Thanks for this review. Finally someone who drives sensible and takes the time to shows consumption under normal conditions. Not the best looking car, some parts of the interior have been used in the previous models as well but that keeps the price low. If you do not mind this then you have a good value for money car.
excellent test you can see the mountain. isn't it 1.4? Is 4x4? I don't like the headlights in the back, better the old ones. the seats are 40:60 bad for those who ski. interior improvements, info entertainment display does not convince me. otherwise excellent machine and engine. we talk about snow but they forgot the 40:20:20 seats.
As we are not in mathematics but in marketing for cars I am not sure whether those rules are obeyed there. You can have 1.535 ccm machines being marketed as 1.6 litres. For the beancounters there is the table at the end of the video where the exact number is shown. How I name it isn't relevant.
@@marcellopezzi is not a problem if 1.3 or 1.4, however Suzuki made a good model but I complain about the interiors and exteriors, if they did better they sold much, much more. MG does best as interiors or third world cars make better. the shit display reminds me of poorly made Chinese phones. if you don't know how to package the product, everything is wrong, it was enough to do the interior and exterior like across (but it's a Suzuki Toyota).
Good afternoon, I was on the test today and on seltos and suzuki s-cross, and generally got lost. Seltos seemed to me prettier and bigger, inside the trunk is larger. It rides the norm, I drove a Suzuka in a simple configuration, but I wanted it with a leather interior, it looks many times better, and feels cooler. But I drove on the usual one, it seemed quieter in the cabin than the Seltos, and it is faster. At the expense of softness, somehow I didn’t understand, + - the same start-stop on s-cross is not audible at all, on seltos you can hear how it starts, but again, the problem is fuel consumption. This is very important for me, according to the stories in the salons, they have the same consumption + - the same, somehow I can’t believe it, I think based on the reviews of the s-cross, the average consumption is 7 liters. As I understand it on seltoc, the reviews differ, some have 5.6, some have 12-13, I can’t understand. Would be grateful if there is some personal experience !
I have one for several weeks now and in answer to your question: there is no " excessive noise on motorway speeds" .. well thats my opinion. I suppose it depends on what you have previously driven. I just thankfully ridded myself of a 2 year old "excessivly troublesome" Hyundai Tuscon. No noticable difference in noise and so far the Suzuki has no excessive noise of fuel pumps going south ! And the Infotainment system works perfectley !! And. ..
Hi, not only in the city, but in general. In the city it has just more relevance as more accelerations are happening. It's about the burning process of the fuel. The higher the load the more efficient this happens. And with high revs you don't get a high enough load (This is actually why the most efficient Hybrids simultanously drive the wheel and charge the battery, as this increases the load, therefore improves efficiency and have the car moved on the one hand and also got some charging to be used later).
Going downhill with low revs is definitely not to recommend as it increases the use and wear of the brakes. Modern engines have no problem with high load on low revs. That's an old mechanics tale. Engines nowadays are build for that. If you drive a vehicle with autmatic gearbox just try what the gearbox allows you to do. If revs get to low (even if you have it in manual mode) it shifts up at the point where it starts hurting the engine, and with most cars this is around 1100 - 1300 revs.
In fact, that's not correct. If using low revs it's more efficient to push the pedal harder in order to increase the load, as the burning process of the fuel is more efficient. The most efficient way of driving (which I do not apply for this test as it's not comfortable and practicable) is accelerating with highest possible load (but low revs), then de-couple and keep the car coasting. All the world record trips in the past have been driven like this.
Mild hybrid just have got 350Wh battery. Would be enough just for 2 minutes. Mild hybrid system should support while accelaration and for start/stop system. The electric engine "ISG" helps to start from stop. If I understood this correctly it is not using standard ignition to start engine. Maybe with exception when A/C turn on. But haven`t analysed this so deep. After around 200km in city only I don`t see much support from electric system. Battery has to be loaded to some level before it start to support gasoline engine.
Thanks for the test, but I don't think that driving under 1000 rpms (even when the car is telling to change the gear) is really efficient. Also it is a mild Hybrid, this way you don't use the energy regeneration
I think the efficiency is shown in the result. And for not using regeneration: It's proven (and mathematically proofable) that less braking (means regen) is more efficient than lots of regen, as you never ever get back what you had to invest in the first place to build up or maintain speed to then recover only a fraction of it. Here's the test I've done with the Kia EV6, ua-cam.com/video/81sU-OYu05k/v-deo.html and with most mild hybrids you regen way less than with a full EV, so its never more efficient to brake in order to get a small amount of energy back than to avoid braking as this means you had to invest way more beforehand.
To be honest sadly Ford ecoboost especially 1.0 is a deathtrap regarding the reliability. I rather lose 1L fuel every 100km than fixing a totaled engine after 100 - 150 000 km...
There is one expensive part in the engine - dual mass flywheel. And You will damage it very early, if You will drive car with high load on low rpm. Another fact - this is direct injection engine and these engines hate low rpm and high load. After 100000 km the intake manifold will be clogged with soot and unburned particles, with GPF at the end of its service life. You will save some EUROs for fuel, but with cost 1000-2000 EUR for repairs.
My experience with Suzuki is that word "hybrid" means a giant hornet in dashboardm just like in mine New Suzuki Vitara: ua-cam.com/video/pFGXs5zoLT0/v-deo.html
Thanks for this review. Finally someone who drives sensible and takes the time to shows consumption under normal conditions. Not the best looking car, some parts of the interior have been used in the previous models as well but that keeps the price low. If you do not mind this then you have a good value for money car.
Thanks and you're welcome!
Ik zie de Suzuki snelheidsmeter op 110 staan op de motorway bij andere testen precies op 100 ........?
excellent test you can see the mountain. isn't it 1.4? Is 4x4? I don't like the headlights in the back, better the old ones. the seats are 40:60 bad for those who ski. interior improvements, info entertainment display does not convince me. otherwise excellent machine and engine. we talk about snow but they forgot the 40:20:20 seats.
Thanks!
It has 1373 ccm, so its a matter of interpretation whether its a 1.3 or a 1.4.
This car was the 4x4.
@@ecodriver1746 it is not a matter of interpretation, 1.373 has always been and always will be 1.4, these are basic rules for rounding
As we are not in mathematics but in marketing for cars I am not sure whether those rules are obeyed there. You can have 1.535 ccm machines being marketed as 1.6 litres. For the beancounters there is the table at the end of the video where the exact number is shown. How I name it isn't relevant.
The engine is and it's called 1.4 l. The way you call it is irrelevant not because of math, but Becsuse of its name
@@marcellopezzi is not a problem if 1.3 or 1.4, however Suzuki made a good model but I complain about the interiors and exteriors, if they did better they sold much, much more. MG does best as interiors or third world cars make better. the shit display reminds me of poorly made Chinese phones. if you don't know how to package the product, everything is wrong, it was enough to do the interior and exterior like across (but it's a Suzuki Toyota).
Good afternoon, I was on the test today and on seltos and suzuki s-cross, and generally got lost. Seltos seemed to me prettier and bigger, inside the trunk is larger. It rides the norm, I drove a Suzuka in a simple configuration, but I wanted it with a leather interior, it looks many times better, and feels cooler. But I drove on the usual one, it seemed quieter in the cabin than the Seltos, and it is faster. At the expense of softness, somehow I didn’t understand, + - the same start-stop on s-cross is not audible at all, on seltos you can hear how it starts, but again, the problem is fuel consumption. This is very important for me, according to the stories in the salons, they have the same consumption + - the same, somehow I can’t believe it, I think based on the reviews of the s-cross, the average consumption is 7 liters. As I understand it on seltoc, the reviews differ, some have 5.6, some have 12-13, I can’t understand. Would be grateful if there is some personal experience !
Can you do a video on using adaptive/cruise control on ice for efficient driving?
Thanks for the tip, I'll see how and when I can do this.
Manual gear or automatic?
Can you comment on the excessive cabin noise the car has on highway speeds?
I have one for several weeks now and in answer to your question: there is no " excessive noise on motorway speeds" .. well thats my opinion. I suppose it depends on what you have previously driven. I just thankfully ridded myself of a 2 year old "excessivly troublesome" Hyundai Tuscon. No noticable difference in noise and so far the Suzuki has no excessive noise of fuel pumps going south ! And the Infotainment system works perfectley !! And. ..
was the auxillary battery charged in the start of the test?
I don't know, but as the usable capacity is less than 0,1 kWh it doesn't really make much of a difference, as you can't drive electric only anyway.
Hello. Can you please explain why, in the city, it is better to put a high load on small revs rather that small load and higher revs? Thank you.
Hi, not only in the city, but in general. In the city it has just more relevance as more accelerations are happening.
It's about the burning process of the fuel. The higher the load the more efficient this happens. And with high revs you don't get a high enough load (This is actually why the most efficient Hybrids simultanously drive the wheel and charge the battery, as this increases the load, therefore improves efficiency and have the car moved on the one hand and also got some charging to be used later).
@@ecodriver1746 thank you for your reply. Best wishes!
Going downhill with low revs is definitely not to recommend as it increases the use and wear of the brakes.
Modern engines have no problem with high load on low revs. That's an old mechanics tale. Engines nowadays are build for that. If you drive a vehicle with autmatic gearbox just try what the gearbox allows you to do. If revs get to low (even if you have it in manual mode) it shifts up at the point where it starts hurting the engine, and with most cars this is around 1100 - 1300 revs.
Forget about revs, gears, loads and other bulshit.
It's actually very simple, the more you push the gas pedal the more gas you spend.
In fact, that's not correct. If using low revs it's more efficient to push the pedal harder in order to increase the load, as the burning process of the fuel is more efficient. The most efficient way of driving (which I do not apply for this test as it's not comfortable and practicable) is accelerating with highest possible load (but low revs), then de-couple and keep the car coasting. All the world record trips in the past have been driven like this.
So the 2 wheel drive should be even better?
Sure, 2WD is about ~70kg lighter
Here the 2WD isn't available, Suzuki's are only bought for their 4WD over here.
@@ecodriver1746 I like that 😁
Hello, can you drive just on battery?
Mild hybrid just have got 350Wh battery. Would be enough just for 2 minutes. Mild hybrid system should support while accelaration and for start/stop system. The electric engine "ISG" helps to start from stop. If I understood this correctly it is not using standard ignition to start engine. Maybe with exception when A/C turn on. But haven`t analysed this so deep. After around 200km in city only I don`t see much support from electric system. Battery has to be loaded to some level before it start to support gasoline engine.
Thanks for the test, but I don't think that driving under 1000 rpms (even when the car is telling to change the gear) is really efficient.
Also it is a mild Hybrid, this way you don't use the energy regeneration
I think the efficiency is shown in the result.
And for not using regeneration: It's proven (and mathematically proofable) that less braking (means regen) is more efficient than lots of regen, as you never ever get back what you had to invest in the first place to build up or maintain speed to then recover only a fraction of it.
Here's the test I've done with the Kia EV6, ua-cam.com/video/81sU-OYu05k/v-deo.html
and with most mild hybrids you regen way less than with a full EV, so its never more efficient to brake in order to get a small amount of energy back than to avoid braking as this means you had to invest way more beforehand.
Thank you for the answer. Actually thanks to this video I improved a lot consumption just letting the car rolling. That's a great tip!
Was this hybrid and auto gearbox pls?
No, conventional 6 speed manual. No hybrid.
friends, what do you think, what competitors does this car have 🚗? and why ?
To be honest sadly Ford ecoboost especially 1.0 is a deathtrap regarding the reliability. I rather lose 1L fuel every 100km than fixing a totaled engine after 100 - 150 000 km...
1200 rpm 30000 km a mototr KO
So the engine of my Mazda should be dead 3 times now...
Why?
I concur! Maybe not in 30000 km but I doubt that engine would see 100000 km. Right on time when warranty expires 😉
There is one expensive part in the engine - dual mass flywheel. And You will damage it very early, if You will drive car with high load on low rpm.
Another fact - this is direct injection engine and these engines hate low rpm and high load. After 100000 km the intake manifold will be clogged with soot and unburned particles, with GPF at the end of its service life.
You will save some EUROs for fuel, but with cost 1000-2000 EUR for repairs.
@@garminbreak
Amen 👍
Looks like you used every suggestion of the car to change gear.
My experience with Suzuki is that word "hybrid" means a giant hornet in dashboardm just like in mine New Suzuki Vitara: ua-cam.com/video/pFGXs5zoLT0/v-deo.html
:)