By Jonny Lieberman
January 19, 2007 -
I’m 31, single and happy. So obviously my mother is constantly nagging me to get hitched and give her grandchildren. Even my sister’s impending marriage has failed to distract her; she’ll never be content until, presumably, I am not. Perhaps she’s right. I’m the only unmarried man at my weekly poker game. My best friend is expecting his first child this summer. If I were honest, I might admit I’m at the age when oat-sowing men settle down, produce offspring and molt. I can, however, offer at least one compelling reason for not introducing my spawn upon the world’s stage: I'd fit the Suzuki XL7's psychographic profile.
The best part of this car reviewing gig is the weekly Xmas gift in the driveway. Sadly, I’ve been busy thinking of excuses not to drive the XL7. Surely the battery on the WRX will drop dead if I don’t take it for a spin. There’s that one twisty bit on the 0.7 mile jaunt to the store; best not to waste it. Suzuki’s all new seven-seater has turned me into a child that hates his toys. If I could bottle boredom, I’d write “XL7” on the label and shove it up the tailpipe.
Though you’d never guess the XL7 is a stodgy snore based on exterior appearances. The nose is an ADHD-derived pastiche of at least three separate design tongues, all of which fail fantastically. It has the jut-jawed, approach-angle killing bumper found on Toyota trucks. The three-bar chrome grill is quite literally stolen from Ford. And the sagging lower portions of the headlamps are lamely fashioned after the sharp bend in the Suzuki S. From the side, you’re looking at a fat Saturn Vue with the wheel arches squared off. All three windows have black plastic cheats that try to convince you the greenhouse is shapely. It’s not. The rear isn’t even worth mentioning.
Inside, Suzuki has gone to extraordinary lengths to hide the fact that their SUV is fashioned from the same materials used to make the brightly colored plastic eggs protecting kiddies’ trinkets. The XL7’s brittle gearshift not only sports Sebring-quality fake wood (as does much of the interior), but is quite literally hollow. As are the volume toggles on the wheel. The armrest feels like it melted and all the knobs seem distinctly second-hand. Serendipitously, I’ve discovered a new axiom: as bad as Suzuki seats. Speaking of which, there is a third-row, but I couldn’t imagine how one would get back there. So I didn’t. At least the sat nav is cute.
If you want to know why Suzuki– or anyone– would put power window switches on either side of the gear selector, the po'boy cabin design owes its not-so- fundamentals to its platform partners: the Chevy Equinox/Pontiac Torrent twins. While this kind of matrix can create a groovy vibe, GM’s seven percent [ownership] solution blessed the ostensibly Japanese automaker with yet another inexpensive opportunity to broaden its lineup with, um, crap.
At this point, I’m supposed to describe the XL7’s driving dynamics. Unfortunately, it doesn’t have any. Yes, yes; it goes, it stops, it turns and when you run out of gas you can refuel. Other than that, I got nothing. Objectively, I put 400 miles on the odometer. Subjectively, I can’t remember one of them. Knowing this, with a deadline looming, I took the XL7 for a final spin around the block. This minivan on stilts goes, stops, turns and you can refuel it– though I'm hard-pressed to figure out why anyone would bother.
There is one caveat, one unexpected find. Ascending a hill I became trapped behind a particularly slow Toyota. I swung left and really buried the throttle. The XL7 simply erupted. The 3.6-liter, 24-valve, double-overhead cam, high-revving mill threw 252hp and 243lbs. ft. of torque at the incline. Imagine a funicular on NOS. Credit God-knows-what, but the XL7 goes much quicker than it should. Most impressive (and odd): it covers the 70 to 90mph sprint with a fury many sports cars can only dream of. I can best describe it as raging full on. Of course, if you were to change course at that speed, the body lean would scrape the rear-view on the pavement. Note to Suzuki: put this engine into a chassis that can exploit its banshee-like power.
Hang on. It took over four-days of puttering around Los Angeles and a Camry that rode its brakes uphill before I even considered giving this monotonous hippopotamus the cane. That's just dull. And unacceptable. I mean, the recent XL7's TV ads show a biker babe and a cool dude in an XL7 swapping keys, and asks, can you handle it? Yes, and no. My poor mother.
[JL and RF discuss the XL7 below.]
Subscribe to Newsletter
More Reviews58 Responses to “ Suzuki XL7 Review ”
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » Show All Reverse Order
Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 6 » Show All Reverse Order
Leave a Reply 
Back to Top
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Digg
del.icio.us
Blinklist
Furl
Netscape
Google
NewsVine
Reddit
StumbleUpon
Technorati
YahooMyWeb
Windows Live
POWERED
January 19th, 2007 at 8:24 am
Uh, the “wife” drives this while you keep the WRX (it has 4 doors, honey!). Duh!
Obviously you aren’t buying the commercials - athletic guy races across the desert in his XL-7, trading places with his hot girlfriend/wife, and riding off into the sunset on his bike. Maybe she’s his sister…
Didn’t Suzuki just escape GM’s clutches? This should be the last of the badge-engineered junkers from Suzuki.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:05 am
This sounds like the Mitsubishi Eclipse a great engine in search of a decent chassis - come to think of it why doesn’t GM replace its (Co-bullshit-ugh) ” cam in block’ engines with this mill then?
January 19th, 2007 at 9:23 am
That C-pillar looks like it’s from the new CRV.
Why are all the cars the same?
The most offensive example to me are the droopy eyes headlights that are on the Chrysler 300, Dodge Ram, Eos, formerly on the Impreza, etc…
Who thinks it’s a good idea to steal this crap from other companies?
I wish they’d bring back 1996 Grand Am body cladding just to teach someone a lesson.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:26 am
I was a closet fan of the previous XL-7 and Grand Vitara (btw, what’s the difference?) because they were functionally sleepers in the cute-ute category, and the only one with a third row. I see in the commercials that they’re now pitching this against the real midsize SUVs, which any reasonable person would shrug off after testing them side-by-side.
While I admit a secret admiration for minivans for their road-trippability, I don’t see any need to seriously compromise your ride when you have children. My conclusion is that most people just don’t care about driving to begin with. There are plenty of great rides out there for families, provided you don’t mind bending over to load the child seat. Or just hold the kid in your lap. (I’m not advocating endangering children, since you would still work the clutch and throttle yourself. No heel-toe for junior until he’s out of Pull-Ups.)
January 19th, 2007 at 9:47 am
NICK NICK
Who ISN’T doing the droopy headlights these days? That’s the most ripped-off cue in the business right now. Usually the rounded droop that’s carved out of the front bumper. This one is worse than most, though, it’s got the pre-surgery Greta Van Susteren eyes.
January 19th, 2007 at 9:47 am
Brutal, but having driven previous Suzukis around…more than believable.
Suzuki should be happy with you, though…I can’t remember a review of ANYTHING from them that didn’t mention inadequate brakes ’til now.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:11 am
So you are saying the XL is not exciting as a Suzuki motorcycle as the TV ad suggests ?
January 19th, 2007 at 10:12 am
While I admit a secret admiration for minivans for their road-trippability, I don’t see any need to seriously compromise your ride when you have children. My conclusion is that most people just don’t care about driving to begin with.
Secret’s out, oh well.
When it came time to buy our minivan, safety features and seating flexibility took precedence over handling, so Sienna it is. Given the way we use our car seats, we would still make the same choice if we had to replace our van today.
I get communicative handling that follows the ruts in the road with my daily driver. I’m not sure I would want that when toting the kids, enough distractions as is.
January 19th, 2007 at 10:22 am
I haven’t driven one of these yet because the Suzuki dealers near me closed up shop in 2006. But I’ve been wanting to, because I do have three kids and any vehicle that offers a third row in a relatively compact package intrigues me.
So I wish there had been decent handling to report.
I did sit in one, even the third row, at the auto show. The person on hand had to show me how to tip the second row forward–the release strap is buried beneath the rear part of the seatback. Adults will fit back there, if just barely.
My site’s page for the XL7, with links to the most common price comparisons:
http://www.truedelta.com/models/XL7.php
January 19th, 2007 at 10:22 am
SUVs are no fun at all when carrying kids. The raised chassis makes loading and unloading a chore, the smallish door openings cause daily minor head injuries, and the bouncy ride induces car-sickness. Nope, with kids, SUVs generally suck.
That is why I, too, bought a Sienna. Sliding doors and a low floor are a godsend for parents with small children. And the ability to buckle the kids while standing INSIDE the vehicle during the rain. That is PRICELESS. There is not substitute for the minivan.