Kizashi Club

Your Kizashi Owners Club and Forum 

Non-Suzuki related topics. Anything can go here.
 #48197  by Ronzuki
 Fri Nov 09, 2018 1:31 pm
[quote="Woodie]
I don't know how on earth you can end that with the words "not so", that is simply an assertion with no grounds. Every thinking person is enraged by this.

We're stuck with this as a complete over reaction to the Ford Explorer episode where a few morons killed their families. First the government invented the SUV as a side effect of yet another overreach in social engineering. So now you have pushed a lot of people into an ungainly vehicle that will roll over and kill your family if you get a flat. If you choose to drive such a ridiculous vehicle I don't care if you die tomorrow, live with your choices. Then Ford puts the cheapest tire they can find in a size two sizes too small for the application (which is pretty much standard business) and recommends a crazy low air pressure to make the truck ride more like a car. Firestone jumps up and down screaming about what a bad idea this is and Ford carries on. Oblivious owners load the entire family and gear into an unstable vehicle which hasn't had it's air pressure (and started out remarkably low) checked for a year and proceeds to drive 80 mph for extended periods of time. I'm having trouble mustering up any sympathy here, except maybe a little for Firestone.

I agree that part of the frustration on this forum is Suzuki's complete over reaction as to what the instrument panel does when a tire is low. That makes it far worse than what it needs to be. But outside that factor, we're all coming up to the point where our batteries are going to fail, most sources say they last about seven years. That's going to add about $300 to my next tire change, and I don't appreciate that one bit. Thanks to SamirD it will be more like $150 for those of us who are capable of working on our own cars, but it's a needless expense. I don't need my dashboard screaming at me on the first cold day of the fall every year.[/quote]

BOLD = Root cause of issue and complete legislative over-reaction.
ITALICS = Completely agree!

I have stated this before. I owned a 91 explorer with those exact supposedly "faulty" tires. The only fault was Ford's stupidity of trying to make a truck ride like a car. My family was very young an my wife DD'd that thing. It was a fabulous vehicle. I RAN TIRE's MOLDED IN RECOMMENDED PRESSURES not the stupid low Ford pressures. It was used as a truck and a family hauler loaded up for camping vacations, firewood and all. Never an issue. When the time came to put another set of tires on it, I put the exact same OE Firestone's on at a smoking price. Again no issues. The tires were flawless, Ford wasn't.
 #48199  by WESHOOT2
 Fri Nov 09, 2018 5:51 pm
Funny story: Actual testing (not me, but folks like C&D and others) found little influence on gas mileage unless tires are grossly under-inflated.

I mean, I think it's funny.

I guess how we vote actually matters, huh?
 #48201  by redmed
 Fri Nov 09, 2018 7:07 pm
Woodie wrote:
I don't know how on earth you can end that with the words "not so", that is simply an assertion with no grounds. Every thinking person is enraged by this.

We're stuck with this as a complete over reaction to the Ford Explorer episode where a few morons killed their families. First the government invented the SUV as a side effect of yet another overreach in social engineering. So now you have pushed a lot of people into an ungainly vehicle that will roll over and kill your family if you get a flat. If you choose to drive such a ridiculous vehicle I don't care if you die tomorrow, live with your choices. Then Ford puts the cheapest tire they can find in a size two sizes too small for the application (which is pretty much standard business) and recommends a crazy low air pressure to make the truck ride more like a car. Firestone jumps up and down screaming about what a bad idea this is and Ford carries on. Oblivious owners load the entire family and gear into an unstable vehicle which hasn't had it's air pressure (and started out remarkably low) checked for a year and proceeds to drive 80 mph for extended periods of time. I'm having trouble mustering up any sympathy here, except maybe a little for Firestone.

I agree that part of the frustration on this forum is Suzuki's complete over reaction as to what the instrument panel does when a tire is low. That makes it far worse than what it needs to be. But outside that factor, we're all coming up to the point where our batteries are going to fail, most sources say they last about seven years. That's going to add about $300 to my next tire change, and I don't appreciate that one bit. Thanks to SamirD it will be more like $150 for those of us who are capable of working on our own cars, but it's a needless expense. I don't need my dashboard screaming at me on the first cold day of the fall every year.

I'm in full agreement. Except maybe for some compassion for the naive family that trusted the government to make sure manufactures only make safe vehicles.
 #48203  by WESHOOT2
 Fri Nov 09, 2018 9:23 pm
Details suggest hot-climate high-speed grossly overloaded and under-inflated tires were the culprit.

I believe they were Darwin-brand tires :facepalm:
 #48205  by Woodie
 Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:59 am
WESHOOT2 wrote:Details suggest hot-climate high-speed grossly overloaded and under-inflated tires were the culprit.

I believe they were Darwin-brand tires :facepalm:


I'm all for those. There's something on which I MIGHT support a government subsidy.
 #48208  by Ronzuki
 Sat Nov 10, 2018 8:01 pm
More useless, unnecessary TPMS-like techno non-sense in vehicles we're expected to pay for...

https://fox43.com/2018/11/07/fox43-find ... y-dilemma/

Remember now, GPS is one of the many systems employed in guiding self-driving vehicles. Think about that when reading the article. Also take note of the remedies supplied by all involved. This IS the world of automation in this day and age, which has no business on our public roadways. Ask anyone who works with and actually knows what truly makes proper automation tick (and not tick), besides me, and they will all tell you "not in my car".
 #48210  by KuroNekko
 Sat Nov 10, 2018 11:57 pm
Woodie wrote:I don't know how on earth you can end that with the words "not so", that is simply an assertion with no grounds. Every thinking person is enraged by this.


It's an assertion based on observation. All cars made in at least the last ten years have TPMS. Hence, there is mass proliferation of these systems in vehicles not only in the US, but most first-world nations. If these system were so problematic, you'd have a lot of complaints and issues with them universally. However, you just don't see this here, there, anywhere. I also don't rely on political bias to cloud my views but more applied observations. Even in this very forum, as I've stated before, the TPMS issues largely revolve around those trying to self-program a secondary set of sensors for their secondary set of wheels and tires. This is because those who live in regions with a lot of snow in the winter want to run a separate set of winter wheels and tires and for good reason. However, without the original sensors in the secondary set, the TPMS warnings go off in an extremely annoying manner (no debate there). If I'm not mistaken, this is the whole basis of SamirD's quest in finding a solution to self-program TPMS. It's for his secondary winter wheel and tire set.
In this regard, it couldn't possibly present major issue for nearly all vehicle owners given only a small percentage even bother running a separate wheel and tire set for the winter season. In fact, I think many even in snow states run snow tires on the same wheels. Hence, they swap tires, not wheels. DIYers like the idea of having separate wheels and tires so they can do it themselves and faster. However, many don't choose this option as it requires the cost of an additional set of wheels and of course, space to store the set of wheels and tires you aren't currently using.
Also, the vast majority of the US population live in coastal states where the snow fall and ice presence isn't enough to require separate snow tires for seasonal use. Where I live, I can run Summer tires all year long and I live in one of the most populated regions in the entire nation.
For many reasons, this issue SamirD is tackling is only a concern for a small number of people who: A) live in a region with consistent snow and ice presence in the winter, B) thus opt for winter tires for the snow/cold season, and C) desire to get not only winter tires, but mount them on separate wheels. Only when these three conditions are met do people really need to worry about the programming issues SamirD is tackling with a secondary set of TPMS sensors. He even explicitly writes this in his very first post of why he's on this quest.

Woodie wrote:We're stuck with this as a complete over reaction to the Ford Explorer episode where a few morons killed their families. First the government invented the SUV as a side effect of yet another overreach in social engineering. So now you have pushed a lot of people into an ungainly vehicle that will roll over and kill your family if you get a flat. If you choose to drive such a ridiculous vehicle I don't care if you die tomorrow, live with your choices. Then Ford puts the cheapest tire they can find in a size two sizes too small for the application (which is pretty much standard business) and recommends a crazy low air pressure to make the truck ride more like a car. Firestone jumps up and down screaming about what a bad idea this is and Ford carries on. Oblivious owners load the entire family and gear into an unstable vehicle which hasn't had it's air pressure (and started out remarkably low) checked for a year and proceeds to drive 80 mph for extended periods of time. I'm having trouble mustering up any sympathy here, except maybe a little for Firestone.


Do we live in the same country? Since when does the US government invent vehicles? The US government does not control the means of production and does not own industries to produce vehicles. They did not invent any sort of vehicle. I'm not sure why some of you here are so insistent on this nonsense. The SUV predated emissions regulations as I previously mentioned with the Chevy Suburban; a vehicle with an origin dating to 1935. Automakers in the United States make what they think will sell to consumers and the most the government does is regulate them in terms of safety, emissions, and usage on public roads. They do not create vehicles.
Furthermore, nearly all automakers are multinational corporations that produce and sell in a global market. This means they produce and sell in many countries. However, there is a lot of product overlap between different markets. This to me proves that vehicles (especially in the US) aren't invented or designed by the government.

In fact, if one was to argue that the government "created" a certain car out of specific regulations, an example would be the JDM Suzuki Jimny, not the Ford Explorer. The Jimny is set in it's minuscule dimensions and weight to be classified as a kei-car. These classification regulations also limit the engine to be no larger than 660cc and make no more than 64 PS (63 HP). This is why the model with the 1.5 liter engine is considered a separate car and is even called the Jimny Sierra. It's classified as a different class of vehicle there and gets taxed differently in Japan. However, the Honda S660 is also a kei-car subject to the same regulations and taxation bracket as the Jimny yet is a RWD mid-engine 2 seater micro-sports car. This pretty much smashes the argument that government restrictions cause automakers to make specific vehicles with rigid adherence to government specifications.

Now let's examine the USDM Ford Explorer: It has been offered in a turbo 4 cylinder, V6, and a V8 during various parts of its tenure on the USDM market. It was also offered as a 2 door in some model years up to a 4 door with 3rd rowing seating. It went from truck-based SUV to unibody CUV and is rumored to yet change again for the next generation debuting in 2020. This strongly suggests to me that Ford designs and specs its models like the Explorer to cater to the consumer market more so than government regulations. It's very evident to me that the government did not invent any sort of vehicle in the United States given such lax classification regulations.

You've also voiced your hatred for SUVs in the past but that's merely a personal opinion. I take it you've never lived in an area where SUVs would take you places a car can't. I've lived on a mountain for a number of years which often got heavy snowfall in the winter. Unlike urban regions with snow, alpine regions are often rural thus there is less public and private road maintenance to clear snow. About the only roads that were reliably plowed where the state highways. This meant that some streets and lanes were not plowed at all unless you hired a private contractor to do so or did it yourself. Hence, ground clearance and AWD/4x4 systems are necessary for some people to merely make it home. This is where the SUV comes in as an ideal vehicle. Given it has better weight distribution and covered seating area for occupants, it makes for a better family vehicle than pick-ups for those who have to traverse over snow or unpaved roads often. Also, in the past, very few cars were offered with AWD or 4x4 systems which meant one had to get an SUV. I owned a Subaru Impreza with AWD on that mountain which was great but when the snow was deeper on unplowed roads, the Suzuki Sidekick was a far superior vehicle. With higher ground clearance, a true 4x4 system with Low gearing, and more wheel well clearance to fit chains and expel trapped snow, there is absolutely no doubt it was the better car for when the conditions got rough and the roads didn't get plowed in a timely manner. I agree that SUVs have risks that are greater than sedans and wagons but they also have abilities greater than sedans and wagons. It's a trade-off. However, the government didn't invent these vehicles nor did the occupants deserve to die as an automaker and tire company pointed fingers about responsibility. I recall that Ford claimed these blow-out were almost exclusive to the Firestone tires. Firestone claimed that the Ford Explorer and its pressure ratings were to blame. Regardless, the matter involved dangerously low tire pressures. It's not then surprising that the government enacted laws to safeguard citizens from the dangers of low tire pressure as an automaker and tire maker played the blame game. After all, any vehicle running any tire with very low pressure is dangerous. That's the big picture here.

Woodie wrote:I agree that part of the frustration on this forum is Suzuki's complete over reaction as to what the instrument panel does when a tire is low. That makes it far worse than what it needs to be. But outside that factor, we're all coming up to the point where our batteries are going to fail, most sources say they last about seven years. That's going to add about $300 to my next tire change, and I don't appreciate that one bit. Thanks to SamirD it will be more like $150 for those of us who are capable of working on our own cars, but it's a needless expense. I don't need my dashboard screaming at me on the first cold day of the fall every year.


Yes, the warning is overly dramatic in the Kizashi and I wish it was merely the orange eye indicator with a single text warning in the multi-display screen. However, with the proper care that you also advocate for vehicle owners instead of reliance on systems or government mandates, most can avoid it. I sure have.
Regarding when the sensor batteries die: Yes, it will be annoying but again, I won't back down from my analogy of the sensors being replacement parts like brake pads, clutches, tires, etc. After all, the sensors need replacement every how often? Once every 7 to 10 years? That does not present a reason for me to be furious about. Also, while I appreciate the research of SamirD, Redmed, and others on the programming of the system, I don't see how it will apply to me. The replacement of the sensors upon battery depletion will require the removal of the tires from the wheels. This is a process I can't do myself given I don't have the equipment to mount/dismount tires, let alone balance them after such a process. Hence, much like replacing tires, the replacement of TPMS sensors will be something I will have professionals do. Thus, it makes little sense for me to then invest in equipment to program the sensors given it will be something I will likely only do once in my entire ownership of the Kizashi and require a professional for a related process anyway.

Also, in reference to SamirD's original post on the matter, the bulk of the programming process revolves around attempting to program a secondary (read: auxiliary) set of sensors or trying to clone the original set so that the extra set can be used on different wheels and tires. Again, this wouldn't apply many people who run the same set all year round (which includes you too, if I recall). This is because you can more easily program in new sensors as long as they are the only set being matched to the car. In essence, it's not the same hassle for those replacing their original set with new ones vs. those who are trying to program in a secondary set.

Lastly, TPMS sensors are going for about an average of $35 each on rockauto.com for even the OE Denso's. In fact, this is what's written about them in their product description:
"When a TPMS Sensor fails, you'll want to replace it easily with a DENSO First Time Fit® TPMS sensor. Unlike one-size-fits-all sensors, DENSO has developed sensors that never need to be programmed or cloned before installation – they're built to the specified vehicle right out of the box {note: new ID numbers will need to be registered through the OBD II port}. With DENSO, installation is a snap — their TPMS Sensors relearn just like an OE part, restoring the vehicle to its original condition."

So it sounds like when the batteries do go out on my Kizashi, I'll get these Densos for $35 a pop, take them to a tire pro, and get them installed which I can't do myself anyway due to the removal of the tire. Given the features of the Denso sensors, it sounds drama-free to me.

As for the system coming on on the first cold day of fall: Yes, annoying, but it's caused by the actual decrease in tire pressure due to colder ambient temperatures. After all, temperature affects tire pressure. Logically, you'd have more reason to complain if the sensors didn't activate due to the actual drop of pressure on a colder day given that would mean they weren't doing their job.
 #48211  by redmed
 Sun Nov 11, 2018 12:46 am
Ronzuki wrote:More useless, unnecessary TPMS-like techno non-sense in vehicles we're expected to pay for...

https://fox43.com/2018/11/07/fox43-find ... y-dilemma/

Remember now, GPS is one of the many systems employed in guiding self-driving vehicles. Think about that when reading the article. Also take note of the remedies supplied by all involved. This IS the world of automation in this day and age, which has no business on our public roadways. Ask anyone who works with and actually knows what truly makes proper automation tick (and not tick), besides me, and they will all tell you "not in my car".

I have been using a Garmin GPS unit for a least five years and it shows the speed limit. That is one of the things I like about it. It is wrong about the speed limit on rare occasions but correct enough that I rely on it. I think TomTom uses another mapping company and if I remember correctly an article I read a few years ago noted the the map Garmin uses is much more accurate than the other companies map.
With all the drivers that text, read books, put on makeup and watch movies as they drive I hope in a few years these self driving options may be advanced enough to be of use. I've read that Cadillac has a system that is pretty good already. Last year my mother got in a accident that i think the Forward-collision braking would have stopped her fast enough that the accident (<10mph) would have been avoided. The damage was less than $2000 but since her car was 16 years old she wanted a new SUV. I made sure her new SUV had Forward-collision braking. She ended up with a Honda CRV. This is the first vehicle I have ever driven that had all these safety features. On the test drive I took it on the expressway and the lane keep & variable cruise control worked perfectly. I was impressed. In fact I seriously considered trading in my three month old Toyota Sienna for a Honda CRV like hers. A week later I drove her new CRV on a side road and the lane keep did not work because the lane marking was only on one side. I read that Toyota has a lane keep that will follow a vehicle if one of the lane markings are missing. What happens if there is no vehicle to follow? Will it follow another vehicle across a lane marker into another lane? I have hope that in a few years these safety features will be advanced enough to be trusted. For now though these safety features are still options and not mandated by the government.
 #48212  by redmed
 Sun Nov 11, 2018 1:29 am
Yes SUV existed before the Explorer/Firestone panic we all know that. What the government did was by mandating MPG restrictions on cars and not trucks. They created a situation where your choice was to buy a small car or buy a large safer truck. The manufactures used this situation to come out with vehicles classified as trucks but made them more car-like. Driving on the road during this car/truck transition in a small energy efficient vehicle was kind of intimidating with all these huge pickups and Suburbans (don't forget the Blazers & Broncos) tailgating your little vehicle. Also during this time the craze was to lift these huge vehicles. So as you drove in your little Escort you looked into your rear view mirror and all you saw was the bumper of that lifted pickup, Suburban, Blazer or Bronco just a few feet behind you. This caused many to get something larger than that little Escort or Civic, but they did not want to drive a huge rough riding truck. So the manufactures like Ford started selling (like crazy) Explorers and Escapes. Smaller than a F150 but still larger and roomier that that little Escort. The government tried to get most of us into little Escorts with the MPG restrictions. Instead they created a situation that was the opposite of what originally intended. People did give up driving that Ford Galaxy but instead of saving gas in a Escort they bought a Explorer that used more gas than the Galaxy.
 #48214  by KuroNekko
 Sun Nov 11, 2018 6:26 am
redmed wrote:Yes SUV existed before the Explorer/Firestone panic we all know that. What the government did was by mandating MPG restrictions on cars and not trucks. They created a situation where your choice was to buy a small car or buy a large safer truck. The manufactures used this situation to come out with vehicles classified as trucks but made them more car-like. Driving on the road during this car/truck transition in a small energy efficient vehicle was kind of intimidating with all these huge pickups and Suburbans (don't forget the Blazers & Broncos) tailgating your little vehicle. Also during this time the craze was to lift these huge vehicles. So as you drove in your little Escort you looked into your rear view mirror and all you saw was the bumper of that lifted pickup, Suburban, Blazer or Bronco just a few feet behind you. This caused many to get something larger than that little Escort or Civic, but they did not want to drive a huge rough riding truck. So the manufactures like Ford started selling (like crazy) Explorers and Escapes. Smaller than a F150 but still larger and roomier that that little Escort. The government tried to get most of us into little Escorts with the MPG restrictions. Instead they created a situation that was the opposite of what originally intended. People did give up driving that Ford Galaxy but instead of saving gas in a Escort they bought a Explorer that used more gas than the Galaxy.


I don't mean to be rude but this explanation makes no sense for many reasons. You're acting like Ford only offered compacts or large pick-ups in their line-up prior to the Explorer due to government regulations. The reality is that Ford also had the Taurus and Crown Victoria which were larger sedans than the Escort and these also predated the Ford Explorer. Also, the Explorer was simply just a newer SUV to replace the Bronco II which was another SUV that was actually smaller than the Explorer that replaced it. Given that these Ford sedans existed and that the Explorer was a larger replacement for the older Bronco II, your argument just doesn't hold up. Consumers didn't jump into SUVs from the lack of choices with sedans following new laws and regulations. They had larger sedans to choose from and the then-new Explorer was even larger than the vehicle it replaced. American consumers jumped into SUVs due to consumer trends, lower fuel prices, and new products rather than government regulations, much like what we see today.

Also, the laws that were enacted didn't directly affect consumers as they were the initiation of CAFE standards which observes the corporate fleet average fuel economy. While SUVs were regarded as light trucks and not in the same classification as passenger cars, this law didn't make sedans like the larger Taurus or Crown Victoria no longer available to consumers. It wasn't laws that made SUVs more popular than sedans but consumers trends. As oil prices got cheaper following the end of the oil embargo crisis, consumers set out to get larger vehicles given they could afford the cheaper fuel prices. We see this phenomenon yet again today proving that the US government has essentially no effect on the vehicle purchasing trends of the American consumer and the laws that were enacted are aimed at corporate fleet compliance.

Again, the US government neither invented the SUV nor did they have much effect in popularizing them. These vehicles and their proliferation are the doing of automotive manufacturers and consumer trends.