1992 Suzuki Swift GT 1.3 - Driver's Seat

[@michaelstokley6796]

My brother bought one new dec of 1990 very great handling, powerful, little car ,blast to ride in and drive.

[@donaldgillmore7390]

I have owned two and currently own a 1991 with collector plates which has the older style bumpers, dash and manual windows compared to the one reviewed here. Observed fuel economy is 5.5L/100km overall in mostly rural driving. Most people don't know that these cars came from the factory tuned to run on 85 octane gas (regular in Canada is 87) and the car doesn't have a knock sensor, so the ignition timing is conservatively set and can be advanced considerably in minutes adding to the performance and fuel economy. For a gas powered car that seats 4, even today it's got a respectable combination of fuel economy and performance, though very light and flimsy by today's standards. As long as they are kept from rusting out, they will run for a very long time even if abused.

[@donaldgillmore7390]

I've got to add that I was shocked at how they went on about the "armstrong" steering. It only feels heavy in relation to vehicles with power assisted steering. The steering can be made lighter by increasing front tire pressure. It is only listed on the door as 26psi which is kind of low IMO. The lack of power steering is all good: it makes for great feedback through the wheel, plus there is no parasitic power loss and space taken up in the engine compartment by the power steering hardware, nor is there power steering fluid to worry about in terms of a leak or breakdown of the pump. My criticism with this car's steering is not that it is heavy, but that it is too slow. One has to turn the wheel more than most vehicles to get the same amount of steering action. Under normal street driving this is quite nice, but it requires excessive and sometimes frantic steering wheel rotation in autocross (slalom) and other events where large and sudden changes in direction are called for. I would have liked a quicker steering rack. This would increase the steering effort, i.e. the weight of the steering even more but I really don't think that is a big deal. What a bargain price for such a jewel of an engine.

[@dobermanguy9437]

I used to watch this show all the time back in the day

[@joelhenderson4450]

Love to find a clean one of these.

[@gregg9672]

This is the engine that should have been in the Geo Metro Convertible and Geo Metro GSi

[@donaldgillmore7390]

Yes having that engine as an option for the convertible would have been nice, but it would have add considerably to the sticker price. Regarding the Metro GSi it may be that Suzuki wanted to restrict that engine to Suzuki-branded cars not the GM ones, to distinguish them as the premium side, i.e. if you wanted the twin cam engine you chose the Swift GTi over the Metro GSi.

[@michaelstokley6796]

The firefly convertible got the turbo 3 cyl

[@donaldgillmore7390]

@@michaelstokley6796 I have never seen one. Unless you owned one or know someone who has, I would suggest that any Firefly or Sprint turbo convertible that you see has had an engine and/or the bodykit and graphics from the turbo variant swapped over.

[@Encryptus1]

7,2 liters for 100kms? Mine does 5,2 when I'm driving softly or 7,5 when hard.

[@RevBCSTi]

Had a 1989 swift gt, suck a nimble fun car.