We gave you a gallery of the car last week from the Matrade exhibition centre, where it was displayed – today the Suzuki S-Cross has officially taken the Malaysian stage at Aloft KL Sentral.
Known as the SX4 S-Cross in Europe, the vehicle first debuted in production form at last year’s Geneva show. It’s 4,300 mm long, 1,765 mm wide, 1,575 mm tall and sits on a 2,600 mm wheelbase, making it 160 mm longer, 10 mm wider and 10 mm taller than the aged SX4 we’re familiar with, while packing an extra 100 mm between the front and rear wheels.
So the Suzuki S-Cross is a C-segment SUV; a rung above the B-segment SX4, which has been discontinued in Malaysia. This means its competitors are the likes of the Mitsubishi ASX, Subaru XV, Kia Sportage, Hyundai Tucson and Mazda CX-5.
But while its classmates all have 2.0 litre engines, the Suzuki S-Cross makes do with a 1.6 litre M16A four-cylinder petrol engine. 117 hp at 6,000 rpm and 156 Nm of torque at 4,400 rpm are sent to the front wheels via a CVT with seven virtual ratios.
Allied to a sub-1,185 kg kerb weight, NEDC fuel economy is a claimed 17.2 km per litre, while the century sprint is accomplished in 11 seconds.
On the outside, you get self-levelling xenon projector headlamps underscored by LED DRLs, roof rails, 17-inch wheels shod in 205/50 Continental rubber, plus parking sensors front and rear.
Step inside and you’ll find keyless start and entry, cruise control with speed limiter, auto lights and wipers, shift paddles, auto dual-zone air-con and fabric seats with silver stitching.
There’s a 7.0-inch touch-screen navigation system with MP3, USB, DVD, Bluetooth and rear-view camera. The back seats are split 60:40, and their backrests are two-stage reclinable. There’s also a panoramic sunroof with double-sliding glass panels that open all the way to the back, which Suzuki claims is a world-first.
The boot holds 430 litres; fold the back seats and you get 875 litres of cargo area, with maximum cabin volume rated at 1,269 litres in total. The safety arsenal comprises seven airbags, ESP, ABS, EBD and Hill-Hold Control.
Fully imported (CBU) from Hungary, the Suzuki S-Cross is priced at RM129,888, OTR without insurance. A five-year/150,000 km Extended Warranty Programme is offered. Crystal Lime Metallic, Amethyst Gray Pearl Metallic, Cool White Pearl and Boost Blue Pearl Metallic body colours are available.
Suzuki S-Cross launched in Malaysia
Suzuki S-Cross on display at Matrade
Suzuki S-Cross official photos
Looking to sell your car? Sell it with Carro.
I wonder why would a wise consumer can buy a Mazda CX-5 at a similar pricing rather than this one?
I don’t know why Suzuki Malaysia willing to import a compact car out of Asean.
Add up the cost of shipping and tax making their car not economical once reach our shore.
Finally Suzuki goes premium!
WTFish!
Why buy this toilet for Rm130k when you can get a CX5 for about the same price?
At least the CX5 holds its value. Look at Suzuki cars? OMG. Even few years old Vitara selling for RM20k
When you sell the Suzuki, then you cry and cry cause you got to top up at least Rm50k of your own money to settle the loan cause the RV stinks.
What a bunch of bull crap spewing up from your mouth…
BTW a 9 Year Old 2005 Swift still hold around 40% of it’s value.
This will go the way of the Kizashi and expect discounts of up to RM30k. Bank on the swift and upcoming Vitara-la! Wonder how these people get picked to lead a business when they don’t even know the trend.
OMG…the models are nice but not the car….
OMG…ini SX4 ini sudah ambil steriod terlalu banyak…jadi gemuk & hodoh…lol
In Mazda with similar price you cannot get.
7 Airbag and ESP
Double Sliding Panoramic Roof
Auto Cruise, Light and Rain Sensor
Large boot space (larger then Subaru XV)
17.2km/l Fuel Economy
Not too bad of a price….
Until you realise you can get a CX5 or a CRV for that price… The engine is an interesting choice, might be a bit underpowered…
0-100kmh in 11 second is not under-powered I think.
and 17.2km/l FC is a bonus.
It is slightly, actually. In fact, in I remember reading somewhere, the minimum 0-100 time one should look for is about in the region of about 9-10 seconds at most, so you’d have enough time to merge etc.
I doubt the competitor CX-5, CR-V can do below 10 seconds.
BTW merging in traffic does not start from 0kmh. it should be 40-80kmh and 80 to 180kmh acceleration. Who has the data?
I guess the 0-100km/h is more of a measure of the acceleration characteristics of the vehicle for comparison’s sake, rather than simply for merging into traffic from 0km/h.
I don’t think that 1 second difference would make that big of a difference. Many Malaysians have to make do with even less power because they have no other choice. It’s all a matter of timing and being willing to put the pedal to the metal, something I surmise many drivers are less than willing to do. That’s the how century sprint is measured, anyway, so a lot of the time, the 0-100 km/h time doesn’t apply at all.
S(stupid)uzuki, who will buy 130k for such segment car??? Sun roof is not selling point in malaysia. Here either rain or hot sunny day.
harga ini, siapa mau beli?
50% increase over the old sx4???
overpriced.
Foresee poor sales coming.
Oh dear….
The CX5 is a just a wee bit more expensive, but is also slightly bigger in storage space as well as having more cubic capacity.
This is like a Japanese Kuga thrown into the mix.
Now, if only the CRV facelift adds up the airbag count and push start… Honda? How? Can or not?
so expensive but only 1.6 and no 4wd… who want to buy?
How could they priced their compact SUV higher than the Grand Vitara? It should be under the 100K segment… Suzuki is often wrong with their pricing like Kizashi and new Jimny, hardly see on the road oexcept for the test-drive units
spec is nice but price and looks are not nice…
Spec does not come cheap.
Picanto and Iriz proved that good spec doesn’t mean it need to be too expensive.
tell that to Perodua and Toyota.
I guess it’s all about choices. Sometimes people just want to drive something different. Although I doubt it will push in volumes, there will always be a few on the roads just like the SX-4.
I guess the pricing goes with the CBU from Hungary. So for anyone who is bored with the commonly seen CX-5 and CRV… this might just be it.
I thought suzuki already had grand vitara to compete with cx-5, crv alike…why not upgrade that old flame and bring it to its former glory rather than try to sell something that will hardly be a direct competition to other brands in its class.
It could sell OK in Malaysia in 2 ways
Either put turbo charged engine with this price.
Or price below Rm 90k with natural inspired engine 1.6 litre engine.
Suzuki both scenarios not followed so I would say Best of luck next time.u have v strong competitors in this segment so Suzuki u r not competitive to breath easy in that stiff segment .
1.6 litre engine, 17inch rims and with the size of the car, wouldn’t it makes the car slightly under power?
It’s under power even without 17″rim.
At first, it might seem that the S-Cross arrives as a dead fish at a shark aquarium’s feeding time, but it doesn’t seem to be the case.
A quick comparison on carbase.my (thanks to the paultan.org team for such a comprehensive list of specs) draws out the case of the S-Cross to be a pretty solid urban crossover. I daresay that the Mitsubishi ASX 4WD is slightly threatened by this little crossover.
Allow me to explain:
For those of you who think the S-Cross is underpowered on the spec-sheet, it doesn’t seem to be after factoring in its weight of 1185kg. For the record, the weight of the Mazda CX-5 2.0 Mid-spec is 1522kg, the Honda CR-V 2.0 is 1540kg and the Mitsubishi ASX 4WD comes in at 1475kg while the 2WD variant weighs 1375kg. Below I’ve calculated their individual power-to-weight (PTW) and torque-to-weight (TTW) ratio’s for ease of comparison:
PTW TTW
Mazda CX-5 0.101 0.1314
Honda CR-V 0.099 0.123
Mitsu ASX 4WD 0.100 0.134
Mitsu ASX 2WD 0.108 0.143
Suzuki S-Cross 0.099 0.1316
See what I’m getting at here? Of course, this is comparing their respective peak power and peak torques without looking at their power and torque curves and transmission characteristics but the low weight of the S-Cross means the 1.6L engine doesn’t have as much heft to pull as the 2.0L engines in the other cars. This should translate into better fuel economy, I guess. Emphasis on should.
Oh, and it has paddle shifters. Among the 4, only the ASX in 4WD form has paddle shifters while the CX-5 2.0 has Tiptronic while the CR-V 2.0 has neither.
The part where the S-Cross would lose out could be in handling as it seems to be listed with a torsion beam rear suspension while the rest have multi-link rears of some kind, but in the end a well-tuned torsion beam will outperform a badly tuned multi-link system.
Then you might be thinking about the interior space. The S-Cross really does have the shortest wheelbase among the 4 I’m comparing but it really matters how you use the wheelbase. The CR-V’s wheelbase comes in at 2620mm compared to the CX-5’s wheelbase of 2700mm but most would still agree that the CR-V’s interior space is comparable if not better than the CX-5’s. It all depends on the packaging and we’ll just have to wait for a walk-around comparison by the paultan.org team before we would find out.
What really caught my eye in the features listing were the recliner backseats. Now I’m not sure how comfortable or useful that is, but it sounds downright awesome to be a passenger in the S-Cross, assuming that leg room isn’t an issue.
Not gonna mention the sunroof much because it’s a feature that’s subjectively likable. I will just say that it might have compromised headroom of the interior.
The S-Cross also looks like it would have an edge in the safety department. It also has a set of 4 parking sensors on both the front and rear, again enforcing the urban crossover motif. The CX-5 has none at the rm130k price point.
In the end, what I see is Suzuki making a well-rounded, well-spec’d urban crossover. The lack of 4WD shouldn’t be a surprise if that’s their aim since a 4WD really is an unnecessary liability with additional weight, parasitic losses, and potential repair costs in the future.
Hm. The table turned out to be confusing after submission.
Let me list it out then.
Mazda CX-5
PTW: 0.101
TTW: 0.1314
Honda CR-V
PTW: 0.099
TTW: 0.123
Mitsu ASX 4WD
PTW: 0.100
TTW: 0.134
Mitsu ASX 2WD
PTW: 0.108
TTW: 0.143
Suzuki S-Cross
PTW: 0.099
TTW: 0.1316
(If you don’t believe me, you can calculate this for yourself.)
**Initially didn’t mean to reply to Jim Chan. Probably clicked Reply and forgot to cancel. Oh well.
To be practical, you have to calculate the ratio of power to laden weight (car weight + 4 passengers weight)
Ah, quite right. Slipped my mind there.
I’m only going to do the power-to-weight ratio. No time. I used 75kg as a standard Malaysian body weight. Additional 300kg then, since 4 persons.
So here goes:
Mazda CX-5
0.085
Honda CR-V
0.083
Mitsu ASX
2WD : 0.088
4WD : 0.083
Suzuki S-Cross
0.079
So we see quite a discrepancy when additional weight is added to the S-Cross. Whether that is a deal-breaker is up to the individual, though. As a side note, the ASX 2WD has pretty strong pull.
The best comment I must say.
Just to add , for laden weight , factoring full passengers with 75 kg each may be a tad bit too much for some cases. I think if we add just one or two I.e. driver + passenger would be more or less adequate as most people drive alone or with girl friend/boyfriend .
I always kind of find Suzuki are targeting the younger single urban drivers instead of being a family car
Thanks. :)
I am aware that 75kg x 4ppl is not the case most of the time, but it is during the times when you have a large load to haul that you appreciate all the power you can get, isn’t it?
I would have to agree with your assessment of Suzuki’s target demographic. They probably know that they can’t hope to fight the big 3 Japanese automakers head-on, so they try and go for the people who are most willing to try new things. However, I don’t think they will grow if they stayed there. This might be part of their effort to make a change.
Might. I wouldn’t know.
You are most welcomed.
Not disagreeing with you but mainly pointing out an additional perspective?
Honestly like your numerical analysis and stating the facts. (It sure beats those knee jerk reactions shown by many re: “underpowered” statements )
Even though, wifey just bought the CKD 2WD Mitsubishi ASX this year, I must say this S-cross is quite a pocketful of pleasantries. The only issue I can see is that it is quite low, even lower than the outgoing SX4. Perhaps that is why it is regarded more of a crossover then SUV
Oh, I wasn’t making a counterargument. I was just trying to explain the reasoning behind my use of 4 persons rather than 2 persons. But that guy up there might have been right. If you’re considering to buy this for as your family car, you really do need to consider how it performs with a (more or less) full complement of passengers.
I’ve liked the ASX for a while now and I know what you mean by the S-Cross having quite an enticing package (mostly as a comfort and convenience biased package). Nonetheless, the ASX has its strengths. From reviews, it is really quite nice to drive. On a slightly unrelated note, I suspect the CVT used by Suzuki in the S-Cross is the same CVT used in the ASX.
Actually, the ASX is also a crossover SUV, rather than a true SUV. A true SUV uses a body-on-frame construction, similar to trucks, rather than the unibody/monocoque design traditionally used in passenger cars. A crossover SUV, or CUV to some people, is deemed thus because it uses the unibody design while having design traits traditionally belonging to SUVs, like a tallish body, high ground clearance and a high seating position as well as sometimes having a 4WD or AWD option. But yea, not all CUVs are equal and the S-Cross is shorter than the ASX. Not sure about the ground clearance, though. That’s another point of consideration.
Glad that you enjoy my writings. I put quite a bit of effort into them but I enjoy it nonetheless. It’s actually those knee jerk reactions that provoked me to start commenting in the first place.
Enjoy your new ASX! (what’s your is your wifey’s and what’s your wifey’s is yours, amirite?)
Hahaha, if we subscribed to the believe that the truth is often in the middle of or in between the extremes (in this case bare curb/kerb weight as one extreme and 4 passengers as the other extreme), then ? moving on though…about crossovers vs SUV. i ‘d concede that ASX too is a crossover. That is why there is a cross simbol /character of ‘X’ in ASX…LOL.
However what has drawn us to buy ASX was really because at the height of 1625 mm (some source say 1615 mm), it is closer to 1685mm of
Hahaha, if we subscribed to the believe that the truth is often in the middle of or in between the extremes (in this case bare curb/kerb weight as one extreme and 4 passengers as the other extreme), then ? moving on though…about crossovers vs SUV. i ‘d concede that ASX too is a crossover. That is why there is a cross simbol /character of ‘X’ in ASX…LOL.
However what has drawn us to buy ASX was really because at the height of 1625 mm (some source say 1615 mm), it is closer to 1685mm of
oops broken , hence continuing on..1685 mm of a Honda CRV and 1670 mm of a Mazda CX5 and almost the height of Peugeot 3008 of 1635 mm.
Suzuki S-Cross’s height is 1575 mm, a level that is more like in the companies of Pug 2008 (1556 mm), BMW X 1, e
oops broken , hence continuing on..1685 mm of a Honda CRV and 1670 mm of a Mazda CX5 and almost the height of Peugeot 3008 of 1635 mm.
Suzuki S-Cross’s height is 1575 mm, a level that is more like in the companies of Pug 2008 (1556 mm), BMW X 1, e
oops broken , hence continuing on..1685 mm of a Honda CRV and 1670 mm of a Mazda CX5 and almost the height of Peugeot 3008 of 1635 mm.
Suzuki S-Cross’s height is 1575 mm, a level that is more like in the companies of Pug 2008 (1556 mm), BMW X 1, e
oops, darn broken again.
BMW X1 (nope that is too low), the coming (soon?) Mazda CX3, of 154X to 155X mm (estimated from this report http://www.usatoday.com/story/money/cars/2014/11/18/mazda-cx3-samll-urban-utility-unveiled/19208621/)
At least Honda HRV is 1605 mm tall.
Ironically we have chosen the in betweens.
Middle ground is the most realistic, most of the time. Something possessed your submit button, aye? haha
You’re right about the X part of the ASX’s name. If I recall correctly, ASX stands for Active Sports Crossover.
See you at the next hot topic!
1.6 2wd suzuki at 130k? cannot be… there must be something really good about this car.. I really have to buy one and dig out the “hidden secret”.
The only thing going for it is very light and have very good fuel economy and its comprehensive array of safety gear.
It is some 200-300kg lighter than its competitors and that makes a big difference in fuel economy.
The FWD ASX is only 115K. Pity it is missing the side and curtain airbags.
130K is a non seller. Its biggest problem may be the new FWD XTrail, priced perhaps slightly higher and if TCM follows its current trend of equiping its cars with full airbags, would be the car to get in this segment.
That price is very high, is It because of our exchange rate? Right model at wrong price. I wonder how Suzuki can do so bad here and at other places like Indonesia is doing so well…. So many varieties of cars available and their Kcars are also so good. Second to the Toyota mogul in Japan if we’re talking of compact cars
its because of the import duty imposed by our government.
Another failure product by Suzuki Malaysia.
suzuki you gotta kidding us the malaysian. you put up 130k for a 1.6L CVT 2WD and because it was CBU?
sorry i’ll pass and spend the 130k wise for something has better offer in its specs with the same price range. good luck suzuki, you gotta buy more dust covers for each of this model units.
Tell me which crossover SUV with around RM130k is better?
7 Airbag with ESP?
Double Sliding Panoramic Roof?
Auto Cruiise, Light and Rain Sensor perhaps?
Not every model can sell like a hot cake like Swift la
This price i can buy subaru xv or mazda cv5 rather than this piece of shit
I would never buy a Suzuki car because of their bikes. Those Suzuki bikes are known to spew white smoke into the environment!
another piece of jap crap.
overpriced, fugly, outdated.
suzuki is dying.
tunggu2 dpt rebat 50k
SMA, take a look at ur Kizashi. It’s more exclusive than BMW 740i…
Suzuki is not known to be strong in Sedan Category but Hatchback and SUV is a different ballgame all together.
There must be a price mistake here? Who wants a 130K 1.6 2WD?
That gets…..
7 Airbag and ESP
Double Sliding Panoramic Roof
Auto Cruise, Light and Rain Sensor
Large boot space (larger then Subaru XV)
17.2km/l Fuel Economy
0-100kmh in 11 Seconnds
hmmmm, come to think about it there will be customers…..
actually under the hood is 2.5 turbo charge, but only drink petrol like 1.2 cc engine.. they just published 1.6 so buyers get cheap roadtax. i test drive oredi.. very powerful can comfort. after this even lexus or merc very hard to cari makan. every one will buy s-cross.
This is a sure failure!
oh dear Suzuki…. *speechless*
At rm130k right now, i can get subaru XV with better value
Subaru has smaller boot because of the Full Size Spare tire..
If I value boot space, I take S-Cross over XV
who is there has correct guess the price, i guess it correctly more than 130k, hey guys there, any time if any cbu car or ckd, once landed in bodeh land, dont expect too much about the price as long as potong still in bodeh land, kasian rakyat malasia
how is this a C-Segment SUV??
The Vezel Wheelbase is longer at 2610mm, so that’s a C-Segment as well??
and this car is way much lighter then a C-Segment SUV.
This will be another showroom car…just display and nobody will buy….
to be fair to Suzuki, the price is not that far off in comparison with the Peugeot 2008…which is a CKD at ~RM120k…of course different segment but Suzuki cars are almost always slightly smaller than its peers in the same class thus why a comparison with the 2008 might be valid..
it is slightly bigger and has a potentially better transmission so it would probably attract some fans as well…
I think Suzuki just bring in the car for the sake of bring in the car to Malaysia.
Not for the sake of selling the car.
looks very old fashioned to me. Like Korean cars in the last decade. Not worth the price.
MNM! (Mahal Nak Mampos)
S-Cross best family crossover
than CX-5 CX-3 ASX XV HRV 2008 Sportage Ecosport
Harga Kereta Naik di Malaysia 50%
SX4 RM 89,988 >> RM129,888
RON97 turun 20 sen. Syukur!!
Take the glass roof off and sell it for RM120k then it makes more economical sense
I agree that Suzuki is not handled well in this country. But truth to be told, the brand is going through a confused period as well. It’s known for well built small cars but it has an ambition to break that mold and go upmarket. The problem is, people are not ready to pay that much for the brand. It will be the same if Daihatsu built such cars.
Infact, even MINI with its rock solid brand image is having trouble shifting cars that are not so ‘MINI’ any more.
Brand perception and image cannot be built overnight.Suzuki has to play the value card if they are going to suceed like what the Koreans are doing if they want to compete. They should have stuffed this car to the brim with tech and given it a modern turbo or a strong 2.0. In this spec, I do not expect to see many units shifted. as the rest provide better value.
It comes fully loaded….plus CBU , fair price…
but if suzuki can CKD the car, reduce the price by 15-20k, and keep all the same kit intact, it would be highly competitive
All car brands that DRB hicom touches, all goes down the drain… Proton, Mitsubishi, Suzuki, Lotus, Audi, Modenas, VW… And Honda (if without the new City, Honda can kiss goodbye to their 2014 sales figures)
Poor mgmt… All the brands they hold mostly price wrongly and late introduction of certain models, slow And cheap CKDs
Allow me to express my views on the Pricing for S-Cross. Pricing is the key factor in Marketing.
If this is Toyota then, most of us will say the pricing is reasonable in view of the specs. But this is suzuki – our experience with Suzuki is motorbikes, small compact car like swift which is priced almost same with/above Proton. This what we Malaysian can give a try and the choices are limited on this price range.
>RM130K pricing guaranteed is a “successful” like Kizashi because:-
1) There are many choices in this categories. Don’t forget most of the buyers opt for 7 or 9 years financing which translate into “just additional few RM per month – if you cut down yr restaurant meal/beer/etc you can have a better car”
2) Based on financial planning method – we should buy a car 6 – 12 months of our earning. This method totally out in Malaysia due to our G’s policy on Car. So some of us like Sam always talk about RV, maintenance costs, abundance of spare parts and etc.
3)Suzuki did not offer any guaranteed buy back at 50% after 10 yrs as per krs189 comments on old Suzuki. So normal circumstances the RV is big ??
4) Invisible market share – positive experience from customers – negligible. So very minimum buyers will put RM130 k on “new” Suzuki premium car.
4) Design – to me the exterior is totally lose to its competitors.
5) Engine cc – to most of Malaysian they want to upgrade bigger size, bigger engine capacity etc. What to you think people buy a smaller engine with higher price. Unless is Mini Cooper or other Premium Brand. (Do you think how many buyer willing to buy a Prius now?)
Anyway, the sales figures will show that the truth of this “successful” car.