Suzuki Grand Vitara

TYRES TYRES TYRES is all i can say if u have the right tyres on it then u
will be fine, if it was me i would go for the suzuki hi/low 4wd looks a lot
better and does well 4x4ing

"Paul Rooney" <[email protected]> wrote in message
news:[email protected]...
> On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 10:53:57 +0100, [email protected] (Steve
> Firth) wrote:
>
> >Paul Rooney <[email protected]> wrote:
> >
> >> What's actually wrong with
> >> them?
> >
> >Vertical depreciation, very cramped accomodation (IMO), nasty fit and
> >finish, no off road ability, no ground clearance, looks ****, shouts "I
> >am a pauper" to the world.
>
> Fascinating to see all the diverse views! I've been researching quite
> a few 4x4s recently, and I've come across quite a few reviews that say
> 'such a model has little ground clearance' or 'this is not a serious
> offroader as it has only 20cm ground clearance' and so on. But when I
> look at the figures, they are very similar to 'real' offroaders.
> Every review I've read on the Santa Fe says it's quite spacious and
> has average offroad ability for the class. 4x4 magazine says it's
> roomy and copes quite well offroad, plus it has that 5 yr warranty.
> I'm wondering whether Hyundai are still suffering from the
> Skoda-syndrome, of people automatically assuming they are crap because
> they used to be?
>
> The depreciation is bad, I know. The looks - well, I suppose it's a
> matter of taste. I prefer them to the narrowing look of the Terrano or
> Grand Vitara. My main worry is that I'd be seriously ****ed off if I
> bought one and then got stuck on a snowy mountain pass next winter
> wishing I'd gone for something else. It *is* cheap - about 5 grand
> cheaper than a Terracan or Sorento, judging by the deals I've seen
> online. And you get 4 eleccy windows, eleccy sunroof, ABS, air con,
> CD, front fogs, alloys, alarm, etc.
>
> But I'd certainly feel a prat if I got stuck in the mud/snow in it.
>
> --
>
> Paul
>
> My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):
>
> http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 12:15:42 +0000 (UTC), "James BIGFOOT Holloway"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>TYRES TYRES TYRES is all i can say if u have the right tyres on it then u
>will be fine, if it was me i would go for the suzuki hi/low 4wd looks a lot
>better and does well 4x4ing
>


Looks good, but it's small by comparison - I just went to look inside
one. Not a lot of room at all. However, it does have the dual range
gears, and it also has wheel-mounted audio controls, which I've always
wanted (yes, I know, small things and small minds and all that...).

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:25:30 +0100, Graham Jones
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, Paul Rooney
><[email protected]> writes
>
>>And you get 4 eleccy windows, eleccy sunroof, ABS, air con,
>>CD, front fogs, alloys, alarm, etc.
>>
>
>The alarm may come in handy then for summonsing the MRT?

Ha ha! That would be embarrassing!

But what's the main use of the dual range gears on other 4x4s? Is it
for really steep stuff, or mud, or what?

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

Paul Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> But what's the main use of the dual range gears on other 4x4s? Is it
> for really steep stuff, or mud, or what?

Exactly that. Anywhere where 1st is too high a ratio and you want to be
crawling.

On 21 Apr 2004 08:00:09 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Paul Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying :
>
>> But what's the main use of the dual range gears on other 4x4s? Is it
>> for really steep stuff, or mud, or what?
>
>Exactly that. Anywhere where 1st is too high a ratio and you want to be
>crawling.

Why don't they just have one extra very low gear rather than a whole
extra set?

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

In article <[email protected]>, Paul Rooney wrote:
>
> Why don't they just have one extra very low gear rather than a whole
> extra set?
>

It is only really one other ratio. The output from the gearbox passes
through the transfer box, this is where high/low is selected.

Having a range of low gears is very usefull, the gear that is good for one
situation is not so good for the next. When driving mud and slippy stuff
you want to pick the right gear and stay in it, changing gear loses
momentum and can get you stuck.

--
simon at sbarr dot demon dot co dot uk
Simon Barr.
'97 110 300Tdi.

> Fascinating to see all the diverse views! I've been researching quite
> a few 4x4s recently, and I've come across quite a few reviews that say
> 'such a model has little ground clearance' or 'this is not a serious
> offroader as it has only 20cm ground clearance' and so on. But when I
> look at the figures, they are very similar to 'real' offroaders.

That is a result of the simplistic way ground clearance
is generally measured.

The figure quoted is usually the *minimum* ground clearance,
i.e. the gap beneath the lowest point underneath - except
for the tyres of course! (Though, a few times I've seen other
figures quoted instead, without qualification, such as the
underbelly clearance or the sill clearance, which can make
for a more impressive but very misleading figure if it's
being compared with other vehicles' true minima).

But the minimum ground clearance is not the whole story.
For example, the minimum GC under a vehicle with live axles
is at the lowest point of the diffs, but there is usually
a front-to-back path with significantly greater GC to the
side of the diffs. That means that it's possible (with care)
to go over a rock that is taller than the minimum GC without
touching it. Or to put it another way, the maximum usable
GC is greater than the printed figure you see in the mags -
at least as far as straddling a narrow rock is concerned.

On the other hand vehicles with independent suspension
tend to have a large "tea tray" skid plate under the engine,
and suspension arms at about the same height either side of that,
which makes the minimum GC apply more or less across the whole
width. So as far as straddling rocks is concerned, on these
vehicles the minimum GC is also the maximum usable GC. This
also increases the tendency to get high centred in ruts - the
narrow low point of a live axle will carve a furrow in the
middle "land" but the tea-tray on an IFS vehicle will act
like a big ski and lift the front wheels up out of contact
with the ground.

Then again, if you are not straddling boulders you might
be more interested in the underbelly ground clearance,
as this (in conjunction with the wheelbase) is what determines
the breakover angle - how "pointy" a peak you can traverse.
The underbelly clearance is seldom quoted, though the breakover
angle is, but confusing it's quoted in different ways by
different makers.

Another thing to consider is how much damage is
likely to be incurred by getting stuck and the subsequent
recovery. It's not just how low the underbody components
are, but how rugged they are when they are suddenly
asked to support loads that they might not be designed for!
This is IMO one of the main things that distinguishes "soft-"
from "off-".

Have a good look under a CRV/X-Trail/Santa Fe and
compare with what you see under any of the old-school
chassis built vehicles - even ones that were considered
soft-ish five or ten years ago - and you'll see what I mean.

Also watch out for magazines journalists not appreciating
this stuff. I was not that surprised to read a recent Top Gear
the other day and see them describe both the Shogun and Terrano
and "soft roaders" - and then imply that the X-Trail is a direct
replacement for the Terrano. Though as far as most city based
journalists are concerned it might as well be. Even some of the
so-called specialist 4x4 mags tend to use the same weasel
phrases - "as much off-road ability as typical buyers are
likely to need" only leaves you wondering whether you represent
their idea of a typical buyer or not. In my case probably not
so what have they told me? Nothing.

As for your snow/mud getting stuck question. As you will have
realised there is a continuum between car and off-roader
(via soft-roader) and it's "just" a question of picking your
preferred compromise. Lots of hill-country dwellers use
vanilla Subarus and get on fine in the snow. And *any* vehicle
can have serious problems on a mountain pass in winter. The
right tyres and chains are probably more significant than choice
of vehicle in winter weather. But lots of ground clearance is
good when the snow has drifted.

> The depreciation is bad, I know. The looks - well, I suppose it's a
> matter of taste. I prefer them to the narrowing look of the Terrano or
> Grand Vitara. My main worry is that I'd be seriously ****ed off if I
> bought one and then got stuck on a snowy mountain pass next winter
> wishing I'd gone for something else. It *is* cheap - about 5 grand
> cheaper than a Terracan or Sorento, judging by the deals I've seen

The Terrano and GV are, to an approximation, off-roaders
trying to be a bit like cars and the Santa Fe is a car trying to
be a bit like an off-roader. All will be capable of more
in snow/mud than an ordinary car, all will be able to get
stuck too; it's just a question of coping with that bit
more or less.

-- Steve

Paul Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

>>> But what's the main use of the dual range gears on other 4x4s? Is it
>>> for really steep stuff, or mud, or what?

>>Exactly that. Anywhere where 1st is too high a ratio and you want to
>>be crawling.

> Why don't they just have one extra very low gear rather than a whole
> extra set?

Because you may want to stay in low ratio until you get completely out of
the 'orrible stuff, but can use a bit more speed than low-1st or even low-
2nd will give you.

Because it's easier (read cheaper) to use a standard 5-spd box and put the
high/low ratio into the transfer box than to make a specific 6, 7 or 8-spd
main gearbox.

Because the majority of numpties who buy them wouldn't have a clue about
why they ran out of revs in 1st gear at walking pace from the traffic
lights instead of just starting off in 2nd or 3rd.

Because. Just because. <grin>

On Mon, 19 Apr 2004 22:48:41 +0100, "Steve Hunt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

<snip>
>Have a good look under a CRV/X-Trail/Santa Fe and
>compare with what you see under any of the old-school
>chassis built vehicles - even ones that were considered
>soft-ish five or ten years ago - and you'll see what I mean.
>
>Also watch out for magazines journalists not appreciating
>this stuff. I was not that surprised to read a recent Top Gear
>the other day and see them describe both the Shogun and Terrano
>and "soft roaders" - and then imply that the X-Trail is a direct
>replacement for the Terrano.


Thanks for all that, Steve - there's much more involved than I first
assumed.
You're right about the journalists though - even I can see that some
of them are writing stuff that's misleading or just plain crap, and I
know bugger all about it! I suspect that some of them don't know their
stuff and/or write reviews without ever driving the car they are
reviewing. As an example, I've read reviews of the Pinin in the last
few days that range from deriding its offroad ability to praising it
as being seriously good offroad.
Some reviews, too, are almost entirely devoid of hard facts.

I'm not really planning to do any proper offroading (though I had a
bit of an urge to buy when I saw some secondhand Discoveries at the
Suzuki dealer today: Y reg, 50K miles, under £15000 and looking
immaculate!). I probably will end up with the Santa Fe, because of the
price, the spec, the warranty, the 4WD, and the space inside it, even
though it's not a proper offroader. The Grand Vitara is just a bit too
small, and I don't want to spend the extra for the XL7.

As an aside, dealers seem to have undergone a complete transformation
since I last bought a car a few years ago. I've visited loads
recently, and haven't been hassled in any way at all. Maybe hey
finally realised how prospective buyers want to be treated!

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

> Why don't they just have one extra very low gear rather than a whole
> extra set?

Depending on how deep the transfer reduction is (depends on
the vehicle), low-ratio 2nd may be lower than high-ratio 1st, so
that's two extra gears. And you get low ratio reverse. Believe
me, when you fail a steep hill-climb and have to back down
under engine braking you really want a low reverse gear!

But from your description of your requirements I doubt
you'll be tackling that sort of terrain.

-- Steve

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:22:30 +0100, "Steve Hunt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Why don't they just have one extra very low gear rather than a whole
>> extra set?
>
>Depending on how deep the transfer reduction is (depends on
>the vehicle), low-ratio 2nd may be lower than high-ratio 1st, so
>that's two extra gears. And you get low ratio reverse. Believe
>me, when you fail a steep hill-climb and have to back down
>under engine braking you really want a low reverse gear!
>
>But from your description of your requirements I doubt
>you'll be tackling that sort of terrain.
>
>-- Steve
>

Thanks - no, you're right. I'm coming to the conclusion that, much as
I'm tempted, I probably won't need the full blown offroad thing. I'd
really like to know just what are the limits of some of the
'softroaders' and crossovers though.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 09:09:50 +0100, Paul Rooney <[email protected]>
wrote:

>On 21 Apr 2004 08:00:09 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
>wrote:
>
>>Paul Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>>were saying :
>>
>>> But what's the main use of the dual range gears on other 4x4s? Is it
>>> for really steep stuff, or mud, or what?
>>
>>Exactly that. Anywhere where 1st is too high a ratio and you want to be
>>crawling.
>
>Why don't they just have one extra very low gear rather than a whole
>extra set?

Jumping in a bit late here so I hope I am not missing the point. Many
of the soft roaders have a dual range of gears to allow "crawling",
they are often not as low as the workhorse type vehicles. This is
because as you use lower gears not only does the speed decrease but
the toque exerted by the motor to the wheels is multiplied. This
increases stress on the gear train which has to be beefed up to
withstand the strain. This is why earlier landrovers had to be in 4wd
before low ratio could be engaged, so that the load was spread as
evenly as possible across all half shafts (the weak point).

For what it sounds like you intend to use the vehicle for (basic
personal access) I don't think it will be an issue. If you were
considering towing a large trailer and load cross country it would be.

AJH

In message <[email protected]>, Paul Rooney
<[email protected]> writes

>And you get 4 eleccy windows, eleccy sunroof, ABS, air con,
>CD, front fogs, alloys, alarm, etc.
>

The alarm may come in handy then for summonsing the MRT?

--
Graham Jones

On Tue, 20 Apr 2004 23:25:30 +0100, Graham Jones
<[email protected]> wrote:

>In message <[email protected]>, Paul Rooney
><[email protected]> writes
>
>>And you get 4 eleccy windows, eleccy sunroof, ABS, air con,
>>CD, front fogs, alloys, alarm, etc.
>>
>
>The alarm may come in handy then for summonsing the MRT?

Ha ha! That would be embarrassing!

But what's the main use of the dual range gears on other 4x4s? Is it
for really steep stuff, or mud, or what?

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

Paul Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
were saying :

> But what's the main use of the dual range gears on other 4x4s? Is it
> for really steep stuff, or mud, or what?

Exactly that. Anywhere where 1st is too high a ratio and you want to be
crawling.

On 21 Apr 2004 08:00:09 GMT, Adrian <[email protected]>
wrote:

>Paul Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like they
>were saying :
>
>> But what's the main use of the dual range gears on other 4x4s? Is it
>> for really steep stuff, or mud, or what?
>
>Exactly that. Anywhere where 1st is too high a ratio and you want to be
>crawling.

Why don't they just have one extra very low gear rather than a whole
extra set?

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com

In article <[email protected]>, Paul Rooney wrote:
>
> Why don't they just have one extra very low gear rather than a whole
> extra set?
>

It is only really one other ratio. The output from the gearbox passes
through the transfer box, this is where high/low is selected.

Having a range of low gears is very usefull, the gear that is good for one
situation is not so good for the next. When driving mud and slippy stuff
you want to pick the right gear and stay in it, changing gear loses
momentum and can get you stuck.

--
simon at sbarr dot demon dot co dot uk
Simon Barr.
'97 110 300Tdi.

Paul Rooney ([email protected]) gurgled happily, sounding much like
they were saying :

>>> But what's the main use of the dual range gears on other 4x4s? Is it
>>> for really steep stuff, or mud, or what?

>>Exactly that. Anywhere where 1st is too high a ratio and you want to
>>be crawling.

> Why don't they just have one extra very low gear rather than a whole
> extra set?

Because you may want to stay in low ratio until you get completely out of
the 'orrible stuff, but can use a bit more speed than low-1st or even low-
2nd will give you.

Because it's easier (read cheaper) to use a standard 5-spd box and put the
high/low ratio into the transfer box than to make a specific 6, 7 or 8-spd
main gearbox.

Because the majority of numpties who buy them wouldn't have a clue about
why they ran out of revs in 1st gear at walking pace from the traffic
lights instead of just starting off in 2nd or 3rd.

Because. Just because. <grin>

> Why don't they just have one extra very low gear rather than a whole
> extra set?

Depending on how deep the transfer reduction is (depends on
the vehicle), low-ratio 2nd may be lower than high-ratio 1st, so
that's two extra gears. And you get low ratio reverse. Believe
me, when you fail a steep hill-climb and have to back down
under engine braking you really want a low reverse gear!

But from your description of your requirements I doubt
you'll be tackling that sort of terrain.

-- Steve

On Wed, 21 Apr 2004 12:22:30 +0100, "Steve Hunt"
<[email protected]> wrote:

>> Why don't they just have one extra very low gear rather than a whole
>> extra set?
>
>Depending on how deep the transfer reduction is (depends on
>the vehicle), low-ratio 2nd may be lower than high-ratio 1st, so
>that's two extra gears. And you get low ratio reverse. Believe
>me, when you fail a steep hill-climb and have to back down
>under engine braking you really want a low reverse gear!
>
>But from your description of your requirements I doubt
>you'll be tackling that sort of terrain.
>
>-- Steve
>

Thanks - no, you're right. I'm coming to the conclusion that, much as
I'm tempted, I probably won't need the full blown offroad thing. I'd
really like to know just what are the limits of some of the
'softroaders' and crossovers though.

--

Paul

My Lake District walking site (updated 29th September 2003):

http://paulrooney.netfirms.com