[johy]

Swiftnfurious, you say even with the AWD the handling is not as good as the Tsi? That sure is a dampener. That was one thing I was looking at as a plus.

[Akshay1234]

Originally Posted by johy

Swiftnfurious, you say even with the AWD the handling is not as good as the Tsi? That sure is a dampener. That was one thing I was looking at as a plus.

Where did AWD come from? The Kizashi is front wheel drive.

[swiftnfurious]

Originally Posted by johy

Swiftnfurious, you say even with the AWD the handling is not as good as the Tsi? That sure is a dampener. That was one thing I was looking at as a plus.

I have never driven the car. I was looking at the comments on this thread about handling and couple of bhpians have rated it inferior to Laura. Knowing that Kizashi comes with AWD config, I was quite surprised to know about handling not at par with Laura!


I was looking at the Maruti website and seems Kizashi comes in 2WD in India? Could someone confirm?

Update::

Originally Posted by akshay1234

Where did AWD come from? The Kizashi is front wheel drive.

Thanks. Since Kizashi is available as AWD internationally, I thought we were getting the same in India too as it is a CBU.

[puchoo]

The Kizashi comes in 2 WD system only irrespective of the model , which are anyway only 2 - auto and manual , trim levels are the same barring the transmission.

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

I was looking at the Maruti website and seems Kizashi comes in 2WD in India? Could someone confirm?

[CARDEEP]

Yes, in India Kizashi is front wheel drive (I second @akshay1234) only. However, in US you get option of AWD car (refer below link for AWD version details):

http://www.suzukiauto.com/kizashi/specs/?r=left#-all

IMO Kizashi's problem are compounded when you get the Accord-ish mileage (at best) in a car of Civic's size, & for the non-enthusiasts "size does matter". Suzuki also suffers from average brand image outside India & is seen more as an small car expert, which leads to poor sales got competent cars even.

[Santoshbhat]

Originally Posted by sandeepmohan

It is not the question of charm alone. How on earth or at least for now we don't have the technology, can you expect a 2.4l engine to be on par or better than a 1.8l engine in terms of fuel efficiency? An engine that much smaller or bigger, which ever way you want to look at it will consume less or more fuel. That does not means it is inefficient. If I can manage about 7-8kmpl from the Kizashi's 2.4l engine, that is a good number. Sure, the Kizashi will drink more gas than the Laura TSI. That is for you to deal with. You surely knew before hand what you were getting into with a car having a 2.4l block. I will not compare the fuel efficiency of a car that has a bigger engine to one that has a much smaller engine even if the cars sell from the same segment. That is just wrong.

Why is it wrong?

The smaller engine is quicker and is more fuel effecient. That's what's wrong for the Kizashi's fortunes.

With a 600CC advantage if it was quicker then maybe we could give it that allowance to guzzle more fuel. But the fact is it is not.

It is Maruti's problem to figure out how to deliver a car to the customer that is more fuel efficient without sacrificing power at the same time.

No wonder no one's buying them.

Originally Posted by sandeepmohan

Yeah; the petrol's are known to be trouble free engines. It is the rest of the car that should hold together.

THe facelifted Laura petrol and diesel are both very reliable not just in terms of their engines but the entire car itself. I am yet to come across unhappy owners on this forum atleast.

[sandeepmohan]

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

The smaller engine is quicker and is more fuel effecient. That's what's wrong for the Kizashi's fortunes.

With a 600CC advantage if it was quicker then maybe we could give it that allowance to guzzle more fuel. But the fact is it is not.

It is Maruti's problem to figure out how to deliver a car to the customer that is more fuel efficient without sacrificing power at the same time.

No wonder no one's buying them.

Agreed; it is quicker and more efficient.

This will be my last post on the subject. I am repeating the same lines again and again. How do you expect a 2.4l engine to match the fuel efficiency of a 1.8l engine? I agree on power. It surely could have put out more horses.

If Suzuki really want to play with the segment, they need to downsize the engine and thats probably the only way fuel efficiency can level with the segment where the Kizashi sells.

I won't deny that the car is over priced. Thanks to our old school government import policies. At 22lac, which is the original price, it is just stupid to even think of buying a Kizashi. At less than 18lac on road for a automatic with tiptronic, a car thats better kitted and has more passenger room than a Laura, I prefer the Kizashi.

It is just lame on Skoda to not have a L&K for a petrol. Then again, the L&K shoots upto 24lac on road. I don't think it makes any sense to spend that sort of money. Its as if Skoda decided to do a Kizashi pricing with just the L&K variant.

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

Why is it wrong?

The smaller engine is quicker and is more fuel effecient. That's what's wrong for the Kizashi's fortunes.

With a 600CC advantage if it was quicker then maybe we could give it that allowance to guzzle more fuel. But the fact is it is not.

It is Maruti's problem to figure out how to deliver a car to the customer that is more fuel efficient without sacrificing power at the same time.

No wonder no one's buying them.

How is it quicker? The kizashi's 0-100 in the manual variant is 7.8 sec while the laura tsi is 8.5sec. It also has 18 horses more than the laura - 178ps vs 160ps.

[VeyronSuperSprt]

Suzuki's fallout with Volkswagen was the final nail in the coffin for the Kizashi. Among the plans that Suzuki had with the erstwhile partnership with VW was that Suzuki would leverage the latter's expertise in engines and VW was looking to leverage Suzuki's strength's in the small car area. However, this was not to be.

If wishes were horses and the Kizashi had been kitted with the 1.8 TSI engine it would have been a great car. Benchmarked against the base models of A4 and the C in the handling department and a product of Nurburgring testing, the Kizashi had great plans going for it including a 3.6 litre V6 and 2.0 litre diesel both of which haven't made it into production.

Having driven the Kizashi, one can easily say that it is as good as the Laura as far as handling goes and it certainly is a driver's car.

That Suzuki's pricing model, launch timing, general economic turnarounds, petrol price hikes and failure of it's strategic partnerships with VW did it in for the Kizashi will go down as one of the sadder bits of automotive history.

[shivasuma]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

How is it quicker? The kizashi's 0-100 in the manual variant is 7.8 sec while the laura tsi is 8.5sec. It also has 18 horses more than the laura - 178ps vs 160ps.

Thats the manufacturer claimed performance figure for the Kizashi. The 0-100 dash by some of the Indian mags put it at 9.1secs. Also Kizashi is heavier than the Laura, so the 18 horses advantage is more or less nullified.

[reignofchaos]

Originally Posted by shivasuma

Thats the manufacturer claimed performance figure for the Kizashi. The 0-100 dash by some of the Indian mags put it at 9.1secs. Also Kizashi is heavier than the Laura, so the 18 horses advantage is more or less nullified.

The indian mags tested the CVT auto. The manufacturer rates that at 8.8 sec while the manual is 7.8 sec to a ton.

[shivasuma]

Originally Posted by reignofchaos

The indian mags tested the CVT auto. The manufacturer rates that at 8.8 sec while the manual is 7.8 sec to a ton.

Please see Autocar's review which says the Laura is quicker than the Kizashi. They have tested both the automatic and manual.

http://www.autocarindia.com/Review/2...kizashi.aspx/3

[reignofchaos]

Thanks for the update. I guess I was wrong in that case.

[Santoshbhat]

Originally Posted by sandeepmohan

Agreed; it is quicker and more efficient.

This will be my last post on the subject. I am repeating the same lines again and again. How do you expect a 2.4l engine to match the fuel efficiency of a 1.8l engine? I agree on power. It surely could have put out more horses.

I thought my previous post would be my last post on the subject. But since you have asked a question I will answer it.

Look we don't expect the 2.4L engine to match the efficiency of 1.8L engine. From a buyer's perspective we do expect engines with similar power output to have similar effeciency figures as well.

When a car maker plonks a bigger engine in a car it is with the sole objective of more power. It is simple logic that bigger engine = more power but also higher fuel consumption. But here you have a smaller engine which produces as much power and being smaller is effecient as well. That's dated technology on Suzuki's part in that case.

In one of your earlier posts you said that the customer has to "deal" with the fact that the bigger engine will also consume more fuel. All I am saying is why should he, when he has other options where he can get as much power if not more while burning lesser fuel?

[supremeBaleno]

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

It is simple logic that bigger engine = more power but also higher fuel consumption.

I don't think it is as simple as that, though many years ago I also thought on those lines ie. more the cc, more the power and lesser the FE. This viewpoint changed when I jumped straight from a puny 800cc M800 to the 1600cc Baleno. Yes, power almost doubled, but FE did not go down by half. Infact, the 12kmpl city FE that I get with it, is around what a much smaller displacement car would return in similar traffic conditions (eg.a 1100cc Santro). So there are other factors like torque delivery which could make or mar FE due to the role it plays in city kind of driving.