mmcartalk
Expert
- Messages
- 4,155
- Reactions
- 2,675
MM Retro Write-Up: Suzuki X90
^^^^ "Red Bull" Trunk version
IN A NUTSHELL: Good at doing very little, and very little at doing good.
After selling some rebadged products in the U.S., during the 1980s, under the Chevy and Geo nameplates at GM, Suzuki marketers attempted to also go it alone, in the American market, under the company's own nameplate. The company, of course, had already made a name for itself in the U.S. with high-performance motorcycles and sport-bikes. However, unlike with motorcycles, for a number of reasons (one of them, simply a dwindling number of Suzuki auto-dealerships) the company was ultimately not successful in the American automotive market, despite a couple of what I thought were relatively good products, like the SX-4 and Kizashi. The SX-4, at the time, undercut the Subaru Impreza in price (starting at $14,995) as the smallest and least-expensive AWD product available in the U.S., and also one-upped the Impreza by having a driver-controlled switch that could be set to 2WD, AWD, or AWD-Lock for tough conditions....the also-excellent Subaru system was full-time AWD. The Kizashi, which was introduced in 2010, only a few years before the company pulled out of the U.S. market in 2013, was an (IMO) generally well-done FWD or AWD sedan that straddled the line between compact and mid-size....I looked at/test-drove one and generally liked it.
But, in the U.S. automotive scene, Suzuki was perhaps best-known for its line of compact/subcompact body-on-frame SUVs, which had true-off-roading capabilities.......the increasing popularity of the more docile, unibody, car-based crossovers like the Toyota RAV-4, Honda CR-V, and Ford Escape were till somewhat off in the future. Suzuki's subcompact Samurai was a disaster...both in public-relations, liability, and its well-known tippy/unstable road-manners. It was also an extremely crude/unrefined and uncomfortable vehicle. Most of you are aware of its history (and lawsuits), so I won't waste any more time on that here.
The compact Sidekick/Vitara (also sold as the Chevy/Geo Tracker), and mid-sized Grand Vitara vastly improved the Samurai's flip-over problems, but some of the smaller versions also left a lot to be desired in the area of refinement. I recall test-driving a two-door Tracker with side-curtains instead of a steel roof, and I remember a lot of body-shake and vibration...perhaps because of the BOF construction and lack of a steel roof for body-integrity. It was also quite noisy and rough-riding. The larger, fully-enclosed, more refined Grand Vitara, with its longer wheelbase, was said to be a significant improvement, but I don't remember ever test-driving one.
Out of this somewhat mediocre lineup came the even more mediocre X-90. When it was first introduced to the American market in 1995-96, I called it a cross between a Miata and a small SUV...except that the only real comparison to the Miata was having only two seats. It was essentially a two door version of the Sidekick/Vitara platform, with a choice of RWD or truck-based 4WD, on a raised-chassis with a lot of ground clearance, with two seats like a sports car, a T-Top with removable panels, a short/bobbed rear-end, and a very tall center of gravity. It was arguably the most useless vehicle I had looked at in decades. I said to myself "They've got to be kidding......they actually expect to sell THIS?"
My hunch was more or less correct....only around 2000 were sold its first year in the U.S., and less than 500 the second year (it lasted less than three years in the U.S. market). And a review/test-drive pretty much nailed the reason why. The interior, though not quite as cramped as that of a Miata or other small roadster, did not offer any kind of utility at all compared to the small Suzuki SUVs it shared the platform with. The removable T-Tops from the roof were stored in the small, bobbed-shaped trunk in back...put both of those panels in, and there wasn't much of anything else you could put in with it. The driving-dynamics, though not the worst I've seen, left a LOT to be desired.....the very short wheelbase, truck-type recirculating-ball steering, and high stance gave it the ride-comfort of a rocking-horse and the handling/steering response of a beach-ball. The 95-HP 1.6L in-line four (the only engine available in the U.S.) was simply not enough for the added weight and drag of 4WD, particularly with the 4-speed automatic. Yes, you had 4WD for traction on slippery roads, but who in their right mind is going to drive in freezing weather, on icy roads, in a two-door T-Top, with the roof panels off? Needless to say, I very quietly took this vehicle back to the dealership (Suzuki dealerships, by then, were already starting to noticeably thin out across the U.S.), politely handed the key and dealer-plate back to the salespeople, wished them all a nice evening, and left. I called up a friend of mine (who had asked me to do a test-drive), gave him my report, and that was that.
My opinion, BTW, was not alone. Top Gear Magazine also listed the X-90 as #10 out of the Worst Vehicles they had tested in the last 20 years. But, despite my negative first impression, I won't necessarily blame Suzuki for it. It's easy, in hindsight, to point fingers when something doesn't sell, but auto companies sometimes have to take chances if they want to stay in business....that's part of being in the auto industry. Not all of those chances succeed, of course....the X-90, like the Plymouth Prowler, is a classic case of one that didn't. And I will give Suzuki credit for trying something different, even if it did turn out to be a more of a sow's-ear than a silk-purse.
And, as Always, Happy-Car-Memories.
MM
__________________
DRIVING IS BELIEVING
^^^^ "Red Bull" Trunk version
IN A NUTSHELL: Good at doing very little, and very little at doing good.
After selling some rebadged products in the U.S., during the 1980s, under the Chevy and Geo nameplates at GM, Suzuki marketers attempted to also go it alone, in the American market, under the company's own nameplate. The company, of course, had already made a name for itself in the U.S. with high-performance motorcycles and sport-bikes. However, unlike with motorcycles, for a number of reasons (one of them, simply a dwindling number of Suzuki auto-dealerships) the company was ultimately not successful in the American automotive market, despite a couple of what I thought were relatively good products, like the SX-4 and Kizashi. The SX-4, at the time, undercut the Subaru Impreza in price (starting at $14,995) as the smallest and least-expensive AWD product available in the U.S., and also one-upped the Impreza by having a driver-controlled switch that could be set to 2WD, AWD, or AWD-Lock for tough conditions....the also-excellent Subaru system was full-time AWD. The Kizashi, which was introduced in 2010, only a few years before the company pulled out of the U.S. market in 2013, was an (IMO) generally well-done FWD or AWD sedan that straddled the line between compact and mid-size....I looked at/test-drove one and generally liked it.
But, in the U.S. automotive scene, Suzuki was perhaps best-known for its line of compact/subcompact body-on-frame SUVs, which had true-off-roading capabilities.......the increasing popularity of the more docile, unibody, car-based crossovers like the Toyota RAV-4, Honda CR-V, and Ford Escape were till somewhat off in the future. Suzuki's subcompact Samurai was a disaster...both in public-relations, liability, and its well-known tippy/unstable road-manners. It was also an extremely crude/unrefined and uncomfortable vehicle. Most of you are aware of its history (and lawsuits), so I won't waste any more time on that here.
The compact Sidekick/Vitara (also sold as the Chevy/Geo Tracker), and mid-sized Grand Vitara vastly improved the Samurai's flip-over problems, but some of the smaller versions also left a lot to be desired in the area of refinement. I recall test-driving a two-door Tracker with side-curtains instead of a steel roof, and I remember a lot of body-shake and vibration...perhaps because of the BOF construction and lack of a steel roof for body-integrity. It was also quite noisy and rough-riding. The larger, fully-enclosed, more refined Grand Vitara, with its longer wheelbase, was said to be a significant improvement, but I don't remember ever test-driving one.
Out of this somewhat mediocre lineup came the even more mediocre X-90. When it was first introduced to the American market in 1995-96, I called it a cross between a Miata and a small SUV...except that the only real comparison to the Miata was having only two seats. It was essentially a two door version of the Sidekick/Vitara platform, with a choice of RWD or truck-based 4WD, on a raised-chassis with a lot of ground clearance, with two seats like a sports car, a T-Top with removable panels, a short/bobbed rear-end, and a very tall center of gravity. It was arguably the most useless vehicle I had looked at in decades. I said to myself "They've got to be kidding......they actually expect to sell THIS?"
My hunch was more or less correct....only around 2000 were sold its first year in the U.S., and less than 500 the second year (it lasted less than three years in the U.S. market). And a review/test-drive pretty much nailed the reason why. The interior, though not quite as cramped as that of a Miata or other small roadster, did not offer any kind of utility at all compared to the small Suzuki SUVs it shared the platform with. The removable T-Tops from the roof were stored in the small, bobbed-shaped trunk in back...put both of those panels in, and there wasn't much of anything else you could put in with it. The driving-dynamics, though not the worst I've seen, left a LOT to be desired.....the very short wheelbase, truck-type recirculating-ball steering, and high stance gave it the ride-comfort of a rocking-horse and the handling/steering response of a beach-ball. The 95-HP 1.6L in-line four (the only engine available in the U.S.) was simply not enough for the added weight and drag of 4WD, particularly with the 4-speed automatic. Yes, you had 4WD for traction on slippery roads, but who in their right mind is going to drive in freezing weather, on icy roads, in a two-door T-Top, with the roof panels off? Needless to say, I very quietly took this vehicle back to the dealership (Suzuki dealerships, by then, were already starting to noticeably thin out across the U.S.), politely handed the key and dealer-plate back to the salespeople, wished them all a nice evening, and left. I called up a friend of mine (who had asked me to do a test-drive), gave him my report, and that was that.
My opinion, BTW, was not alone. Top Gear Magazine also listed the X-90 as #10 out of the Worst Vehicles they had tested in the last 20 years. But, despite my negative first impression, I won't necessarily blame Suzuki for it. It's easy, in hindsight, to point fingers when something doesn't sell, but auto companies sometimes have to take chances if they want to stay in business....that's part of being in the auto industry. Not all of those chances succeed, of course....the X-90, like the Plymouth Prowler, is a classic case of one that didn't. And I will give Suzuki credit for trying something different, even if it did turn out to be a more of a sow's-ear than a silk-purse.
And, as Always, Happy-Car-Memories.
MM
__________________
DRIVING IS BELIEVING
