Suzuki, why not use the N32A 3.2L V6 on the Kizashi?

[vwoom]

With all this talk of the Kizashi stuck with the 2.4L (alright with me and most here) since GM left the Suzuki partnership...and that Suzuki now into VW hands, some including me hope that VWAG would share another engine option to the Kizzy (and thus help boost it's US sales, and ASMC as a whole).

However, right under Suzuki's nose (and us Kizashi enthusiasts)..apparently, there is a readily available Suzuki V6, the 3.2L N32A (found in the X Sport and Limited Grand Vitara, currently rated at 230hp/213 lb.ft).

What puzzles me is why Suzuki relied on the planned/licensed 3.6L GM High Feature V6 in the first place (and thus wasted on development time, $$$, etc) and not retrofitted this 3.2L V6 instead for Kizashi duty? The current Kizashi J24B 2.4L after all was sourced and re-engineered from the GV...

[Senegal]

i think the V6 that was put on a demo Kizashi was the 3.2 version that you are referring to.

couple factors, probably cost, mpg, sub-par engine in comparison to the competition are holding Suzuki back.

current trend seems to be in favor of turbochargers and in effect a lighter engine, it's just kind of hard to put Suzuki's warranty on one of these engines. If they ever offer it, they would probably reduce the warranty terms like Mitsubishi does on the Lancer Evo and Ralliart.

[vwoom]

i think the V6 that was put on a demo Kizashi was the 3.2 version that you are referring to.

couple factors, probably cost, mpg, sub-par engine in comparison to the competition are holding Suzuki back.

current trend seems to be in favor of turbochargers and in effect a lighter engine, it's just kind of hard to put Suzuki's warranty on one of these engines. If they ever offer it, they would probably reduce the warranty terms like Mitsubishi does on the Lancer Evo and Ralliart.

According to several car sites reporting on the V6 mule (codename: yw1), it is not a 3.2L...but indeed was a 3.6L "H36A" engine, the "H" as in High Feature/GM engine sourced from the discontinued CAMI assembled XL7 (the licensed H36A engine though was assembled in Japan)...

With the readily available 3.2L from the GV , the obvious cost savings are already there...regarding if the N32A is a sub-par engine, well Suzuki did re-engineered that same 2.4L J24B of the GV's 166hp/162lb.ft..to the current, more powerful 185hp/170lb.ft. specs for the Kizashi's. Warranty wise, it won't differ from the Grand Vitara 3.2L V6, offered in the US since 2008 till this day...

[volunteer]

i think the V6 that was put on a demo Kizashi was the 3.2 version that you are referring to.

couple factors, probably cost, mpg, sub-par engine in comparison to the competition are holding Suzuki back.

current trend seems to be in favor of turbochargers and in effect a lighter engine, it's just kind of hard to put Suzuki's warranty on one of these engines. If they ever offer it, they would probably reduce the warranty terms like Mitsubishi does on the Lancer Evo and Ralliart.

According to several car sites reporting on the V6 mule (codename: yw1), it is not a 3.2L...but indeed was a 3.6L "H36A" engine, the "H" as in High Feature/GM engine sourced from the discontinued CAMI assembled XL7 (the licensed H36A engine though was assembled in Japan)...

With the readily available 3.2L from the GV , the obvious cost savings are already there...regarding if the N32A is a sub-par engine, well Suzuki did re-engineered that same 2.4L J24B of the GV's 166hp/162lb.ft..to the current, more powerful 185hp/170lb.ft. specs for the Kizashi's. Warranty wise, it won't differ from the Grand Vitara 3.2L V6, offered in the US since 2008 till this day...

My guess is the new 2011 CAFE requirements. The 3.2 is a bit on the crude side. A small SUV the size of the GV should get much better MPG than 18 in the city. Drop that engine in the Kizashi, which only weighs about 500lbs less than the GV, and you would be looking at 20-ish or less MPG city and mid 20's on the highway. Without doing all of the math, those numbers would probably drop the corporate average below the 30.2 MPG requirement for 2011. Suzuki doesn't fall into that category of manufacturers that are willing to or can afford to pay the penatly for not meeting the regulations.

[Hawkzilla]

I would love to see Suzuki come up with a 250hp range Kizashi over the next couple of years. However, i would prefer they do it without going the "turbo" route, but with VW in the picture I doubt that will happen. The "sport" version is due out next year, I would imagine they would try to give the hp a boost on that model?

I'm looking forward to see how this car morphs over the next couple years. I hope they don't change the look too much though.

[volunteer]

The "Sport" version is due at dealerships starting in August of this year. No change to the engine, just the front end change, rear spoiler added, lighter wheels and lowered suspension.

[vwoom]

My guess is the new 2011 CAFE requirements. The 3.2 is a bit on the crude side. A small SUV the size of the GV should get much better MPG than 18 in the city. Drop that engine in the Kizashi, which only weighs about 500lbs less than the GV, and you would be looking at 20-ish or less MPG city and mid 20's on the highway. Without doing all of the math, those numbers would probably drop the corporate average below the 30.2 MPG requirement for 2011. Suzuki doesn't fall into that category of manufacturers that are willing to or can afford to pay the penatly for not meeting the regulations.

I think the GV...like any typical SUV, lifted high up, un-aerodynamic and boxy (not to mention the SUV tranny gearing) would be a huge "drag" on the mileage and perf, just like on any engine..ditto for the N32A.

I only wish Suzuki would do it's magic (just like the now J24B 2.4L of the Kizzy)..by "massaging" the N32A to it's best potential for the Kizashi. I agree with Hawkzilla, no turbo (i.e. far from any turbo bearing wear, oil coking issues, sludging, etc.)....a robust, yet fuel efficient normally aspirated V6 engine upgrade would come to my mind....direct injection would be fine.

I already had my share of turbo maintenance "worries" on my 2000 1.8T Passat. But thanks to due diligence on timely 5K oil changes, an oversized Mann oil (diesel) filter, a good 5qts of the green colored German Castrol Syntec 0w30, recent timing/drive belt change at 80k, etc.. no turbo/engine problems as of date (knock on wood)....at 81+k miles, seemingly the ATW 1.8T still soldiers on.

[Hawkzilla]

The "Sport" version is due at dealerships starting in August of this year. No change to the engine, just the front end change, rear spoiler added, lighter wheels and lowered suspension.

Wow, perhaps the year after then. It seems odd to make a "sport" version with no engine enhancement.

[TheHolyGhost]

I love the look of the sport, have they announced a price? I'll take the suspension upgrade please.

[lookin]

I think they probably would have another engine..it would be crazy not too... Question to all those owners now if price is right with a new engine would you trade in yours for the new one especially the speed lovers just curious