Suzuki stepping out
GM liquidating its relationship with Suzuki may turn out to be the best thing that could happen to the eastern automaker. Many Suzuki models owe their lives to other GM products, including the new XL-7 that's based on GM's Theta platform, but the company will be branching out on its own with vehicles like the SX4 that debuted on this continent in New York and is reportedly going to enter WRC competition next year. There also plans to bring back the Swift, which has evolved into a highly regarded sub-compact abroad. Finally, there are replacements for the Aerio, Verona and Forenza in the works that have no ties with GM ware.
[Source: Inside Line]
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 2)
dave aloipizzoaloi 10:12AM (4/01/2008)
I have a new suzuki forenza, 2007. Just snaped off another inside door handle, Whats up with this? Anyone else having this problem?
Reply
Jaimie B 3:21PM (5/11/2006)
Excellent news. Having vehicles that share absolutely NOTHING with A GM vehicle can only improve the Suzuki brand image. Now if Ford can only sell their stake at Mazda, things would look rosier for Mazda as well.
Reply
b1 3:40PM (5/11/2006)
sweet, I dig suzuki's style - escpecially this one mini wrc model that I saw on some website. Do they have any rear wheel drive models?
Reply
Howard Kerr 3:40PM (5/11/2006)
As I've said here on other posts, "it's amazing how well car companies that were FORMER associates of GM are doing these days." It's sort of the automotive equivalent of "tough love", that leaves the "child" fairly well off. Unfortunately, GM can't seem to reap any benefits from this exercise, other than some quick pocket change.
Reply
D 3:44PM (5/11/2006)
Now only if Suzuki made a light-weight car powered by one of their amazing motorcycle engines (to be sold in the USA of course).
Reply
Alex Nunez 3:48PM (5/11/2006)
The SX4 looks like a seriously great little car, and even though it's a Theta platform vehicle, the new XL7 is really nice, and the limited model is a much nicer place to be than its less stylish, less accomodating and less powerful Equinox and Torrent cousins.
Bacl to the SX4, though.... That packaging, with AWD and a low entry price... Very, very cool.
Reply
Takeo 3:50PM (5/11/2006)
Yeah it's pretty sad when a automaker's prospects look UP when GM divests it's share in it. But then this happened with Subaru also,
I disagree with you Jaimie B. I think the Ford/Mazda deal has been good for both. Mazda gets access to a bigger parts supplier network, and easy access to operating capital, and Ford gets overall very competitive platform and engine designs for their small-car portfolio. I think overall Ford's management of it's subsidiaries is far less intrusive than GM's.
In any case, since the Ford/Mazda's relationship has deepened, the product lines of both companies has improved markedly.
Reply
Sam 4:07PM (5/11/2006)
Now if only Suzuki, Isuzu, Mitsubishi and Subaru merge will things become better. These four companies can do wonders and pose a serious competition to larger players by pooling their resources, energy, manufacturing expertise, parts suppliers, economies of scale, human resources, talented leaders and managers, vehicle underpinnings etc etc. It will bring new dynamism to these brands and under one roof they will be able to make better cars.
Reply
Erich 4:10PM (5/11/2006)
I applaud Suzuki for introducing some interesting vehicles. However, I don't think the statement, "...there are replacements for the Aerio, Verona and Forenza in the works that have no ties with GM ware" is completely correct. While I can't speak for the Aerio, the Verona and Forenza are developed in conjunction with GM-DAT (Daewoo Automotive Technology) of which Suzuki is a co-owner with GM.
Reply
Bob 4:11PM (5/11/2006)
Any Suzuki auto product coming out now would have been created under GM part ownership. Do you people think they design these things in a matter of weeks?
Reply
Carlos 4:18PM (5/11/2006)
Bob, the idea is that these products were designed by Suzuki rather than being rebadged Daewoos (as are the Forenza, Verona, and Reno). I don't mean to slight Daewoo, but Suzuki's latest vehicles make them look bad.
Reply
emulous1974 4:22PM (5/11/2006)
Bob,
There is a difference in designing under partial ownership, aka WRX STi, 2005 Legacy and Tribeca (GM) and bad reengineering like the Saab 92x and Saab 97x to even platform sharing like the Theta based Equinox, Saturn Vue and Suzuki XL7.
The difference being the main engineering is coming directly from one company and not just leveraging it's resources as in the case with badge reeingeneering.
Platform sharing like in the Volvo S60 and Ford Five Hundreed are producing very different cars, like we would hardly know that the Suzuki XL7 share any lineage with the Equinox unless we are told, is sharing resources and producing different products that have personality, driving characteristics and different market levels of their own.
It's obvious that the SX4 was developed in house at Suzuki when compared to everything that GM sells on these shores. It's a very worthy effort and at a great price, so even if they did have the help of GM, they've produced to what appears to be a great vehicle.
And theire WRC concept SX4 looks great:
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/emulous/06%20NY%20Auto%20Show/IMG_8563.JPG
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/emulous/06%20NY%20Auto%20Show/IMG_8561.JPG
http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v258/emulous/06%20NY%20Auto%20Show/IMG_8562.JPG
Reply
Ebm14 4:31PM (5/11/2006)
Bob, not all products that come out of Suzuki are created with GM. If you go to Japan, you will see a bunch of models that are exclusively manufactured by Suzuki.
As far as the next XL-7 that will be penned by Suzuki whenever they decide to replace that model.
Anyway, I hope Suzuki becomes the next Honda for the States!!!
Reply
Tim UF 4:39PM (5/11/2006)
so, lets see... suzuki is looking to distance itself from GM... with fresh new designs from in house will outgrow what its affiliation with GM let it grow to.
Isuzu (of which GM owns 49% since 1999) had its sales peak in 1996, declining to the point of having only two GM rebadges currently: the i-series pickup (colorado) and the ascender (trailblazer). Isuzu used to outsource its SUV designs to HONDA... they were epert enough in SUV's that honda wanted to sell rebadged isuzu rodeo's. then gm got involved... the (re)development of the trooper/rodeo stopped (unless you count the vehicross), and isuzu USA is close to collapsing...
I've thought all along that suzuki needs to get some of its motorcycle talents into the auto arena, now i think that might start to happen!
Reply
S1500 4:50PM (5/11/2006)
Wasn't there another re-badge? I owned a Isuzu I-Mark which was the same as the Chevy & Geo Spectrum, but with different taillights(and I assume other parts). that car lasted me only 50K or so. Was a nice peppy subcompact, wish I took better care of it.
I thought the Suzuki Aerio 4 door hatch is cute. Reminds me of the Fit.
Reply
Nat 4:53PM (5/11/2006)
"4. Now only if Suzuki made a light-weight car powered by one of their amazing motorcycle engines (to be sold in the USA of course)."
Yes please. Or even do what Radical Motors is doing and fuse two of them together for a V8.
Reply
Razib Ahmed 5:36PM (5/11/2006)
Now Suzuki can focus more on the Asian market. In India is really riding very high with its partner Maruti and Maruti-Suzuki combination are the market leader in India. I really wish Suzuki takes the South Asian countries more seriously. There is a huge growth potential here. For example, in 2004, 1,511,157 (http://www.southasiabiz.com/2006/05/asian_cars_riding_high_what_ab.html) were produced in India.
Reply
Jeff Gilleran 6:01PM (5/11/2006)
Tim,
GM roughly owns 7.9% of Isuzu currently.
Isuzu is basicly already out of the US, but is restructuring its marketing strategy for the US.
Several new models are expected to hit US shores in the next 2 to 3 years tops.
The remaining GM based Ascender, is through the end of this model year.. which should be around August.
Isuzu provided the chassis for GMs Canyon and Colorado, but the engine and transmission are all GM.
Isuzu has been divorcing itself from GM since 2002, when profits took a turn for the better.
Isuzu reinvested into itself with those profits, which was good for the company.
So now, Suzuki gets to market the way it wants to here in the Us and provide platforms that were "restricted" to whatever GM was building.
Good for us because the Swift is a nice car, and Isuzu has always been able to build cars, but couldnt through GMs rather tight grip for many of the same reasons.
GM didnt think Suzuki could build trucks, so they let them build the cars, killed off Isuzu's car sales in the US, but allowed them to build trucks.
Ridiculus because Isuzu has built several fine small cars over the years and they made GM alot of money.
Particularly the Geo Storm.
All in all, having GM out of the way from both companies (Isuzu plans on buying ALL its stock back in the next year), we wont see the last of Isuzu, and now with gas prices the way they are, we might see a return of the mid 80s when gas was crazy and lots and lots of great small cars will be running the roads.
Like the new Swift, and Isuzu's Bellet models.
Reply
Stéphane Dumas 6:51PM (5/11/2006)
"Now if only Suzuki, Isuzu, Mitsubishi...merge together!"
Since Toyota had a stake in Subaru, it might be more difficult to add it to your ideal merger, Sam but I'm agree with you, a merge of Suzuki, Isuzu and Mitsubishi will be a real dynamite! The ideal "Three Musketeers"
Tough then Suzuki also offer its small-cars to others companies, the current Japanese Mazda Carol is a rebadged Suzuki Alto http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mazda_Carol
-"Anyway, I hope Suzuki becomes the next Honda for the States!!!"
Ebm14
I view them more as the next Mazda, they have more common points with Mazda than we taught. And Mazda will be the "D'Artagnan" who'll fit with the "Musketeers" (Isuzu, Suzuki, Mitsubishi) ;-)
Reply
Joshi 7:19PM (5/11/2006)
Suzuki needs to bring the Swift to America.
I promise them thousands of my hard-earned cash when they do.
Make it happen, Suzuki! And preferably soon. :)
Reply