Elantra, Suzuki SX4 Sport

[SonicAerio]

Suzuki I think didn't add the 60/40 split due to configurations of the platform and suspension there was no room or just due to cost.....

On another note:

Now, to compete for buyers, even low-end cars come loaded at the base price. Sometimes the extras include pretty fancy stuff: Suzuki told USA TODAY Thursday that its entry-level crossover, the 2009 SX4, will be the first vehicle under $16,000 to have a navigation system as standard equipment. It arrives in August.

- USA Today

Here's the link:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...d-loaded_N.htm

Cheers!

[Hitman1970]

AWD is a pretty big advantage for a Suzuki compact as well. That said after owning an Elantra GT for five years, I would be hard-pressed to pass up a Hyundai if I went looking for a small car again.

I miss seeing the 25.6 MPG combined on my DIC. The purple and red lights on the speedometer looked good too.

My current car is much faster and more comfortable, but I see 21.5 MPG on the DIC these days.

[Neanderthal]

Originally Posted by SonicAerio

Suzuki I think didn't add the 60/40 split due to configurations of the platform and suspension there was no room or just due to cost.....

On another note:
- USA Today

Here's the link:

http://www.usatoday.com/money/autos/...d-loaded_N.htm

Cheers!

No fold-down is definitely a minus for such a small car.

The NYT article reminds me of the KIA (aka Hyundai) lot. As I remarked elsewhere, I think 70% of the Spectras were sticks. A lot were LX models, which have roll-down windows as standard.
Don't see those often, I suggested they list them as an extra-cost "retro" option, charge an extra hunnert bucks or so for them.
It would work.

[Neanderthal]

Originally Posted by Hitman1970

AWD is a pretty big advantage for a Suzuki compact as well. That said after owning an Elantra GT for five years, I would be hard-pressed to pass up a Hyundai if I went looking for a small car again.

I miss seeing the 25.6 MPG combined on my DIC. The purple and red lights on the speedometer looked good too.

My current car is much faster and more comfortable, but I see 21.5 MPG on the DIC these days.

You'll be glad to know that the Elantra and cousin Spectra are still excellent cars. What year was your GT?

With my new Spectra, I got over 36 on my first tank. The legislature slipped some ethanol into my last fill-up, and the second one gathered only 31. So it's over the border to Washington for gas from now on...

The Spectra (and Elantra) is extremely comfortable. And fast, though not particularly quick. Quick enough for me, I don't live where I need a 7 second 0-60 to merge with thundering hordes of maniacs.
It's easy to slip up on 80, and today I ran it up to three digits and there's little feeling of speed even at that pace.

I love this size car, 180" keeps them agile and fun sized.

[Hitman1970]

My Elantra GT was a 2001.5. I bought it just as they were introducing the 5-door hatchbacks. It was a great vehicle, but I was ready for a little more luxury in my life and glad I gave Buick a shot. I looked hard at the Azera before going with Buick.

[Bravada]

Looks are subjective, but IMO this is a good looking car. It stands out in a crowd and is not mundane looking.

For sure not "mundane" - it looks like a piece of alien excrement! I seriously doubt you have ever driven an Elantra, let alone seen one, based on that comment. Any person with enough eyesight to be able to drive would NEVER say it is a good-looking car.

[Neanderthal]

Originally Posted by Bravada

For sure not "mundane" - it looks like a piece of alien excrement! I seriously doubt you have ever driven an Elantra, let alone seen one, based on that comment. Any person with enough eyesight to be able to drive would NEVER say it is a good-looking car.

So you're calling me a liar?

Who told you to post that?