2005 Suzuki Forenza S Sedan 4-door 2.0l on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Future Classic: 1996-1998 Suzuki X-90

SUVs are absolute cash cows, and because of that, automakers don’t often take risks in their design and execution. Oh, sure, the occasional Evoque Coupe or Murano CrossCabriolet slips through the cracks, but by and large most SUVs have four doors, two or three rows of seats and a hatchback for your cargo. But in the 1990s, carmakers were still experimenting with SUVs, so things occasionally got weird, and nothing embodied weirdness quite like the Suzuki X-90. Half SUV, half coupe, half roadster (three halves – see, super weird), the X-90 was all about fun in the sun. It was wild and had lots of personality. SuzukiÂ’s liÂ’l guy was unlike anything else on the road. Why is the Suzuki X-90 a future classic? The X-90 was SuzukiÂ’s followup to the ill-fated Samurai – you know, the SUV that was “easier to flip than a toilet seat,” according to reports from the time. The X-90 was much safer, with standard features like driver and passenger airbags, as well as antilock brakes, but it still fully embodied the SamuraiÂ’s have-fun-anywhere ethos. “Cute utes” were a growing subset of small SUVs in the ‘90s, and wow did the X-90 fully lean into this demeanor. It was tiny – only slightly longer and taller than a modern Fiat 500 – with two doors, two seats, a removable T-top roof and a sedan-like trunk with a spoiler for added flourish. Its 6.3 inches of ground clearance gave it a tiny-tough trucky stance, and you could get it in vibrant colors like purple and teal. It even had seat fabric that looked like ‘90s jazz cups. So cool. What is the ideal example of the Suzuki X-90? Since it was a low-volume product that was only sold for a couple of years (adding to its scarcity today), there werenÂ’t many differences between the X-90s that came to the U.S. All of ‘em were powered by a 1.6-liter inline-four engine with a blistering 95 horsepower and 98 pound-feet of torque. Buyers could choose between rear- and four-wheel drive, as well as a four-speed automatic or five-speed manual transmission. Going for the stick-shift gave you a slight edge on fuel economy, with the EPA rating both RWD and 4WD X-90s at 24 mpg combined, compared to 22 mpg with the automatic. Considering its core mission was all about having a whale of a time, the smartest way to spec an X-90 is with the five-speed manual and four-wheel drive.

Drive pits Ariel Nomad against Suzuki bike

Ariel introduced the Nomad at the beginning of the year, which is basically an Atom converted to sand-rail duty with the addition of features like a composite cage and waterproof cockpit, Hella light bar, and Ohlins suspension with hydraulic bump stops. Evo reviewed it not long after, now Drive has got hold of it and put Steve Sutcliffe at the wheel, sending him to the Sweet Lamb Rally Center in Wales. The Nomad in this guise also gets a winch and BF Goodrich tires with a rear high-mounted spare. The motor is a US-spec, 2.4-liter Honda unit tuned to 240 horsepower and 235 pound-feet of torque, all going to the rear wheels only. The weight is just 1,477 pounds. For kicks, they sent Northern Irish motocrosser Graeme Irwin along to give Sutcliffe a point of reference. We're used to seeing cars battle bikes, and unless it's wet or the race goes to beyond 200 miles per hour the bike almost always takes it. Irwin was on his Suzuki RMZ-450, a bike with about 60 hp, but that, combined with Irwin's skills, was plenty enough to keep Sutcliffe hard at work. You can watch the dust fly in the video above. Related Video:

Here are a few of our automotive guilty pleasures

It goes without saying, but I'll say it anyway. The world is full of cars, and just about as many of them are bad as are good. It's pretty easy to pick which fall into each category after giving them a thorough walkaround and, more important, driving them. But every once in a while, an automobile straddles the line somehow between good and bad — it may be hideously overpriced and therefore a marketplace failure, it may be stupid quick in a straight line but handles like a drunken noodle, or it may have an interior that looks like it was made of a mess of injection-molded Legos. Heck, maybe all three. Yet there's something special about some bad cars that actually makes them likable. The idea for this list came to me while I was browsing classified ads for cars within a few hundred miles of my house. I ran across a few oddballs and shared them with the rest of the team in our online chat room. It turns out several of us have a few automotive guilty pleasures that we're willing to admit to. We'll call a few of 'em out here. Feel free to share some of your own in the comments below. Dodge Neon SRT4 and Caliber SRT4: The Neon was a passably good and plucky little city car when it debuted for the 1995 model year. The Caliber, which replaced the aging Neon and sought to replace its friendly marketing campaign with something more sinister, was panned from the very outset for its cheap interior furnishings, but at least offered some decent utility with its hatchback shape. What the two little front-wheel-drive Dodge models have in common are their rip-roarin' SRT variants, each powered by turbocharged 2.4-liter four-cylinder engines. Known for their propensity to light up their front tires under hard acceleration, the duo were legitimately quick and fun to drive with a fantastic turbo whoosh that called to mind the early days of turbo technology. — Consumer Editor Jeremy Korzeniewski  Chevrolet HHR SS: Chevy's HHR SS came out early in my automotive journalism career, and I have fond memories of the press launch (and having dinner with Bob Lutz) that included plenty of tire-smoking hard launches and demonstrations of the manual transmission's no-lift shift feature. The 260-horsepower turbocharged four-cylinder was and still is a spunky little engine that makes the retro-inspired HHR a fun little hot rod that works quite well as a fun little daily driver.