Suzuki Forums banner

1 - 14 of 14 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
hello community i'm new around here,

i have narrowed down my search to the N32 3.2L V6 variant mainly for the 5-speed auto + hill descent

my biggest concern is finding a non-dealer mechanic specialized in the JT HFV6 in my area...as well as finding parts

I'm unsure what to look for besides checking for stretched timing chain, please also mentions some general 3G common problems as well

is it necessary to avoid the first year 2009 and only buy MY10-12? Was the 3.2L V6 really not used in anything else in North America? There seems to be very conflicting info online: is it completely GM-sourced or was only the block used and the rest was design/assembled in japan?

thank you
 

·
Registered
99 Tracker, 5 door, 2L, 4x4
Joined
·
10,255 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,791 Posts
problems with these vehicles usually fall into 2 categories, normal wear and tear, and lack of maintenance. Avoid the years with known timing chain issues and cheek maintenance history. Not all models come with hill descent either.

I like my 2.4 powered ones better than the V6's i've driven. personal preference here, I just think the 2.4 is better behaved on the road. Never needed hill descent, thats what low gear, low range and the brake pedal are for.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter #7 (Edited)
which years have the timing chain problems on the v6? sticky only mentions early 4cyl heads cracking and the earlier V6 with expensive valve adj

i already have two vehicles in standard transmission so this needs to be family-friendly aka. auto and the 4cyl auto comes in 4-speed which isn't acceptable in 2020...nor is the acceleration on the 4-cyl ...nor is the minimal 10% fuel economy gain...if i'm looking for good road behaviour i would be looking at grand tourers not a compact SUV

both my other vehicles are also 50:50 longitudinal motor RWD so i'm sure i'll be right at home with the 05-14 GV

i agree with your point on hill decent, but to a certain extent it also applies to stability control which are present 09+
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,791 Posts
I beg to differ, the 4 speed auto actually performs better than the 5 speed around town and in traffic in my opinion. The 5 speed swaps cogs all the time and is a pain in the proverbial around town.

Just remember you're buying a truck that wasn't designed for 2020, and is going to be around 10 years old, with 2006 technology. Saying its "not acceptable in 2020" is narrow minded at best. Of course its not acceptable if comparing to a 2018 or later car. What year was it you were looking at? oh, thats right, a 2008, well, compare apples with apples and look at same year cars, don't try and put 2020 standards on something designed back in 2006.

These autos have been around for many years, and are pretty reliable. I'd rather drive the 4 speed in my one than the 5 speed in the V6. It makes minimal difference in the long run and only makes a difference around town and having an extra gear it won't use anyway as its an overdrive, you have effectively a 4 speed round town that will in all likelihood only use 3 gears anyway in traffic. Theres a very good reason Suzuki dropped the 5 speed and the V configuration engines and went back to a 4 speed, it worked better.

If you are that worried about how many gears its got, or acceleration on the road in the 4 cylinder, then you might be looking at the wrong vehicle. I have no problems with mine, and it gets off the line surprisingly quickly. Obviously you want to buy it because you don't care about economy and only want the slightly faster get up and go.the V6 offers. These are an off road mini truck, and in no way handle like an SUV or a car for that matter. Calling it a
"SUV with soft-roading chops" shows how much you don't know about them. These are a proper 4x4 off road vehicle and the only limiting factor is the ground clearance. Handling is satisfactory on road and surprisingly good off road. Buy it expecting it to ride and handle like a soft roader SUV and you will be disappointed.

i'll take the average 5 mpg US better economy thanks and stick with my 2.4 with the crappy 4 speed auto, you go buy what you want.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter #9 (Edited)
i'll try the 4-speed at some point

but to me 4-speed belongs on a 1991 Corolla...just like how drum brakes shouldn't be on a 2020 Tacoma-- fair enough i won't compare to 2020 and i'll use an even older example; the 2000 TL had 5-speed and still shifted like a dream 20 years on

do you have a source that the V6 got canned because it was worse? or was it simply too costly for a small player like Suzuki and like how the Subaru FXT got canned because not many people bought them?

don't get me wrong i think the ladder frame, rear multi-links and central locker is neat and it's why i'm even looking at the GV, but it's still not a conventional truck in my eyes (plastic skid plate, road tires, unibody chassis)..FYI i learned how to drive manual trans on a JB Jimny and overlanded in a series 70 Land Cruiser so i have a pretty fair idea

if you're happy with the 4-speed, great...but why try to convince everyone it's the only proper choice? what if I want half decent passing power on road trips from 30% more torque 500rpm earlier? epa rates it at a 1-2mpg penalty (US)...real world fuely data suggests similarly, i'm okay trading slight fuel econ for V6 grunt over the 166hp plant that has to move 3800lbs...that's not okay for me and just my preference...i'm selling a 155hp car that is 1000lbs lighter for it (almost identical torque curve/profile as the 4-cyl GV) and not repeating the same mistake again...absolute turn-off esp with rev hangs if it's accelerates anything like the awful Crosstrek

doesn't seem fair to use the argument for 4-speed over the 5-speed 'around town/in traffic' only to say ' why care about acceleration this probably isn't for you this is a serious off-roader etc'...comes off a bit contradicting

looking around 2009 V6 same price as 2010 4-cyl by the way
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,791 Posts
mine manages to cruise happily at 80 mph and still passes things easily. I take your point on hp, but torque delivery is certainly different between them, and I have had a few people startled at how fast my lump gets off the line.

The plastic skid plates and road tyres are because that is where it spends 90% or more of its time, on the road. Suzuki don't spend money unnecssarily if they don't have to, how many more would they have sold with mud tyres and decent bash plates? probably less. They were marketed to the "daily driver who wants to explore a rough road at the weekend brigade. I have steel underbody protection, decent off road tyres that still perform well on tarmac and in the wet. Its only the factory 8" of ground clearance that lets it down, but a 2" lift kit and theres not much that gets away from it off road. I have added an interesting TFL you tube vid below for you to have a look at, its surprising that these guys who love big muscle off road rate the GV's as well as they do. they are terribly under rated by those that have never driven them.

Unless you are buying something that is specifically designed for mainly off road use you won't find a separate chassis. Even some of the new so called 4x4's aren't on full ladder chassis any more. Landrover Disco or LR4 as the 'murricans know it is on a unibody construction.

If the V6 variants were so good, why did Suzuki withdraw them and stick with the inline 4 J20 and J24's ? They offered the V6 3.2 in the second half of 2008 (GM sourced) along with the J24B inline 4 and dropped the V6 in the second quarter of 2012, the Inline 4 2.4 continued until the end of production for the bulk of the world. I think Iran are still producing them.

Try one if you haven't, especially the later ones if you can find a facelift 2013 or later.

I get 32 mpg UK (26 ish US) out of my 4 speed auto on the open road, about 26 UK round town, the manual gets a mpg better.

V6 review

2.4 review, ignore the bit at the beginning, they had the T/C turned off for effect.

 

·
Registered
Joined
·
26 Posts
Discussion Starter #11 (Edited)
thanks for the videos ive watched them before

i just tried the update 4cyl with variable-valve...nothing happened when i buried the accelerator
granted it was smooth, but it's too lethargic for what i'm looking for

engine options typically get dropped because of slow sales/cost, not due to problems

back to the HFV6, any years to avoid? strictly MY10-12 or is the 2009 first year also free from early design flaws?

if i could have it my way it'd be a V6 then source a colour-matched MY13+ front and wheels...i'll keep dreaming
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,791 Posts
Unfortunately all years on the 3.6's have timing chain issues. Combination of rubbish chains and inherent design. If you get one, get the cam sensor correlation to crank checked as if the chain is stretching they will throw a code once the chain stretches enough that the ECU can't compensate enough. Assuming it doesn't jump a tooth and mash the valves into the pistons.
As for the "nothing happened when I buried the pedal" mine gets up and hauls its little ass off, pulls to red line in all gears except o/d. Gets to 100 kph ish in second. What was wrong with the one you drove I wonder? Was it actually a 2.4, or one of the gutless 2.0's?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
7,791 Posts
sorry, I meant 3.2's not 3.6, i hit the wrong button, all the N32 model years suffer from cam chain issues to some degree. Buy one at your own risk. If you get a good one with a good chain its a bonus.
 
1 - 14 of 14 Posts
Top