Suzuki Forums banner

1 - 12 of 12 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Hi everyone, new member here, and first post.

I'm a long time Suzuki owner, been through LJ 50's, 80's, almost 20 years driving a LWB sierra:D followed by a couple of Vitara's with a swb sierra in between.

The last 4 years I have been suzuki-less and just now looking at getting back into a GV. I'm interested in any input in to the 2.4l engine running the auto box.

All I do is beach/sand driving, actually member paul84 had some great photos of the dunes that are literally the view from my living room.

http://www.suzuki-forums.com/2g-2006-grand-vitara/77281-post-somephotos-your-gv-3.html

My preference is a manual box, however the ratio of used GV seams to be weighted to the auto's models.

TL;DR what is the 2.4l engine like, inherent faults/weaknesses? Will the auto stand up to sand work? Or should I just hang out for a manual box?

Cheers :)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Hi Nacho pirate,
Before trading for my actual V6, i had the 2.4L for 18 months. I can tell this about the 2.4L:
1) strurdy engine;
2) a bit underpower for such a heavy vehicle, but it work for basic tranportation ;
4) 4 speed tranny only, with a very long overdrive 4th gear for fuel economy, make it rather limited;
5) fuel economy is not better then the V6;
6) manual tranny was only available on the base JA model wich was SINGLE mode AWD, instead of 4 mode (4H, 4HLock, 4L, N). If you do sand/beach driving a 4 mode would be essential.

If you only do sand/beach driving with Suzuki, than i guess that the 2.4L could do a good job.
But my advise to you to find and try the V6 before you buy the 2.4L. A world of differences.
Happy shopping!:)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #3 (Edited)
Hi Getalife13 and thanks,

That is disappointing about the economy, and the manual not having dual range 4x4, which I wasn't aware of.
I previously had the 90's 1.6l vitara which was great in sand and had reasonable economy, so thought the 2.4 would be the natural progression.

What is the economy like on the V6?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
49 Posts
Hi Nacho pirate,

Don't forget that fuel economy, is region related. I live in Montréal, and do drive in winter so take that in consideration.

So here it goes:
Winter(city/highway 50/50) around 12L to 14L/100km(depending on wheather);
Summer(city 11L/100km, highway 10L/100km
Country(gravel road) 13L to 15L/100km;

With the 2.4L i could do 9L/100km on the highway with cruise control at 90km/h to 100km/h,on a summer day, but not very practical. City was about the same as the V6.

Also i have a light foot for driving, so i can save every bit of fuel that is getting so expensive.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,054 Posts
Aussies can chime in, but I would have thought in the Australian market the 2.4 manual models would have the low range. Ours certainly do.
In my auto at 100 km/hr the tach is at around 2700 rpm so top gear is not particularly tall.

See attached file of 37 tanks, I get around 10.3 on my daily commute of 22 km each way and just under 10 on a trip. I have no problem with the 166 hp even driving on the local beach which is power-sucking deep gravel, but I don't have a full load, nor am towing. In either of those cases I might want more power for passing on the open road.

I installed a transmission oil temp gauge to keep an eye on things but don't see any overheating issue in the gravel. And, that's in normal range rather than low which is inviting higher temps.

As far as the 2.4 engine goes, it's a fairly up to date design. Cam chain of the gear-tooth type, balance shafts, VVT on the intake, and no reliability issues (that I'm aware of,) and the oil filter is more accessible than the V6 if you DIY oil changes.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
271 Posts
Hi Getalife13 and thanks,

That is disappointing about the economy, and the manual not having dual range 4x4, which I wasn't aware of.
I previously had the 90's 1.6l vitara which was great in sand and had reasonable economy, so thought the 2.4 would be the natural progression.

What is the economy like on the V6?
I can confirm the manual 2.4L GV sold in Aus does have dual range 4wd.
All 4WD GV's in Aus have dual range.

There is a 2wd Urban version but I have no idea why anyone would want one.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
39 Posts
I have 2012 2.4 auto. 52000km. On highway at 100-120km\h between 9-10 l/100. Average 11 towing small boat ocasionally plus running roung town. Has been up to 13l when pushed. No troubles with mine have extended diff breathers, full underbody plates. Latest is airbag spring helpers in rear which are awsome. They sit a bit low so deep sand ruts on beach maybe difficult. I have not had mine on beach as i see this as pointless. Offroad will go anywhere; very powerful traction control. In another year or two will put OME suspension which will improve vehicle all round. Just about to replace original tyres cant decide to go up to 235 in LT or passenger or stay standard 225. I have 3 kids plenty of room fast safe surefooted economical vehicle in all conditions, shes a keeper. hope it helps bud. Shano
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
11 Posts
Discussion Starter #8
Thanks for the replies Getalife13,Kiwi,KevL and mynewsuz, I'm still scanning the used GV market. Because there are way more V6 for sale I'm beginning to look at those a little closer, although hope a 2.4 in manual will pop up sooner or later. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
34 Posts
I have the auto 2.4 amazing off road and good on the highway. I have both the standard 225/70/16 highway tyres as well as a second set of Pirelli scorpion 235/70/16 ATRs. Fuel economy is around 9.7 l/100k with highway tyres and 10.5 l/100ks with the bigger ATRs. I also have OME suspension, bash plates, ARB bullbar with lights. Just fitted Recaro seats. Fantastic off road and on. Auto is better off road than manual, low range is low enough to give good control on decent, up hill almost unstoppable. Disc brakes and traction control work well.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
I have the auto 2.4 amazing off road and good on the highway. I have both the standard 225/70/16 highway tyres as well as a second set of Pirelli scorpion 235/70/16 ATRs. Fuel economy is around 9.7 l/100k with highway tyres and 10.5 l/100ks with the bigger ATRs. I also have OME suspension, bash plates, ARB bullbar with lights. Just fitted Recaro seats. Fantastic off road and on. Auto is better off road than manual, low range is low enough to give good control on decent, up hill almost unstoppable. Disc brakes and traction control work well.
I have a 2013 GV3 with about 11,000km on the clock.
I only get about 350km to the tank!
That really frustrates me, and I hope that it will get better as the engine breaks in.
As much as I hope, in reality I doubt it will...
Can anybody else confirm this??
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
161 Posts
Mine is a 2014 3 door 2.4L Manual. I've owned a 2001 2.0, and a 2005 1.6.

The 2.4 engine is pretty sweet, 168 HP. There's a surge as it goes past 3000 rpm and the VVT doohickeys operate. I mostly drive mine on the road. Quiet engine, and revs to 5000 without complaint. There's not much point going above 4000.

There's not much to moan about. The 5 speed manual box seems much better than the 2005 model, the rear suspension is now independent with disk brakes, it's quieter inside, and the car is stable at 'high motorway' speeds. I get around 300 miles on the 55 litre (?) tank though the computer lies. I think it's 66 litre on the five door? That's about 33MPG (UK) on the OEM tyres. I don't drive to conserve fuel, so 35 MPG should be possible.

Mines a 3 door and therefore lighter than the five door.

With an auto with a torque converter you always have torque going to the wheels(in drive) which might be better for sand and snow. You have a little more control with a manual, so take your pick. 1st on the manual box is quite low anyway.

There are regional differences but I think for OZ all the 2.4 models will have high+low ratio.

Standard ground clearance is around 8". That's not a lot for ruts or trails.

I also have the full 4H, 4HL, 4L options, cruise control, and the 17" alloys on the SZ4 model. It's a nice car to own, but I'm only a highway cruiser. :cool:

I think the downside with the V6 auto is going to be fuel consumption, but I'd be happy to own one. We don't see them in the Uk.

You need test drives.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
443 Posts
I have a 2013 2.4L auto. On my test drive I noticed it was going much quicker below 50kph than my 07 crv, but at highway speed I really wish it had at least an extra gear. However I didn't noticed the GV to be less economical on my yearly 1000KM trip. In prolonged stop and go traffic I could see the gaz level indicator slowly going down. First gear in low range was giving 13L according to the computer.
 
1 - 12 of 12 Posts
Top