Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - chesterfieldhouse

l know it's a case of test driving however, l would be interested in peoples opinion.

The SX4 S-Cross is a car, on paper, l like. It's not full of technology & seems to have a overall good reputation. Like others, these days l'm not willing to shell out too much on a car & want to keep things relatively simple. l don't want the complications of the Allgrip 4 wheel drive in the later 1.4, so that leaves the older N/A 1.6 & the 1 litre Boosterjet. Both have similar power, mpg etc with the 3 cylinder having the edge on torques.

l've had petrol cars but never driven a small petrol turbo, always had turbo diesels. From what i've read & heard petrol turbos are more in keeping with TD cars, with the torque lower down. Older N/A engines may need more work in the gear stick department.

However, in terms of the options with the Suzuki, l've heard some owners who've had both, that though the 1 litre Boosterjet was indeed nippy, but with the addition of a couple of passengers/luggage, it required more changing down & working the engine harder with a loss of mpg. In contrast the N/A 1.6 seemed to maintain it's power output across the board, even laden with the same. Logical l suppose.

Would you stick with the 1.6 or go with the 1 litre?

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - badbusdriver

It isn't just that the 1.0 has more torque, but that peak torque happens much lower in the rev range than the n/a 1.6.

170nm from 2000-3500rpm vs 156nm @ 4400rpm

So while some may find the 1.0 a bit lacking overall in the SX4 S-Cross, I find it difficult to believe anyone would find it lacking if being compared directly with the 1.6.

I'd go with the 1.0 myself.

Edited by badbusdriver on 13/05/2024 at 17:26

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - Adampr

Personally, I'd go for the 1.6. I have a 1.6 Vitara sitting on my drive now. I view it (not having a turbo) as one less thing to go wrong. It's not a bad engine at all, but does need to rev quite high to get anything out of it. Having said that, the power delivery is a lot more gradual than in a turbocharged car so it's a more relaxing drive.

It depends what you want really. In all honesty, I wouldn't worry too much either way.

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - elekie&a/c doctor
The 1.6 is a no stress no nonsense engine with very good reliability history. The 1.0 and 1.4 booster jet engines seem to have a few issues with the added technology.
Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - paul 1963

Not sure I agree Doc, while the 1.6 is indeed a simple ( ish) engine with a good track record there's nothing to be afraid of with either the 1 litre or 1.4 Boosterjet engines, had a Balino with 1 litre engine and auto box for a week or so a few years ago, the engine was very strong indeed and the gearbox was superb, I kept it in manual for most of the time and used the paddles, great fun.

Currently running a vitara with the 1.4 ( mild hybrid), 2 1/2 years in and zero issue's, pulls like a train from low revs onwards and gives 49mpg on average around town.

I think that people tend to think modern turbo engines need revs to allow the turbo to spool up like the days of 2002's ( remember them?) But they simply don't, technology has moved on, hybrid turbos ( spooled up by a electric motor) plenum Chambers etc have eliminated turbo lag almost entirely, they only thing they demand is a supply of clean oil, personally I'm not not sure I would ever consider a ' normally ' aspirated engine or indeed a pure ICE again.

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - SLO76
The wee 3cyl turbo is nicer to drive and a bit more efficient, but I’d personally stick with the less complex and well proven 1.6 petrol for long term durability. Keep it simple.
Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - Metropolis.
Larger engine every time. No replacement for displacement.

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - catsdad

We have the 1.4 front wheel drive in a 2020 Vitara. It’s a good car to drive both in acceleration and cruising.

Our daughter has a 2017 1.6 Vitara which is noisier and less lively in acceleration. It is only five speed too. The SX4 may have better soundproofing to mitigate the noise but if it’s five speed it’s going to be revving more than a turbo car at speed. Or are they six speed? Certainly test drive one at motorway speed to ensure it suits you from a noise and performance point of view.

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - maz64
Larger engine every time. No replacement for displacement.

I'd hate to think what our 1.5 turbo Arona would be like to drive if it had the engine from my previous 1.5 n/a Mazda2 in it :)

Edited by maz64 on 14/05/2024 at 09:33

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - Adampr
Larger engine every time. No replacement for displacement.

I'd hate to think what our 1.5 turbo Arona would be like to drive if it had the engine from my previous 1.5 n/a Mazda2 in it :)

The smart money is on 'pretty much the same as the Mazda'

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - badbusdriver
Larger engine every time. No replacement for displacement.

I'd hate to think what our 1.5 turbo Arona would be like to drive if it had the engine from my previous 1.5 n/a Mazda2 in it :)

It is an anachronistic statement originating from across the pond ("ain't no substitute for cubic inches") in reference to the supposed advantage of a larger n/a engine over a smaller n/a engine. So a curious statement to use here comparing n/a to turbo.

Not the only curious statement though, I'm baffled as to why Adampr thinks an engine which needs to be revved quite high to get anything out of it will be more relaxing to drive than one which doesn't?.

The 1.0 and 1.4 booster jet engines seem to have a few issues with the added technology.

Also slightly alarmed by this statement. I (and I don't think I'm alone here) was under the impression Suzuki's Boostejet engines were reliable units, so perhaps the good doctor could expand slightly?

The differing opinions won't have done anything to help the OP though!. So I'd just like to add that while I'd prefer the 1.0 turbo given the choice, I wouldn't avoid a nice 1.6.

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - bazza

I haven't heard of any major problems with the turbo 1.0 and 1.4 apart from a couple of head gasket failures but these do seem isolated. We have the 1.4 which is extremely pleasant to drive, with plenty of performance available combined with a very lightweight car. But overall, the 1.6 has a great reputation for robustness and economy, I wouldn't mind at all swapping to one as I'm not a fan of the power delivery of any turbocharged engines. Even though they are quick, there is always a flat spot just above idle where it isn't boosting and nothing is available. One doesn't feel that with an atmospheric engine, and in my opinion they are more tolerant of very low revs, lazy driving etc, like me!

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - Big John

I'm not a fan of the power delivery of any turbocharged engines. Even though they are quick, there is always a flat spot just above idle where it isn't boosting and nothing is available.

Agreed in a way, but... With a NA petrol power curve is smooth from tickover but the real power comes on at higher revs so if you want to get a move on you need to get the revs up and possibly drop a gear unless you have a large cc engine. However my small cc turbo Superb 1.4tsi manual pulls strongly from 1500rpm all the way through to 6000rpm but is not happy pulling hard at 1000rpm. In real life though that's never an issue and infact you don't need to rev to make surprising progress and it feels relaxed and refined at speed (2400 rpm @ 70)

Edited by Big John on 14/05/2024 at 23:40

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - Adampr
.

Not the only curious statement though, I'm baffled as to why Adampr thinks an engine which needs to be revved quite high to get anything out of it will be more relaxing to drive than one which doesn't?.

That's easy. As I said, it's the linear power delivery. The turbo engine in our Twingo, for example, has a very obvious surge when the turbo kicks in. It means that you are quite often on the margin of the boost and need to adjust your right foot quite a lot to keep it calm (if that's what you want). The 1.6 in the Vitara is the opposite in that there is no boost so the power delivery is more predictable and therefore more relaxing. If you want to go fast it certainly isn't relaxing, particularly with the auto box I have, but going fast is overrated.

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - chesterfieldhouse
Very interesting, thanks all.
I guess it goes back to the first line in my original post, it’ll require a test drive of both.

I would still like to hear any perceived or potential issues with the Boosterjet engines, if anyone’s aware of any.
Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - tim10597

Not the same I know, but my daughter has a 1.0 Boosterjet Baleno automatic. It’s a nippy little thing, quick off the mark, but does run out of steam at speeds above the legal limit. I know the SX4 is a bigger car, but we have been very impressed with the 1.0 Suzuki engine, it is very economical and my daughter loves it. In 8 years ( it was my mothers car before my daughter bought it) we’ve had no issues with it mechanically, though it has only covered 17,000 miles in that time ??

Edited by tim10597 on 14/05/2024 at 22:00

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - catsdad

I don’t know about the 1.0 but the Suzuki 1.4 power delivery is smooth all the way through the rev range. There is no sudden unpredictable kicking in of the turbo. Same with my 1.4 Golf.

The car that preceded our Vitara was a 1.6 Mazda 3, normally aspirated of course.
Although these are well regarded and nice drive on the flat it was slow up hills, especially if laden. Of course you adapt your driving style accordingly but for relaxed driving our turbo cars are far better.

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - badbusdriver

That's easy. As I said, it's the linear power delivery. The turbo engine in our Twingo, for example, has a very obvious surge when the turbo kicks in. It means that you are quite often on the margin of the boost and need to adjust your right foot quite a lot to keep it calm (if that's what you want).

That is a different engine though. If you look up reviews of the turbo versions of the Twingo and Smart Forfour, pretty much all of them are critical of the power delivery and say that the N/A car, while obviously slower, is nicer to drive because of this. I don't recall reading such criticism of other small turbo engined cars, suggesting the unit in the Twingo is the exception rather than the rule.

Looking at the figures goes some way towards explaining why, with peak torque in the Twingo's 90bhp 0.9 turbo coming in at a highish 2500rpm (peak torque in the 90bhp version of VAG's 1.0 happens from 1500rpm by comparison). Add in the tendency for most modern cars to have gearing which is too long, along with the fact that the Twingo is surprisingly heavy for a car that size (the much bigger SX4 S-Cross is only around 70kg heavier) and that old school turbo power delivery is only going to feel more noticeable.

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - Rerepo

Its generally accepted in automotive engineering that, all things being equal, increasing engine Specific Output (kW output power per litre of displacement) will negatively affect durability and reliability. That is because the engine will be operating with higher pressures loads and temperatures. A small forced-induction engine is typically going to deliver 30%+ higher Specific Output than a NA equivalent. And then of course the turbo engine will have many additional components. So as a rule of thumb a bigger naturally aspirated engine is a better choice if you're concerned about long life and reliability.

Having said all that, Suzuki do build a very good engine. I'm often amazed at those little Suzuki K-series engines used all over the third world (and Suzuki-Maruti in India) - they seem virtually indestructible.

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - galileo

Its generally accepted in automotive engineering that, all things being equal, increasing engine Specific Output (kW output power per litre of displacement) will negatively affect durability and reliability. That is because the engine will be operating with higher pressures loads and temperatures. A small forced-induction engine is typically going to deliver 30%+ higher Specific Output than a NA equivalent. And then of course the turbo engine will have many additional components. So as a rule of thumb a bigger naturally aspirated engine is a better choice if you're concerned about long life and reliability.

I worked for 36 years at a turbo manufacturer, which experimented with passenger car turbos but concluded it was a better plan to stay with the type of diesel used in trucks, buses, and industrial gen sets, where weight and packaging factors were less restricting. A significant improvement they made was to variable geometry turbocharging.

Durability of truck turbo engines may not be so good as the old NA Gardner units but for power and fuel efficiency there is currently no practical alternative. (unless you believe Elon's fantasies)

Edited by galileo on 15/05/2024 at 16:11

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - daveyjp

Drive both before buying to see how the turbo affects power delivery and how it drives in your typical day to day use,

We had a smart forfour turbo and I drove both n/a and turbo before buying. We had owned 2 smart cars years ago so knew what to expect and the turbo did give a huge 'lump' of power which was fun which sold it to us, but in reality it could be tiring to drive, you'd pull away, then the lump of power then having to slow etc

We sold it after 12 months. It had had a new turbo by then (less than 2 years old) and it was a car we no longer wanted to own long term. The n/a Yaris has been a far better vehicle.

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - bazza

A very interesting thread and helpful for me to realise it's not just me that notices that lack of torque at just over idle with a turbo motor. As others have said, I'm not the slightest bit disappointed with our 1.4 Vitara, it's just some I am aware of. Indeed, the thing pulls like a train from about 1500rpm and feels genuinely quick. Much quicker than our previous Civic 1.8 but having said that, the 1.8 engine was tolerant of ridiculously low revs and would trickle along at 1000rpm in 5th or 6th, something the current Vitara isn't as good as. Acknowledged though that it is somewhat lazy driving and I should really be in a lower gear.

Suzuki SX4 S-Cross - N/A or 3 Cylinder Turbo? - paul 1963

A very interesting thread and helpful for me to realise it's not just me that notices that lack of torque at just over idle with a turbo motor. As others have said, I'm not the slightest bit disappointed with our 1.4 Vitara, it's just some I am aware of. Indeed, the thing pulls like a train from about 1500rpm and feels genuinely quick. Much quicker than our previous Civic 1.8 but having said that, the 1.8 engine was tolerant of ridiculously low revs and would trickle along at 1000rpm in 5th or 6th, something the current Vitara isn't as good as. Acknowledged though that it is somewhat lazy driving and I should really be in a lower gear.

That's where the mild hybrid component kicks in,( you can feel, and see providing you have the correct display on the dash showing ) the electric motor give a helping hand.