Suzuki Fronx review finds a solid performer
After a wave of electric excitement, things aren't looking so swell for the pure battery-powered genre.
Hybrids on the other hand are proving more popular than strawberry sundaes at the Ekka. They account for more than 15 per cent of the total market, while plug-in hybrids are also on the increase.
An ace up the Fronx sleeve is price. Most of the hybrids are pushing into the $40k-plus bracket, whereas the new Suzuki is $30,990 drive-away.
That significantly undercuts the Toyota Corolla Cross GX hybrid ($40,846 drive-away), Hyundai Kona Hybrid ($40,190 drive-away) and even the MG ZS Excite Hybrid+ ($32,990 drive-away).
What do you get?
Given the price it's not surprising there is liberal use of plastics in some areas, but the faux leather seat trim and the shiny dash surfaces raise the ambience.
Other nice kit includes a 9-inch touchscreen, wireless Apple CarPlay and Android Auto, heated front seats, head-up display, keyless start, wireless phone charger, satnav and a four-speaker stereo.
Warranty coverage meets the industry standard of five years and unlimited kilometres,
Servicing costs are at the midpoint of the scale, with the capped-price ranging between $319 and $579 for the first five dealer-service visits.
The total would be $1915 with annual or 15,000km intervals – that sits in the middle ground compared to the Corolla Cross at $1275 and the Kona Hybrid at $2639 on the same schedule.
White is the only external colour which is complimentary. Premium options of grey, blue and black are $690 extra, while the two-tone versions that combine silver, red or orange with black add $1190.
How was the drive?
Buyers of compact hybrids are chasing frugal machines, and the Fronx is miserly when it comes to running costs.
Running on standard unleaded, $20 filled about half of the 37L tank.
Our fuel consumption over a week returned an average of 5.5L/100km with a combination of highway, metropolitan and easy rural drives. That's slightly higher than the official figure from Suzuki.
For comparison, our recent test in the Kona saw 4.6L/100km (3.9 claim), the Corolla Cross managed 4.8L (4.2 claim) and 5.2L/100km in the ZS (4.7 claim).
Quarter-mile records are well and truly safe. The Fronx delivers consistent and reliable performance, just don't expect anything rapid or excitement-inducing. It's conservative in all aspects, but it feels typically Suzuki in terms of solid build and on-road confidence.
Sitting just under 3000rpm at 110km/h, things can get rowdy as you push up into the rev range.
Steep inclines can be challenging and the Fronx requires some right foot motivation to maintain pace – steering wheel-mounted paddles are useful to take manual control of the six-speed automatic gearbox.
The sport button can be a placebo as it holds the gears higher into the rev range and feels anything but athletic.
Like most hybrids, the Fronx does its best work in traffic. Its nimble and compact dimensions make tight carparks a breeze.
The turning circle of less than 10m converts usual three-point turns into U-bolts.
Unlike some of the other hybrids Suzuki employs a 12V mild-hybrid system with a small lithium-ion battery.
So it can't run purely on battery power, the battery acts more as assistant and gains its energy from regeneration via braking and coasting.
Those in the back seat will find reasonable head and leg room for adults, but it best suits two. Three would be a squeeze.
Would you buy one?
Kel: Our test car was in the two-tone with orange … that wouldn't be my first choice. The Fronx was user friendly and our family has had a reliable history with Suzuki courtesy of the Swift. I did feel not a great deal had changed with the Fronx operationally, and the limited boot space meant gear often spilt into the back seat while it also couldn't handle all 10 bags for our weekly grocery shop. I'm looking forward to the new Vitara which is coming soon and more my preferred size.
Grant: Across the key performance indicators the Fronx remained good, but never pushed above and beyond. Some may be tempted to cross-shop it against the cheaper Chery Tiggo 4 or Mahindra XUV 3XO, but they're not hybrids, and Suzuki is a trusted name plate with runs on the board. Anyone chasing a solid performer with low running costs and a solid features list will find the Fronx won't let them down.
Try Our AI Features
Explore what Daily8 AI can do for you:
Comments
No comments yet...
Related Articles
The Advertiser
an hour ago
- The Advertiser
Charge ahead: road taxes may be closer than they appear
Rarely do Australians collectively put up their hands to volunteer for a new tax. But it appears to be happening in the automotive industry, with disparate groups calling for the introduction of a road-user charge for electric vehicles to support the nation's future transport needs. It is a proposal likely to be debated this week at the federal government's productivity roundtable after Treasurer Jim Chalmers signalled his support for future changes. But while infrastructure and transport groups agree on a road-user charge as a concept, they disagree on when it should be introduced, who should pay and whether petrol and diesel vehicle drivers should be charged more. While some argue the fee should only apply to electric vehicles not subject to fuel excise, others say a road-user charge would be more effective if applied to every vehicle. The debate over transport taxes follows record EV sales. Australians purchased more than 29,000 of them in the three months to June, according to the Australian Automobile Association, representing nine per cent of all car sales. It also comes amid falling fuel excise collection, which raised $15.71 billion in the 2024 financial year but could fall to zero by 2050 as electric vehicles replace fuel-powered cars, the Parliamentary Budget Office warns. Urgent changes are needed to address Australia's dwindling tax revenue for roads, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Adrian Dwyer says. Groups attending a roundtable on the issue last Monday widely agreed the current system for charging motorists was "unfair, unsustainable and inefficient," he says. "A distance-based charge on light EVs is the logical starting point," Mr Dwyer says. "Heavy EVs can be included but starting there alone won't address the issues structural to this debate, namely the core issue of fairness as more light EVs join the fleet." But making electric vehicle drivers pay for all lost tax revenue would also be unjust, according to Polestar Australia managing director Scott Maynard. Fuel excise collection has been dropping for many reasons, he says, including more efficient internal combustion engines. "Petrol cars ... have come down and down in their usage of fuel; their economy has improved and it would be unfair to try and recoup all of the targeted fuel excise revenue strictly from electric vehicle drivers," he says. "To simply, in a really ham-fisted way, nail an addition cost to electric vehicles only at a transitional point where we're trying to get people to consider them as a true alternative to traditionally powered vehicles that pollute our air, is not the way to do it." Adding an ongoing charge to electric cars at early stage in their adoption could make potential buyers reconsider or delay purchases, Mr Maynard says. It is a concern shared by the Electric Vehicle Council, legal and policy head Aman Gaur says, which supports the introduction of a road-user charge but at a suitable time and if introduced for all vehicles. "We support fair funding of our roads but I think there's been really important considerations that have been left out of what I would call a pretty shallow debate about fuel excise at the moment," he says. "We would only support a road-user charge if it's universal; universal and focused on emissions intensity." Any road-user charge should apply to all light vehicles, Mr Gaur says, and should only be introduced to electric cars when their adoption hits 30 per cent. Several state governments have floated plans to introduce a road-user charge for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles from 2027, including NSW, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. However the legality of state-based charges is in question after the High Court found Victoria's Zero and Low Emission Vehicles charge unconstitutional in October 2023. The states' timeline for introducing a charge could be appropriate, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones concedes, as the nation's electric fleet is likely to reach 30 per cent of new car sales by that date. A road-user charge should be based on a vehicle's mass and how many kilometres it travels each year, he says, and should apply to all vehicles regardless of their fuel source. "The average person drives 12,000km a year so it would work out to cost about $380 to $400 a year." The government should also leave existing fuel excise charges in place, as they would act as an incentive for motorists to purchase low-emission vehicles. "It's directly proportionate to how much pollution you cause," Dr Jones says. "It's an effective pollution tax and we want to discourage people from buying vehicles that run on petrol." While a road-user charge is likely to be discussed at the Economic Reform Roundtable from Tuesday, Dr Chalmers says the government will "take the time to get this right". In the meantime, Mr Gaur says he hopes the road tax reform debate can be tackled sensibly and suggestions EV drivers do not pay to use roads can be discredited as fees include registration, stamp duty, luxury car and fringe benefits taxes, and taxes on electricity. "EV drivers do pay tax," he says. "That is a really pernicious and completely untrue part of this conversation." Rarely do Australians collectively put up their hands to volunteer for a new tax. But it appears to be happening in the automotive industry, with disparate groups calling for the introduction of a road-user charge for electric vehicles to support the nation's future transport needs. It is a proposal likely to be debated this week at the federal government's productivity roundtable after Treasurer Jim Chalmers signalled his support for future changes. But while infrastructure and transport groups agree on a road-user charge as a concept, they disagree on when it should be introduced, who should pay and whether petrol and diesel vehicle drivers should be charged more. While some argue the fee should only apply to electric vehicles not subject to fuel excise, others say a road-user charge would be more effective if applied to every vehicle. The debate over transport taxes follows record EV sales. Australians purchased more than 29,000 of them in the three months to June, according to the Australian Automobile Association, representing nine per cent of all car sales. It also comes amid falling fuel excise collection, which raised $15.71 billion in the 2024 financial year but could fall to zero by 2050 as electric vehicles replace fuel-powered cars, the Parliamentary Budget Office warns. Urgent changes are needed to address Australia's dwindling tax revenue for roads, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Adrian Dwyer says. Groups attending a roundtable on the issue last Monday widely agreed the current system for charging motorists was "unfair, unsustainable and inefficient," he says. "A distance-based charge on light EVs is the logical starting point," Mr Dwyer says. "Heavy EVs can be included but starting there alone won't address the issues structural to this debate, namely the core issue of fairness as more light EVs join the fleet." But making electric vehicle drivers pay for all lost tax revenue would also be unjust, according to Polestar Australia managing director Scott Maynard. Fuel excise collection has been dropping for many reasons, he says, including more efficient internal combustion engines. "Petrol cars ... have come down and down in their usage of fuel; their economy has improved and it would be unfair to try and recoup all of the targeted fuel excise revenue strictly from electric vehicle drivers," he says. "To simply, in a really ham-fisted way, nail an addition cost to electric vehicles only at a transitional point where we're trying to get people to consider them as a true alternative to traditionally powered vehicles that pollute our air, is not the way to do it." Adding an ongoing charge to electric cars at early stage in their adoption could make potential buyers reconsider or delay purchases, Mr Maynard says. It is a concern shared by the Electric Vehicle Council, legal and policy head Aman Gaur says, which supports the introduction of a road-user charge but at a suitable time and if introduced for all vehicles. "We support fair funding of our roads but I think there's been really important considerations that have been left out of what I would call a pretty shallow debate about fuel excise at the moment," he says. "We would only support a road-user charge if it's universal; universal and focused on emissions intensity." Any road-user charge should apply to all light vehicles, Mr Gaur says, and should only be introduced to electric cars when their adoption hits 30 per cent. Several state governments have floated plans to introduce a road-user charge for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles from 2027, including NSW, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. However the legality of state-based charges is in question after the High Court found Victoria's Zero and Low Emission Vehicles charge unconstitutional in October 2023. The states' timeline for introducing a charge could be appropriate, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones concedes, as the nation's electric fleet is likely to reach 30 per cent of new car sales by that date. A road-user charge should be based on a vehicle's mass and how many kilometres it travels each year, he says, and should apply to all vehicles regardless of their fuel source. "The average person drives 12,000km a year so it would work out to cost about $380 to $400 a year." The government should also leave existing fuel excise charges in place, as they would act as an incentive for motorists to purchase low-emission vehicles. "It's directly proportionate to how much pollution you cause," Dr Jones says. "It's an effective pollution tax and we want to discourage people from buying vehicles that run on petrol." While a road-user charge is likely to be discussed at the Economic Reform Roundtable from Tuesday, Dr Chalmers says the government will "take the time to get this right". In the meantime, Mr Gaur says he hopes the road tax reform debate can be tackled sensibly and suggestions EV drivers do not pay to use roads can be discredited as fees include registration, stamp duty, luxury car and fringe benefits taxes, and taxes on electricity. "EV drivers do pay tax," he says. "That is a really pernicious and completely untrue part of this conversation." Rarely do Australians collectively put up their hands to volunteer for a new tax. But it appears to be happening in the automotive industry, with disparate groups calling for the introduction of a road-user charge for electric vehicles to support the nation's future transport needs. It is a proposal likely to be debated this week at the federal government's productivity roundtable after Treasurer Jim Chalmers signalled his support for future changes. But while infrastructure and transport groups agree on a road-user charge as a concept, they disagree on when it should be introduced, who should pay and whether petrol and diesel vehicle drivers should be charged more. While some argue the fee should only apply to electric vehicles not subject to fuel excise, others say a road-user charge would be more effective if applied to every vehicle. The debate over transport taxes follows record EV sales. Australians purchased more than 29,000 of them in the three months to June, according to the Australian Automobile Association, representing nine per cent of all car sales. It also comes amid falling fuel excise collection, which raised $15.71 billion in the 2024 financial year but could fall to zero by 2050 as electric vehicles replace fuel-powered cars, the Parliamentary Budget Office warns. Urgent changes are needed to address Australia's dwindling tax revenue for roads, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Adrian Dwyer says. Groups attending a roundtable on the issue last Monday widely agreed the current system for charging motorists was "unfair, unsustainable and inefficient," he says. "A distance-based charge on light EVs is the logical starting point," Mr Dwyer says. "Heavy EVs can be included but starting there alone won't address the issues structural to this debate, namely the core issue of fairness as more light EVs join the fleet." But making electric vehicle drivers pay for all lost tax revenue would also be unjust, according to Polestar Australia managing director Scott Maynard. Fuel excise collection has been dropping for many reasons, he says, including more efficient internal combustion engines. "Petrol cars ... have come down and down in their usage of fuel; their economy has improved and it would be unfair to try and recoup all of the targeted fuel excise revenue strictly from electric vehicle drivers," he says. "To simply, in a really ham-fisted way, nail an addition cost to electric vehicles only at a transitional point where we're trying to get people to consider them as a true alternative to traditionally powered vehicles that pollute our air, is not the way to do it." Adding an ongoing charge to electric cars at early stage in their adoption could make potential buyers reconsider or delay purchases, Mr Maynard says. It is a concern shared by the Electric Vehicle Council, legal and policy head Aman Gaur says, which supports the introduction of a road-user charge but at a suitable time and if introduced for all vehicles. "We support fair funding of our roads but I think there's been really important considerations that have been left out of what I would call a pretty shallow debate about fuel excise at the moment," he says. "We would only support a road-user charge if it's universal; universal and focused on emissions intensity." Any road-user charge should apply to all light vehicles, Mr Gaur says, and should only be introduced to electric cars when their adoption hits 30 per cent. Several state governments have floated plans to introduce a road-user charge for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles from 2027, including NSW, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. However the legality of state-based charges is in question after the High Court found Victoria's Zero and Low Emission Vehicles charge unconstitutional in October 2023. The states' timeline for introducing a charge could be appropriate, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones concedes, as the nation's electric fleet is likely to reach 30 per cent of new car sales by that date. A road-user charge should be based on a vehicle's mass and how many kilometres it travels each year, he says, and should apply to all vehicles regardless of their fuel source. "The average person drives 12,000km a year so it would work out to cost about $380 to $400 a year." The government should also leave existing fuel excise charges in place, as they would act as an incentive for motorists to purchase low-emission vehicles. "It's directly proportionate to how much pollution you cause," Dr Jones says. "It's an effective pollution tax and we want to discourage people from buying vehicles that run on petrol." While a road-user charge is likely to be discussed at the Economic Reform Roundtable from Tuesday, Dr Chalmers says the government will "take the time to get this right". In the meantime, Mr Gaur says he hopes the road tax reform debate can be tackled sensibly and suggestions EV drivers do not pay to use roads can be discredited as fees include registration, stamp duty, luxury car and fringe benefits taxes, and taxes on electricity. "EV drivers do pay tax," he says. "That is a really pernicious and completely untrue part of this conversation." Rarely do Australians collectively put up their hands to volunteer for a new tax. But it appears to be happening in the automotive industry, with disparate groups calling for the introduction of a road-user charge for electric vehicles to support the nation's future transport needs. It is a proposal likely to be debated this week at the federal government's productivity roundtable after Treasurer Jim Chalmers signalled his support for future changes. But while infrastructure and transport groups agree on a road-user charge as a concept, they disagree on when it should be introduced, who should pay and whether petrol and diesel vehicle drivers should be charged more. While some argue the fee should only apply to electric vehicles not subject to fuel excise, others say a road-user charge would be more effective if applied to every vehicle. The debate over transport taxes follows record EV sales. Australians purchased more than 29,000 of them in the three months to June, according to the Australian Automobile Association, representing nine per cent of all car sales. It also comes amid falling fuel excise collection, which raised $15.71 billion in the 2024 financial year but could fall to zero by 2050 as electric vehicles replace fuel-powered cars, the Parliamentary Budget Office warns. Urgent changes are needed to address Australia's dwindling tax revenue for roads, Infrastructure Partnerships Australia chief executive Adrian Dwyer says. Groups attending a roundtable on the issue last Monday widely agreed the current system for charging motorists was "unfair, unsustainable and inefficient," he says. "A distance-based charge on light EVs is the logical starting point," Mr Dwyer says. "Heavy EVs can be included but starting there alone won't address the issues structural to this debate, namely the core issue of fairness as more light EVs join the fleet." But making electric vehicle drivers pay for all lost tax revenue would also be unjust, according to Polestar Australia managing director Scott Maynard. Fuel excise collection has been dropping for many reasons, he says, including more efficient internal combustion engines. "Petrol cars ... have come down and down in their usage of fuel; their economy has improved and it would be unfair to try and recoup all of the targeted fuel excise revenue strictly from electric vehicle drivers," he says. "To simply, in a really ham-fisted way, nail an addition cost to electric vehicles only at a transitional point where we're trying to get people to consider them as a true alternative to traditionally powered vehicles that pollute our air, is not the way to do it." Adding an ongoing charge to electric cars at early stage in their adoption could make potential buyers reconsider or delay purchases, Mr Maynard says. It is a concern shared by the Electric Vehicle Council, legal and policy head Aman Gaur says, which supports the introduction of a road-user charge but at a suitable time and if introduced for all vehicles. "We support fair funding of our roads but I think there's been really important considerations that have been left out of what I would call a pretty shallow debate about fuel excise at the moment," he says. "We would only support a road-user charge if it's universal; universal and focused on emissions intensity." Any road-user charge should apply to all light vehicles, Mr Gaur says, and should only be introduced to electric cars when their adoption hits 30 per cent. Several state governments have floated plans to introduce a road-user charge for electric and plug-in hybrid electric vehicles from 2027, including NSW, Tasmania, South Australia and Western Australia. However the legality of state-based charges is in question after the High Court found Victoria's Zero and Low Emission Vehicles charge unconstitutional in October 2023. The states' timeline for introducing a charge could be appropriate, Australian Electric Vehicle Association national president Chris Jones concedes, as the nation's electric fleet is likely to reach 30 per cent of new car sales by that date. A road-user charge should be based on a vehicle's mass and how many kilometres it travels each year, he says, and should apply to all vehicles regardless of their fuel source. "The average person drives 12,000km a year so it would work out to cost about $380 to $400 a year." The government should also leave existing fuel excise charges in place, as they would act as an incentive for motorists to purchase low-emission vehicles. "It's directly proportionate to how much pollution you cause," Dr Jones says. "It's an effective pollution tax and we want to discourage people from buying vehicles that run on petrol." While a road-user charge is likely to be discussed at the Economic Reform Roundtable from Tuesday, Dr Chalmers says the government will "take the time to get this right". In the meantime, Mr Gaur says he hopes the road tax reform debate can be tackled sensibly and suggestions EV drivers do not pay to use roads can be discredited as fees include registration, stamp duty, luxury car and fringe benefits taxes, and taxes on electricity. "EV drivers do pay tax," he says. "That is a really pernicious and completely untrue part of this conversation."
The Age
2 hours ago
- The Age
Yes, my electric car makes me feel morally superior. Even better is burning off at the lights
I had no intention to get an electric car quite so soon. For one, I already had a crappy car with a few more years before it would die. In this economy, you have to run cars into the very ground. But then a group of thoughtful hooligans broke into my house, stole my wallet and keys and nicked the car. Then they drove to Dandenong, where they bought $100 worth of Maccas, tried to outrun the cops in my shitbox and dumped it in an industrial estate. After some enjoyable repartee with my insurance company (involving a weaponised one-star review), I was left with a modest sum and no car. After lurking at car auction sites for a while, I came across a little-used EV. So I bought it. It was quite nice not farting out planet-warming gases as I drove, but it was absolutely less exciting than I had hoped. But what I hadn't expected was the little Scrooge-like thrill of passing yet another petrol station without needing to stop. Another $80 saved, I would crow to any unlucky child of mine stuck in the car with me. And when I figured out how to charge the car at home off my own solar, my excitement was downright embarrassing. For a man in his 40s, this was heady stuff. I felt a bit like how I imagine engineers feel every day, just floating along knowing how things actually work and how to coax the most out of the system (FYI real engineers: no need to destroy my precious illusion). Then there was the thrill of flogging a Ford Ranger at the lights. They wouldn't know about it, of course – not like I could glance over and rev my non-existent combustion engine. But it turns out, zipping ahead of the pack in a wholly unremarkable sedan is catnip for suburban dads. So far, so good. But where was everyone else? Then I came across figures that stunned me: almost 90 per cent of Australians were still buying new cars powered by petrol, diesel or gas. It made sense for people to keep using their old cars as long as possible (see: the economy). But buying new combustion engine cars with a 30-year lifespan? In the year 2025? Loading Just a quick recap: climate change is bad and getting worse and worse. Almost everyone tells people who do the surveys they're worried about what climate change means for them and their children. And almost everyone who buys a new car chooses the ones that fart out the stuff making the problem worse. One little silver lining about spending decades dragging our feet on climate action is that it's now very easy to see why it's not a great idea to make the planet hotter and hotter. Object lessons abound. That's weird – Canada is on fire again. Did that used to happen so often? And why is Europe burning? Oh good, it's 43 degrees in France. Why is an algal bloom killing marine life in the seas off Adelaide? How odd. Someone should really look into that – there might be some underlying trend.
Sydney Morning Herald
2 hours ago
- Sydney Morning Herald
Yes, my electric car makes me feel morally superior. Even better is burning off at the lights
I had no intention to get an electric car quite so soon. For one, I already had a crappy car with a few more years before it would die. In this economy, you have to run cars into the very ground. But then a group of thoughtful hooligans broke into my house, stole my wallet and keys and nicked the car. Then they drove to Dandenong, where they bought $100 worth of Maccas, tried to outrun the cops in my shitbox and dumped it in an industrial estate. After some enjoyable repartee with my insurance company (involving a weaponised one-star review), I was left with a modest sum and no car. After lurking at car auction sites for a while, I came across a little-used EV. So I bought it. It was quite nice not farting out planet-warming gases as I drove, but it was absolutely less exciting than I had hoped. But what I hadn't expected was the little Scrooge-like thrill of passing yet another petrol station without needing to stop. Another $80 saved, I would crow to any unlucky child of mine stuck in the car with me. And when I figured out how to charge the car at home off my own solar, my excitement was downright embarrassing. For a man in his 40s, this was heady stuff. I felt a bit like how I imagine engineers feel every day, just floating along knowing how things actually work and how to coax the most out of the system (FYI real engineers: no need to destroy my precious illusion). Then there was the thrill of flogging a Ford Ranger at the lights. They wouldn't know about it, of course – not like I could glance over and rev my non-existent combustion engine. But it turns out, zipping ahead of the pack in a wholly unremarkable sedan is catnip for suburban dads. So far, so good. But where was everyone else? Then I came across figures that stunned me: almost 90 per cent of Australians were still buying new cars powered by petrol, diesel or gas. It made sense for people to keep using their old cars as long as possible (see: the economy). But buying new combustion engine cars with a 30-year lifespan? In the year 2025? Loading Just a quick recap: climate change is bad and getting worse and worse. Almost everyone tells people who do the surveys they're worried about what climate change means for them and their children. And almost everyone who buys a new car chooses the ones that fart out the stuff making the problem worse. One little silver lining about spending decades dragging our feet on climate action is that it's now very easy to see why it's not a great idea to make the planet hotter and hotter. Object lessons abound. That's weird – Canada is on fire again. Did that used to happen so often? And why is Europe burning? Oh good, it's 43 degrees in France. Why is an algal bloom killing marine life in the seas off Adelaide? How odd. Someone should really look into that – there might be some underlying trend.
