Suzuki Swift Sport. Anyone had experience with these any known problems are they any good

Page 1 / 5
yogibearz, Jul 21, 7:07am
Anyone had experience with these! Any known problems ! Are they any good !
thejazzpianoma, Jul 21, 7:11am
Very little car for your money, out of date technology wise when it was released let alone now. Auto's are particularly awful. Those that buy into social pressure and clever marketing yet fail to compare the other options will tell you otherwise.

The good news though is its less rubbish than the base model Swift.
grangies, Jul 21, 7:12am
The sport part of the name is a total joke.

What year model and what engine!
yogibearz, Jul 21, 7:25am
new 2012 sport, cvt,Cvt could be suspect i would think !
grangies, Jul 21, 7:26am
Give one a test drive. You you'll either love it or hate it.

The massive wheels (for a small car) and stiff suspension may feel like the fillings are being rattled out of your teeth.

It wont be fast either behind it's "sport" name. And the tyres will cost you more when they need replacement, due to the "sport" wheels.

It will be reliable though. As long as you are happy with having your whole body shuddered and shaken every time you drive it.
audi_s_ate, Jul 21, 7:31am
Care to elaborate! The sport is held in high regard by most international car magazines. I have personally driven the 2012 swift in manual and found it very reasonable compared to most other new small cars (fiesta, yaris, polo etc) What technology is it missing exactly! The fact it doesnt have direct injection is a bonus not a con considering just how problematic it tends to be. I have read a number of your posts and am genuinely interested in why you think this.
yogibearz, Jul 21, 7:31am
Thanks, wife will drive it ,andI guess it comes down to personal preference at the end of the day.
thejazzpianoma, Jul 21, 7:31am
x1
The good thing with a new one is at least the depreciation is not too bad.
CVT transmissions in general are a good idea, especially as buying new you can maintain it properly which is the key to them lasting. The CVT should at least be a million times better than the rubbish 4 speed auto in the old ones.

However. ask if the CVT has an external oil filter that is replaced when the transmission is serviced. If it does not my advice is to avoid it like the plague. CVT's that are prone to failure generally share one thing in common. a lack of easily replacable filter or even no filter at all.

Plus. go and drive a VW Polo, use that as your yardstick on economy, performance, features and handling.
audi_s_ate, Jul 21, 7:33am
In comparison to the older firmish ride the newer one is MUCH more compliant FYI.
thejazzpianoma, Jul 21, 7:44am
x1
Actually in fairness those comments were mostly directed at the older model. However, the Swift Sport is still premium money for a fairly average vehicle.

No offense intended here but if you think that Direct Injection is a fail just because the Japanese can't seem to make it work that's a shame, and it should be telling you something about the likes of the Swift.

As for motoring media coverage, they raved about the last one too. But thats what happens when you market directly to the media. (ever noticed how Topgear had a seemingly endless supply of them for their televised program and stage shows!)

I am happy to conceed that the new Sport is at least considerably better than the old model, it actually has some features this time, the dreadful auto is gone and build quality is better. However I still don't like the design of the bodyshell, ride quality is lacking and while competent I see nothing that makes it worth the significant price tag. The technology and equipment while vastly improved is still a decade behind the game.

If you want to see what I mean, have a sit down and try and list what is available on the new Swift that was not available on a Fiat Punto 12 years ago.
caffineaddicted, Jul 21, 7:46am
i hav 1988 swift gti 1300 that i used to race and it goes bloody well, you tell me of a small car that can pull 9000rpm no probs and can beat v8's tell me they no good, learn your swifts before you comment.
thejazzpianoma, Jul 21, 7:49am
x1
Yip a 24 year old model in a racing situation thatbares zero resemblance to the model being discussed is relevant.

*facepalm*
caffineaddicted, Jul 21, 7:52am
still a swift and was my road car as well.
countrypete, Jul 21, 7:54am
Hmmm. Premium money for an average vehicle!What's the list on-road price of a Swift Sport, and what's the price of the smaller Polo!
vtecintegra, Jul 21, 7:55am
Not handling. Not by a long shot.
mlh19658, Jul 21, 7:57am
Hey, Jazz. What year older model are you dumping on. I have a 2005 Sport. Good so far. Only 51k. Is that a CVT that's going to crash out!
countrypete, Jul 21, 7:58am
Ahh found it!Polo 1.4 litre $37,900 plus ORC.Swift Sport $27,500 on-road.How does that equate to premium money!
vtecintegra, Jul 21, 7:59am
To be fair that Polo is a good deal more powerful than a Swift Sport.

Still even the 1.2TSI is over $30k last I checked
countrypete, Jul 21, 8:00am
Careful mate - you'll be labelled a knuckle-dragging troll.
caffineaddicted, Jul 21, 8:00am
to true hehe
thejazzpianoma, Jul 21, 8:01am
Perhaps you would like to explain how the longer and same width Polo is smaller!

Pricing is much the same. which is the concern as you are getting the benchmark in new technology and features with the VW. You can have a slower automatic Polo for cheaper or a faster automatic Polo for dearer. There is no direct comparison.
mlh19658, Jul 21, 8:03am
Answer my questions please, Jazz.
vtecintegra, Jul 21, 8:05am
Only the base Polo is cheaper, and that should be compared directly with the non-Sport Swift
savanna71, Jul 21, 8:05am
If by features you mean a tacky interior with switchgear that fails repeatedly, transmissions made of butter and the reliabilty and life expectancy of a white bait.
countrypete, Jul 21, 8:06am
Yep, fair call, the Polo is "twincharged" and makes 132kw. But both have the dodgy DSG gearbox.The 1.2 TSi though makes 77kw and is a mere $35k.That's only $6k more than a Swift Sport auto!