Suzuki grand vitara/escudo owners ‘05+

Hey team.
For those that own the above, or have owned the above in the past can you please share with me your fuel stats? My ‘09 escudo is currently doing 8km/L(12L/100km) around town and 9.5km/L (10.5L/100km) open road. These are the dash readings. Going by the odometer I get about 340km around town and about 400km open road per 50L tank. This seems rather high. I get that it’s full time 4wd and quite a heavy vehicle, but it seems to chew through the gas.
The car is unmodified aside from 235/65r17 tyres on new rims.

I didn’t buy this car for the stellar fuel efficiency, but I was hoping a little better than this. Particularly as I plan on putting a lift in and getting slightly bigger tyres.

Cheers!

Mine is 2.4 auto

Owned one in the past and fuel mileage wasn't amazing Id say it would be on par with my current vehicle which is a 2.4 rav4. I guess you could get it scanned just to make sure o2 sensor etc is working properly..

I had Grand Vitara 2.4 manual. Brilliant off road but the thirstiest vehicle ever owned.

the wife has a 2015 grand vitara but its a 2wd only pretty sure we get better than that ...... the whole point of getting her a 2wd was they are a little bit less hungry cos your not running an extra set of drive axles all the time ......
but my manual 98 2l j20a is still more cheaper to run

For comparison, I'm getting 8.1L/100Km of a 3.2L PX2 Ranger. That's all duties, towing, open road and around town all averaged out. I'd have a look at yours in terms of injectors, o2sensors, map/maf sensors, intake manifold and EGR setup, filters and wheel alignment etc. Basically a good going through on everything that affects economy as the squid is much smaller and lighter than the Ranger...

Should have gone diesel hey

Mine is 2.7 V6 2008 getting about the same.

I'm doing better than that in a Mitsubishi Fuso truck - although probably less comfortably. 9.9l/100km.

Mine is a 2002 , 2l. I am not sure how much I would do on 1 full tank. But certainly more than 350 km. Fairly economical to run actually

Had a Vitara 2.7 v6. Lovely car, smooth and peppy but very thirsty. Sold it and got a V6 Camry which was way more economical.

Greetings,
I have had experience with three Vitara's and a Jimny The first Vitara had part time 4WD and low range. This was my wife's car but from memory it got around 7 litres per hundred. Tyres lasted a long time, around 80,000 km. The second, another Vitara, was my work car with the full time 4WD. It used about 9 litres per hundred and ate tyres. No 3 was another Vitara the more car like one with part time 4WD, my wife's next car. I don't know the economy but likely around 6 litres per hundred. My current car is a Jimny Sierra with part time 4WD and low range. According to the dash display this is giving 5.9 litres per hundred which is backed up by my rough calculations, It still has the original tyres after 4 years.
GPM.

I have a 2016 2.4 Grand Vitara. All time 4 wheel drive with a Low range transfer box for 4H locked and 4L locked.
Its currently showing 10.4 L per 100Km. and that's because I nurse it.
but petrols all I have to put in it and on an annual basis its cheaper to run that both my Nissan 4x4's when I take in diesel servicing and road user charges.
So yours in on a par with mine. You must be a Nana driver to :D

Putting bigger tyers(increase turning circle slightly) will just make it labour a little bit more,drink more fuel.Go hunting and dont worry about the extra $10 a hundred k.Shoot more rabbits with my 22.lols
i just burned 72litrs of diesel but i shoot 2 deer in the last 2 days.I dont think about the fuel.

Have someone that knows what they are looking at plug a scan tool in and check that the 02 sensor is working correctly, and see what the STFT (Short term fuel trim) is doing while driving.

One of the most common things i see in my line of work that effects fuel economy is old failing 02 sensors. Most cars from the early 90s onward use an 02 sensor in the exhaust to monitor air/fuel ratio and make adjustments using a closed loop system to target the oems decided ideal air fuel ratio. Most oem suggest to replace the sensor/sensors every 80-100 thou kms but most people / workshops dont, if its not throwing a CEL or showing a fault it gets left alone. Problem is, alot of the time the sensors dont just outright fail and stop working, they read false lean, so the ecu sees this and adds fuel to get it back on target, meaning the engine ends up running richer than it should be (sometimes considerably) because the sensor is sending the ecu false data.

This is pretty easy to spot using a scan tool, on a healthy normal car you shouldnt really see the fuel trims fluctuate more than around 5% + or - So while driving if you can see on the scan tool the ecus commanding a +15% fuel trim or something along those lines, then likely the 02 sensor needs replaced, even if is not throwing a fault/CEL.

How old is the oil, I’ve found fuel economy drops of very quickly when the oil needs changing. Also buy the best oil you can afford.
I doubt it’ll make a huge difference but if you check along with what No.3 suggested you may improve it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Delphus

My ‘09 escudo is currently doing 8km/L(12L/100km) around town and 9.5km/L (10.5L/100km) open road. These are the dash readings. Going by the odometer I get about 340km around town and about 400km open road per 50L tank. This seems rather high. I get that it’s full time 4wd and quite a heavy vehicle, but it seems to chew through the gas.
The car is unmodified aside from 235/65r17 tyres on new rims.

...

Cheers!

---

I've got a 2.7L '08, same size tyres and similar economy numbers. I don't mind so much, it replaced a 3.2L bighorn with fueling issues and it absolutely chewed the fuel.

Runs a little more economical on 95 if you can bring yourself to pay the extra...

Might throw my scan tool on and check out the O2 sensors though, handy tip.

I owned the 2.0L manual. Gas mileage was poor considering how gutless it was, from memory I was getting about 9 - 10l / 100 km running muddies (I forget the size but they were about as big as you can fit without rubbing).
It was surprisingly capable offroad, but on road it was way too underpowered. The clutch was totally dogshit too.
The 2.4L and 2.7L would surely be more powerful but one of them is renowned for blowing up. I think the 2.4 but don't quote me on that.
You'll probably come to the same conclusion I did. They're fun offroad but ultimately have too many drawbacks and you're better off buying a ute that does everything well.

Big mud tread pattern tyres make a surprising difference to the amount of fuel eaten. A lot of people don't really need the extra capability that a true large mud tyre can offer - and if they do it's not for the entire time they are driving the car. Factoring in all things, it would pay to consider two sets of feet - one highway pattern with low rolling resistance and the other the muddies for when you want to play. Even in reduction of wear on the mud tyres (which can be eaten by chip seal road surfaces) and not including the increased fuel burn it would probably pay off.

I've got a stock standard '06 2.7L V6 Auto that shows 9.4l per 100km, that's 50:50 80kph stuff : 50kph round town and nanna-ing it. That's running on 95

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by NIMROD

I have a 2016 2.4 Grand Vitara. All time 4 wheel drive with a Low range transfer box for 4H locked and 4L locked.
Its currently showing 10.4 L per 100Km. and that's because I nurse it.
but petrols all I have to put in it and on an annual basis its cheaper to run that both my Nissan 4x4's when I take in diesel servicing and road user charges.
So yours in on a par with mine. You must be a Nana driver to :D

---

Guilty as charged.

My 04 1600 is around 8L (manual ) and 5th-gear isn't an overdrive ratio , revs its nuts-off @ 100kph

Just picked up an 09 2.4 auto and getting more or less the same but found if I'm particularly gentle I can get it up to 12kml. Mines going into the shop on Wed for the mechanic to take a look over it all so will mention the O2 sensor