This explanation of why Suzuki left the US should hit home with us since many manufacturers have reduced their offers and our choice for sedans, especially, is reducing rapidly apparently with hatches also coming under assault. SUV anyone?
As for the US, their love affair with estate sized 4WD, aka SUV in that market, is as strong as ever. Fuel economy is a distant thought excepting when they are whinging about petrol prices.
Hi Phil . When Suzuki released the Kizashi medium sized vehicle in Australia , roughly Toyota Camry sized , they thought it would get them up amongst the big boys . I drove the top of the range 4wd model for awhile , roughly $48K on road . The standard model started at $27K . It used the same motor etc as its dearer model and the same CVT auto .
CVT Autos were a dirty word in the industry when they released the Kizashi here . I believe the Jatco gear boxes had inherent design flaws . Nissan found tht out with the Dualis .
My opinion of the Kizashi . Over engineered , over priced and an automatic transmission which the average punter had no long term faith in . This all adds up to no sales .
In Japan the Kizashi is still available . If they put a turbo charger or preferable a super charger and a 6 or 8 speed old style torque converter auto trans in them I would certainly buy one due to their build quality . I would rather have over engineered than under engineered .
I enjoy driving my Baleno GLX turbo . They dropped the turbo motor as an option in January 2019 . Good for me at it has added quite a bit to mine as a trade in as everyone seems to want a turbo . Why did they drop it ? Price .At $24K on road Hyundai and Mazda , especially, had better model options available .
At under $20K now with standard Kit it comes with the GLX is a good buy . Iâm seeing more of them on the road . Must admit I have some fun with them at the traffic lights . Their normally aspirated 1.4 litre motor does not come near my Turbo motor .
What is it they say ? " The only difference between the man and the boy is the price of the toy ."
I was not trying to take anything away from Suzuki.
I just thought it amusing that anyone would draw a comparison between a Jeep and a Suzuki, or any other real vehicle for that matter.
I believe that Jeep should redo their âThey bought a Jeepâ TV ads combined with the old anti-drink driving TV ads âBloody Idiotâ.
Jeep and Suzuki caught out with covering up diesel emissions with shonky software.
Once again Jeep comes to the fore.
âThey bought a Jeep?â.
âBloody idiotâ.
If one watches the video (at 1:17), the front wheel (US passenger side) turns about 60% as soon as the crash test barrier is hit. With a higher centre of gravity, the turned wheel appears to assist in the rollover (noting that the floor is painted and potentially has less friction than a typical sealed road). In real life driving conditions where a minor front left corner is impacted and the sealed road grips the tyre more, this is recipe for a serious accident and makes for very expensive repairs.
This is definitely a car to avoid unless one is a high risk taker.
Yeah, Iâd much rather have my legs and forehead smashed in a Mazda CX-9 or a Honda Pilot because they have a much better anecdotal brand reputation than be shaken up and on my side in a Jeep 
(all of which no doubt written off - they are only hunks of metal after all, itâs not like they are vehicles of real class like a motorcycle âŠ).
The Jeep Wrangler is more a 4wd off road design than a sedan or SUV. Can the design be improved?
As a safe passenger vehicle or as an off road vehicle?
There is no commentary to suggest it has changed.
Buyer be aware!
For what ever reasons the Wrangler falls onto itâs side the safety testing has done itâs job. Some drivers will continue to choose to buy a Jeep Wrangler regardless. Reliability aside they remain attractive to enough buyers in the market place.
For the rest of us:
A more compelling question for other road users.
Does the side frontal impact reaction of the Jeep Wrangler present an unacceptable risk to other road users or pedestrians?
Or
Are other specialised 4WD vehicles and light utility vehicles/trucks just as likely to roll when involved in similar accidents?
The Jeep Wrangler is not alone if data and anecdote of road accidents is to be considered.
Not Surprising:
The awe inspiring roll onto the side is exaggerated by âThe Dailyâ headline - Jeep Wrangler rolls twice. At first read - a double somersault. On viewing the truth is more readily apparent.
⊠and viewing a few others, the variables start to become apparent âŠ
âSmall overlap crash test stymies most midsize SUVs - IIHS Newsâ
An interesting part of this for me, watching quite a few of the videos, was the apparent variance in impact zone - ie how well they aimed the car, coupled with how arbitrary this is in relation to the cars structural layout, which varies substantially. A couple of inches this way or that for point of impact could conceivably make a huge difference - and from what it appears, their aim isnât exactly precision.
In related news, crash tests confirm that large unrelenting objects in a vehicles path are very dangerous - driving around a crash test facility is not recommended
None of the vehicles shown rolled though. If the test was about structure and precision, should âweâ require all crashes to be controlled to hit each vehicleâs âsweet spotâ where the structure worked its best? No need to reply as you know where that discussion would go.
The barrier tests (in theory) are intended to mimic crashes, and crashes have many arbitrary uncontrolled and variable elements. The Jeep failed and once Jeep manufacturerâs input was taken and applied, it failed again.
A vehicle that has a propensity to roll is not just dangerous to its occupants, it is dangerous to whatever it hits and rolls over as well as to anyone in the âwrong placeâ nearby it rolls into or over.
At the risk of offering an arm chair opinion.
The propensity for the Wrangler to flip per the crash test is inherent in itâs design. Short wheelbase, high ground clearance or ride height, weight balance, tyre grip, long travel soft suspension, high centre of mass, etc.
Notably the rear end of the Wrangler did not slide around to the opposite side, and continued to push the lifted left hand side of the vehicle along the barrier. The result seemed inevitable. Stability in any crash not assured?
The other vehicle crash tests showed vehicles breaking away and sliding sideways around the crash test barrier. Not a good way to be on a narrow road or in multi lane traffic. Still better than being upside down like a police car in a Blues Brothers mall car chase scene.
Whatâs missing is more evidence of testing similar design and constructed vehicles to the Wrangler. Perhaps it is a broader concern. At least the Jeep Wrangler has been tested. ANCAP 3star per following link. Better than a Mahindra, Great Wall or Tata product. The 2007-2016 design Land Cruiser tray back also only rates 3 stars. Same poor score for the similar vintage Patrol. The Landrover Defender series has no ANCAP rating listed.
The Jeep Wrangler may just be bringing us the best of last decades design woes.
But then, the 2020 GMC Silverado 1500 is also old school and does not have an ANCAP safety rating. It does come with lots of airbags and a 6.2l petrol V8. Not a town car as you likely need to pay for two car parking spaces due to itâs size.
Our roads are busy with many older 4WD vehicles, often modified for suspension, wheels etc. Who knows what the true level of risk is.
Lets not confuse safety ratings stars with rolling over on impact as being the same problem. Part of yes, the, no.
One would think the engineers could make a suspension that would not roll on impact, or the design would be changed. It is not as if the barrier test is secretive. Perhaps it has never happened in the wild throughout history?
Since it seems to roll on impact and the design goes on, the target customer base could be those willing to take the risk they would never hit something that would cause a roll over. If they like amusement park ride roll overs fine for them; it is the who/what they hit and potentially roll over on that would my concern, eg innocent bystanders who become collateral damage for the designers. One could easily imagine, especially in the USA, a Very Large lawsuit lodged by a grieving rellie of a deceased who was going about their business, killed by a flying Jeep.
I have yet to see one that is as frightening as many so-called roadworthy modified 4WDâs in the US, licensed insured and daily drivers. Especially in Texas. From a random googleâŠa budgie landing the wrong way could be all it takes, or a cat 1 hurricane crosswind?
An expected pathetic cop-out response from FCA regarding Jeep.
An article listing the most trusted automotive brands in Australia in 2019 & 2020.
And no FCA or GMH. Very strange.
The latest from Jeep!
What were they thinking?
Well at least we now know what it really takes to keep a Jeep on the road?
17,000 âHigh volumeâ parts!
Hope you donât need them all. 
It is rare to see an advertisement touting what amounts to them having overcharged ever since. This ad should be worthy of an award, but for what?
As an image the add sends so many conflicted messages.
Is the person sitting on the roof wondering why there is no cell signal and what next, needing one or more of those 17,000 high volume parts?
Or, are they keeping an eye out for the Jeep or auto club breakdown service vehicle to arrive?
As part of a larger promotion, itâs attention grabbing. For so many wrong reasons, but then Jeep buyers are ârusted onâ?
Iâm happy to accept that to understand why Jeep markets the way it does you need to be able to think like a Jeep owner. And that I donât.
P.S.
Perhaps there should be just âThe Jeepâ award for brands or products that reflect Jeepâs values. Jeep is the bar. 
This one would have to be a contender.
Broke down within 20 minutes of leaving the dealer resulting in it getting smashed by another vehicle.
