is the new Suzuki sx4 1.0 engine as powerful as the old sx4 1.6 engine?

justaquestion

Hi folks,

We have a Suzuki sx4 1.6 petrol and have been told by local dealer that the new Suzuki sx5 1.0 engine with Booster Jet is as good performance wise?

Any truth in this and for a layperson like myself what does the Booster Jet actually do, as I am very sceptical and think its mainly a marketing ploy.

Thanks for any advice.

AdrianC

1.6 four-pot - 118bhp, 156Nm.
1.0 turbo triple - 109bhp, 170Nm.

So a bit less power, a bit more torque.

"BoosterJet" is just a euphemism for "turbo". It's just part of the usual downsizing that's going on all over the market - small turbos replacing larger naturally aspirated lumps. Similar power, better official emissions and economy. You'll find it across most manufacturers now.

daveyjp

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/suzuki/

You will notice the Boosterjet engine gets a big thumbs up from HJ.

Despite the similar figures it will drive in a different manner. We have just swapped a 90 bhp 4 cylinder petrol car for one with three cylinders and a turbo and they are chalk and cheese.

forgotmyname

You need to read between the lines on the road tests. So many road tests raved about the 1L ecoboost Ford engine. Lots of torque for the engine size they say.

They the same testers get a roadtrip where the cars 4 or 5 up plus luggage and the torque they raved about appears to have gone walkies.

Changing down on the motorway hills etc, and having to use the gears a lot more.

Strider590

AdrianC wrote: »

1.6 four-pot - 118bhp, 156Nm.
1.0 turbo triple - 109bhp, 170Nm.

So a bit less power, a bit more torque.

"BoosterJet" is just a euphemism for "turbo". It's just part of the usual downsizing that's going on all over the market - small turbos replacing larger naturally aspirated lumps. Similar power, better official emissions and economy. You'll find it across most manufacturers now.

It worries me a bit, it was hard enough finding a non-diesel 2009 Mondeo, in 5-10 years time it'll be hard to find anything other than tiny hard worked engines with blown turbos.

justaquestion

daveyjp wrote: »

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/carbycar/suzuki/

You will notice the Boosterjet engine gets a big thumbs up from HJ.

Despite the similar figures it will drive in a different manner. We have just swapped a 90 bhp 4 cylinder petrol car for one with three cylinders and a turbo and they are chalk and cheese.

Thanks for replies everybody.


As in the above post do you prefer the 4 cylinders to the 3?


Thanks

AdrianC

The number of cylinders isn't a massive indicator of anything. It'll sound a bit funkier, though.

interstellaflyer

Strider590 wrote: »

It worries me a bit, it was hard enough finding a non-diesel 2009 Mondeo, in 5-10 years time it'll be hard to find anything other than tiny hard worked engines with blown turbos.

They are not replacing other engine varients though, they are an alternative to diesel in the short commute and urban driving market and those are the conditions modern diesels don't like so you'll be as likely to find well and truly goosed 5-10 year old diesels.

F1F93

forgotmyname wrote: »

You need to read between the lines on the road tests. So many road tests raved about the 1L ecoboost Ford engine. Lots of torque for the engine size they say.

They the same testers get a roadtrip where the cars 4 or 5 up plus luggage and the torque they raved about appears to have gone walkies.

Changing down on the motorway hills etc, and having to use the gears a lot more.

Cannot stress this enough. I used to own a suzuki sx4 1.6 alongside a 1.2tsi Ibiza (similar power/torque to the 1.0 boosterjet).

The Ibiza is far quicker (which admittedly is partly down to the lower weight), but you can really feel any extra passengers or weight. The suzuki lugged everything (even a heavily laden trailer) without any noticable hit to the performance.

50Twuncle

I have just bought a Suzuki Baleno 1.0 boosterjet (6 speed automatic) and am extremely impressed with it - it pulls nicely and is smoother than I expected - it is considerably quicker than my old 1.2 Swift !!
The other thing that impresses me is its efficiency - so far, I have driven 200 miles and the average fuel consumption is now 52 mpg and I am not a slow driver !!
It is also extremely well equipped and spacious
The car IS lightweight (900kg) but is well put together - doesn't rattle on bumpy roads etc