It is a Suzuki, does that mean I can stay?

[Elysium]

Should've got a Honda.

[Edbear]

Should've got a Honda.

LOL! I do love the new City, it's got to be the best small car on the market and I'd have one as a second car in an instant, buying two new cars is a bit OTT, though. I'd have to be off ACC and earning more money for that. Mind you the Swift is a lot cheaper as a run-around for commuting...

If we hadn't gone for the Kizashi, (gotta think of a shorter name for it...), I'd have revisited the City despite the boot being too low. It's that good!

[\m/]

Good choice on the Kizashi, the new Suzuki cars are pretty good. I drive a 2007 Swift, it's done 67000ks so far without any issues, looks good with 17x7 Lenso D1Rs too.

[jafar]

A well thought out purchase there Ed, enjoy it

[Edbear]

Good choice on the Kizashi, the new Suzuki cars are pretty good. I drive a 2007 Swift, it's done 67000ks so far without any issues, looks good with 17x7 Lenso D1Rs too.

I was surprised at the Swift. They are very comfortable for their size with good performance and good power, even with the auto.

A well thought out purchase there Ed, enjoy it

Thanks mate! We intend to!

[Edbear]

I've been doing some experimenting with economy and having the multi-function trip-computer is very handy. The car has an overall ADR rating of 7.9lt/100km or 36mpg in the old money, which is a combined urban/rural figure and the manager had said that if anyone can match that around town, they must be a very economical driver!

On our test drive, I got 7.8, although it's been getting about 9.8, (29mpg), around town most of the time while not trying for the best economy. I filled it up for the first time yesterday to go and visit family in Panmure, (Thanks Countdown for 21c/lt discount voucher..). So on the trip in I kept an eye on the mileage and got it down briefly to 6.6, (42mpg), but by the time I got to Pilkington Rd. it had averaged 6.8, (41mpg), overall. I also filled it with Gull's Force-10, 98 blend to see if it makes a difference. Can't tell just yet, I'll see if we get better range over this tankfull, but it will more likely be perceived than actual as I won't be able to dyno it. All the economy testing on the car was done on 91.

So when you consider it's a medium sized car with a 2.4lt engine, to match the 1600 Pulsar is an amazing feat!

Oh, and the heated seats are bliss!

[Edbear]

Oh, BTW it's revving at just 1800rpm at 100km/h. I thought the Pulsar was high geared at 2400rpm. Our MX5 is doing 3400rpm at 100km/h but under 2k is the territory of V8's and bigger turbo-diesel's! Even at such low revs, it has the torque to pull it and doesn't die on hills.

[Edbear]

Not sure how this would relate to a bike, but as I can't ride a bike anymore I'd be interested if anyone has done a similar comparison.

I thought I'd see just how economical a 2.4lt CVT auto with the climate control on can be on our trip into town today. So keeping up to the speed limit and using as little throttle as possible I saw it get down to 7.2lt/100km, (average), which is just on 40mpg in the old money, so I was pretty impressed. As we pulled into the Albany Centre, it was showing 7.5 or 37.5mpg. However, on the way back from Panmure in peak traffic where we were averaging about 20km/h it crept up to 9.3lt/100km, (30mpg). Obviously stop/start traffic is bad for economy!

Has anyone done a test on their bike to see what the difference is? It didn't seem to make much difference on the C50T from memory, certainly not as much as the car for sure!