traction and mobility was good, although the stock Dueler HT 687 weren't good for the conditions. Plenty of slewing around mud pools but never once thought I would get stranded.

My view is that the GV's ground clearance is not quite enough. Scraped the ground on countless occasions. Of all the vehicles, the 2006 GV had the worst mobility. While the 4 independent suspension set-ups is good on road, I suspect that they cannot compared with the solid axles found in the other vehicles.

One time me and the other 2006 GV got stuck on the crest of a rather steep but not very long descent. Rear wheels spinning to no effect. Both had to be pulled down by a Land Rover. When I checked this morning, one of the plastic/rubber plates underneath the engine/transmission compartment had deformed and dislodged, dangling down as one of the clips had broken off. Must now think of a way to either repair or replace as other wise it will scoop dirt the next time I go off road.

Due to following the Land Rover bash thru shrubbery, my precious GV now has hundred of small scratches along the sides. I saw a nasty one and tried to polish it off. It worked. Have not had the time nor energy to clear the rest.

I spent 90 minutes hosing the undercarriage and engine area to clear the mud, clay stones and plants caught in numerous hiding places. Important as dirt from reclaimed land is salty. Seems like everywhere traps stuff -- from the suspension to wheel arches (the undersides of the wheel arches, the doors, the front and rear bumpers, the rear license plate holder, and even the chassis frame. Seems like Milo or Ovaltine coming out from the insides of the car. Must have collected a whole pail of stuff.

For a 6 hour 'adventure', I now have a new car that has hundreds of small scratches, a damaged underside plastic plate, scratched exhaust and scratches on other transmission and gear parts, etc. Really not quite sure if I should continue off roading with this car. Perhaps the issue is that I should not go with Land Rovers!

Good thing is that the car drives normally after the abuse. This means nothing mechanical as been damaged.

Anyone else has a similar experience?

 

I enjoyed reading that comparison. I wouldn't expect stock '06 GV's to do as well in those conditions as the vehicles you listed. In the case of some of them, it's an unfair comparison because even a stock '05 GV would have had trouble.

I found the cover under the oil pan was bent, with a clip missing. The cover's edges are formed so that they will catch on things while going forward or back. I took mine off and bent it so the edges won't catch. Kind of a dumb design oversight, and hopefully someone will make metal replacements.

One of the car magazines did a similar test against tougher vehicles, with similar results including a wrecked rim. I'd like to see such a rugged comparison done with the GV up agains the M-Class, Rav4, X-Trail etc.

As for the clearance, an extra 1" will satisfy me, Suzuki.

 

Looks like the plastic covers uner the engine aren't too good. Minimal protection for maximal dirt trapping properties!

I chanced upon a modified 2006 GV this afternoon and found out that the owner had taken off his underside plastic covers and replaced them with fabricated ones made of metal. Seems an interesting proposition.

Will pop down to the workshop to talk to the guy making the fabrications to see if it is any good. I called him just now and he said it would cost between 150 to 250 Singapore$, at SGD 1.58 to the USD, depending on material chosen.

Anyone done something like that yet?

 

When I looked under a '06 GV for the first time right before I bought mine, I knew I wasn't going to do any real offroading with it. Everything is just way to exposed or just protected by plastic. And I couldn't believe how the transfer case is basicly the lowest point and there is nothing to protect it. You can oviously see that Suzuki didn't design it to really go offroad.

 

A shot clipped from one of the newer GV tv commericals. IRS at its finest.

[attachmentid=1508]

 

Here is other pictures

 

While the new GV seems to have adequate suspension travel in the front end, the back end reminds me of an arthritic old dog.

I wonder how similar the suspension systems are on the new GV and the Mercedes 320. It seems they use the same TC system, but these shots of raised wheels remind me of videos I've seen of the 320 in similar testing.

 

it uses multi link and macpherson strut (rear and front respectively), i think.