My questions is this: Never have I drove a 180 hp car that is this sluggish off the line. My first guess was that Suzuki went cheap on the CVT and purposely programmed the CVT to extremely limit initial torque in order to keep the CVT from crumbling eventually. However, this theory makes zero sense when you consider the manual Kizashi is just as slow. So what the heck is really going on here??
My friend had a 140 hp Nissan 4-banger back in high school that was twice as fast as the Kiz off the line, and it was a straight up POS. I don't know enough about cars, but it seems very odd to me tha even the manual Kiz can't jump off the line faster with 185 hp and no CVT to hold it back.
One other note: I had a 5-speed V6 175hp Cougar before my Kiz... I found out through research that Ford had put a regulator on it to keep the acceleration down so it didn't interfere in the Mustang sales. Knowing companies do weird crap like this, is it possible Suzuki has a regulator on the Kiz for some unknown reason??
Lets team up and find some real answers to this mystery...
Is it the CVT or a regulator setting that causes the lag?
... and yet your first assumption is some conspiracy theory by Suzuki to not make the car "too fast"?Hawkzilla wrote:Lets team up and find some real answers to this mystery...
First - all the cars you compared to with same/less HP and "better" acceleration. How much did they weigh?
While the Kizashi ain't no pig, all that nice interior, sound deadening, etc means that it isn't light - especially if yours is an AWD.
Second - there is mounting evidence that "first" gear is not all that low. Combine that with "OK" power and a heavyish vehicle and any drag racer will tell you your 60' time is going to be less than optimal, but that trap speed and overall time might still be OK.
Lastly - I don't have any complaints about my FWD 2011. There could be a significantly different engine/tranny ECU map available for the earlier cars. Have you checked to see if there are any TSB's?
2011 Sport SLS with nav Black Pearl Metallic
I'm a conspiracy kinda guy, what can I say?~tc~ wrote:... and yet your first assumption is some conspiracy theory by Suzuki to not make the car "too fast"?Hawkzilla wrote:Lets team up and find some real answers to this mystery...
First - all the cars you compared to with same/less HP and "better" acceleration. How much did they weigh?
While the Kizashi ain't no pig, all that nice interior, sound deadening, etc means that it isn't light - especially if yours is an AWD.
Second - there is mounting evidence that "first" gear is not all that low. Combine that with "OK" power and a heavyish vehicle and any drag racer will tell you your 60' time is going to be less than optimal, but that trap speed and overall time might still be OK.
Lastly - I don't have any complaints about my FWD 2011. There could be a significantly different engine/tranny ECU map available for the earlier cars. Have you checked to see if there are any TSB's?
You're second point makes sense, but then why does the manual respond the same way? I understand the weight issue, but my Cougar was as heavy and got off the line in a hurry compared to the Kiz with 10 less HP. Also, a manual Kiz without AWD should be a few hundred pounds lighter plus an additional 5 HP and still... same results. It just seems suspiciously lagging off the line, to the point where I don't think it's unreasonable to question if Suzuki has it regulated for some unknown reason.
That said, I have had my car hooked up and checked for updates... HOWEVER, my dealership is as clueless as me when it comes to Suzuki's and I am not very confident they actually did it.
All I know is I'm not the only one on here that has said that the lag is so bad that it has darn near gotten me in an accident... and I usually have my 4 year old on board.
Kizashi SLS CVT Azure Gray Metallic
How's this for conspiracy theories... I just read one person that believes Suzuki did it to both manual and CVTs to keep their fuel efficiency ratings higher. Now I'm not saying this is true or even reasonable, but it would make sense since they could keep their HP while boasting better MPG results... no?
I need to test drive a manual Kiz, then I can make a more educational assumption... because if the initial lag is there in the manual, it definitely isn't a CVT issue. But comparing 0-60 times in both rides, I think I already know what to expect.
I need to test drive a manual Kiz, then I can make a more educational assumption... because if the initial lag is there in the manual, it definitely isn't a CVT issue. But comparing 0-60 times in both rides, I think I already know what to expect.
Kizashi SLS CVT Azure Gray Metallic
Well, I have a 2011 manual, and there is no lag when I punch it. It seems 'adequate' to me. Didn't I read that when they first came out the car magazines rated the 0-60 times for the manual in the low to mid 7's? Do you feel that is inadequate for a 185 horse car weighing around 3400 lbs.?
You are right on the manual times. The CVT was almost 2 seconds slower in the reviews.ragmopp01 wrote:Well, I have a 2011 manual, and there is no lag when I punch it. It seems 'adequate' to me. Didn't I read that when they first came out the car magazines rated the 0-60 times for the manual in the low to mid 7's? Do you feel that is inadequate for a 185 horse car weighing around 3400 lbs.?
A few hundred pounds lighter and 5 more hp only explains a small part of it (anyone want to reverse engineer this with Newton's law to get the predicted speed difference?).
It is the gearing. I don't think Suzuki has "detuned" the car with the current setup - it is the nature of the beast as it is set up with the CVT.
No, it is not. I drive MT, and had the chance to test drive the CVT. I have mentioned in several other threads than a Kizashi MT and a Kizashi CVT are 2 different cars, and I stand in that one. The magazines might agree, as they reported the MT 0-60 at 7.2 - 7.5 secs or so.Hawkzilla wrote:.... However, this speculation makes zero sense when you consider the manual Kizashi is just as slow. ...
The MT is not a drag racer, but the engine is perfectly adequate to keep up with almost everything you will find at a stoplight. Besides, a lot of sins are forgiven by a good manual trans, and the Kizashi's is a joy to shift.
The CVT performance is all in the TCM software and calibration. Suzuki went for fuel economy
btw, I changed the word theory for speculation
2010 Suzuki Kizashi S MT
gaww wrote:You are right on the manual times. The CVT was almost 2 seconds slower in the reviews.ragmopp01 wrote:Well, I have a 2011 manual, and there is no lag when I punch it. It seems 'adequate' to me. Didn't I read that when they first came out the car magazines rated the 0-60 times for the manual in the low to mid 7's? Do you feel that is inadequate for a 185 horse car weighing around 3400 lbs.?
A few hundred pounds lighter and 5 more hp only explains a small part of it (anyone want to reverse engineer this with Newton's law to get the predicted speed difference?).
It is the gearing. I don't think Suzuki has "detuned" the car with the current setup - it is the nature of the beast as it is set up with the CVT.
You need to take into account that there is also a torque converter in the CVT which robs horsepower and initial torque till lockup.
And as far as the Suzuki brochure's show the ratio's in manual mode CVT are the same ratio's as the manual transmission.
I have a Sept 10 build AWD and feel it's ok but not to much lag, going to install the piggyback from RRM and run it for a few weeks then install the catback for a few weeks then the light pulley.
Will let you know how it goes.
My post from the other thread concerning this.
As a few others have said, the manual is much quicker off the line.
If you think the Kizashi is a dog off the line, try my Caliber R/T, it is worse!! Chrysler put a lifetime power train warranty on those cars, and they were going to make damn sure the CVT would lead a long and happy life.
Yes it has a torque converter, you can feel when it locks up on gentle acceleration, almost feels like a little shift.
Initial torque is electronically limited for CVT longevity. This is the way my JATCO CVT equipped Caliber is, and i am sure the Kizzy is the same way, since they are both equipped with the JATCO JF011E transmission.
The ECM is going to limit engine RPM between 0-20 to preserve CVT longevity and to prevent belt slippage. This is what causes the CVT equipped Kizzy to feel somewhat sluggish off the line. Once everything is hooked up and moving, then the limiting stops. That is why the Kizzy feels stronger in the mid and top ranges. If you want your CVT to live, there really isn't much you can do. The TCM will do whatever it has to do to preserve the transmission. That is the price we pay to have the CVT.
The difference can be surprising. My Caliber R/T is AWD. has the CVT and the 2.4 172HP engine. A Dodge avenger has the 2.4 172HP engine. The Avenger is a little bit heavier than the Caliber. The Caliber is a SLUG off the line, whereas the Avenger with a conventional 4 speed automatic will light up the front tires off the line.
As a few others have said, the manual is much quicker off the line.
If you think the Kizashi is a dog off the line, try my Caliber R/T, it is worse!! Chrysler put a lifetime power train warranty on those cars, and they were going to make damn sure the CVT would lead a long and happy life.
Yes it has a torque converter, you can feel when it locks up on gentle acceleration, almost feels like a little shift.
Initial torque is electronically limited for CVT longevity. This is the way my JATCO CVT equipped Caliber is, and i am sure the Kizzy is the same way, since they are both equipped with the JATCO JF011E transmission.
The ECM is going to limit engine RPM between 0-20 to preserve CVT longevity and to prevent belt slippage. This is what causes the CVT equipped Kizzy to feel somewhat sluggish off the line. Once everything is hooked up and moving, then the limiting stops. That is why the Kizzy feels stronger in the mid and top ranges. If you want your CVT to live, there really isn't much you can do. The TCM will do whatever it has to do to preserve the transmission. That is the price we pay to have the CVT.
The difference can be surprising. My Caliber R/T is AWD. has the CVT and the 2.4 172HP engine. A Dodge avenger has the 2.4 172HP engine. The Avenger is a little bit heavier than the Caliber. The Caliber is a SLUG off the line, whereas the Avenger with a conventional 4 speed automatic will light up the front tires off the line.
2010 Kizashi S AWD
2009 Suzuki SX-4 Touring AWD
2008 Smart fortwo Passion Coupe
2007 Dodge Caliber R/T AWD
2009 Suzuki SX-4 Touring AWD
2008 Smart fortwo Passion Coupe
2007 Dodge Caliber R/T AWD
The difference between cvt and manual is the gear ratios. Even the simulated gear ratios are geared towards economy not speed. theres very big difference between the 2. in 6th at 3000 rpm the manual kiz goes 120 km/h in top gear in the cvt at the same rpm it goes 150 km/h. the manual is a lot faster and gear more towards acceleration than the cvt mapping.