Suzuki Aerio
Some time ago, a co-worker mentioned to me that Car Lust, while intermittently entertaining, isn't particularly useful in helping everyday drivers find good, inexpensive modern cars. I nearly recoiled in shock. After all, the Fiat X1/9 and AMC Eagle are perfect cars for today's families.
Of course, he's right. I drone on a great deal about old cars and expensive new cars, but of the recent crop of inexpensive cars only the Kia Spectra5 has received any love--and that was tepid love at best. "Well, fair enough," I told my co-worker. "How about the Suzuki Aerio?" At this point, he gave me a look of sickened disbelief and walked rapidly in the other direction. I get that a lot.
Nobody who has paid attention to this blog in the last 18 months should be at all surprised that I like the Aerio. It's an inexpensive and useful family hauler, and the very characteristics that caused it to fizzle in the American market cause me to love it. America hates hatchbacks; I love them, and if they are hunchbacked, all-wheel-drive, and quirky, so much the better.
The Aerio fits that description perfectly. Budget-priced, but with king-sized passenger accommodations, a tall 5-door hatchback wagon body, and seats that fold away to make room for massive amounts of cargo, the Aerio is hugely commodious. Combine that space with available all-wheel-drive, and you have perhaps the most useful and versatile car available at its price point.
The Aerio fits the hunchbacked and quirky descriptors even better. Suzuki eschewed almost all form in favor of function. The Aerio is tall and blocky with a long rear overhang--not attractive, but efficient. You flashy hard-partyers with your stylish Ford Foci and Toyota Matrices, go ahead and enjoy your rakish rooflines--the Aerio will be there the morning after when you need to move a couch.
As a result, the Aerio is big, bloated, slab-sided, and oddly lumpy. Its detailing is also rather strange. A hatchback spoiler? Really? This isn't a tuner car--a point driven home by the Aerio's comically small wheels.
The interior is even weirder. A pregnant center stack rests next to the driver's instrument display, which peeks through a weirdly angled gash in the dashboard. It's less an instrument panel than a mutilation--it is as if a psychopath attacked the dashboard with a hunting knife. The instruments peeking through that rent are digital, of course--the flashiest, most space-age digital instrumentation I've seen since 1985. It all adds up to one of the strangest packages available in today's conservative, focus-group-driven automotive market.
I loved the Aerio from the first moment I set eyes on it. Most economy cars play it safe, but the Aerio is like the love child of a Citroen CX and a Subaru XT, or perhaps a Renault Espace and a Japanese Kei car. It might not be a great car, but it's simple, cheap, incredibly useful, and--crucially--interesting.
When my wife and I were car-shopping for a family-friendly new car a few years ago, I test-drove an Aerio.* Not surprisingly, the Aerio was a bit odd to drive. It had decent power, but it wasn't fast. It was direct but didn't handle well. And the seating position was a bit like an M.C. Escher work--no matter how far I moved up, the dashboard and steering wheel just got farther away. I'm powerless to explain it. Somehow the driving experience was strange yet also completely unremarkable. I was sure about one thing, though--the Aerio has very little to offer to the driving enthusiast who enjoys driving at the limit. The Aerio just doesn't like to boogie.
We didn't buy the Aerio--my wife was completely immune to its charms, and the Accord was a much smarter buy--but I will keep an eye out for Aerios in a few years once used examples drop into the ideal beater price range. The Aerio has the size, utility, and willingness to be abused that should make it an absolutely fantastic beater. As such, I think the Aerio is the Dodge Colt Vista 4X4 of our generation--high praise from me.
Unfortunately, the Aerio has been discontinued, replaced by the Suzuki SX4--another five-door hatch, but one that bills itself as a "crossover" and is entirely too conventional. Booooring.
* (The other contestants in this, perhaps the most mismatched and irrational new-car cross-shop ever, were the Toyota Prius, the Dodge Magnum Hemi, the Subaru Forester XT, and the Subaru WRX--and we wound up buying our used Honda Accord.)
The commericals below range from the unintentionally hilarious, to the disturbing, to the ... well, more disturbing.
The first tries really hard to paint the Aerio as a racy little compact sportster. Um, no. Although I did enjoy the purposeful shift (0:08), the trip into the engine's combustion chamber (0:15), and the implication that the Aerio is so fast that it trails its own shockwave through the city, just like a nuclear explosion or the aftershock from the alien weapon in the movie Independence Day. The shockwave bears a slight resemblance to the "turbo wave" in the Renault Fuego commercial--another attempt to make a lumpy slow car look fast.
It's as if the ad agency, frustrated with trying to promote this ugly duckling to the superficial American motoring public, got frustrated and took the ad as far over the top as they could. The only sporty commercial cliche missing here is a weirdly-lit moonscape.
The Spanish-language ads that follow play up the pride of ownership to absurd levels; they are funny, but range from a bit off to abjectly disgusting. The weirdest is the one that hints at Car Lust gone too far--even I don't like the Aerio that much. Watch at your own risk.
The first two images come from Cars 2 Go; if you're in Clearwater, Fla., and would like to rent an Aerio, you're in luck! The interior image is a press photo. The two pretty shots that follow are from Flickr users SilkenRaven and buddhaden, respectively.
--Chris H.
Steaming Pile on January 05, 2009 at 10:13 AM
I have no idea why Americans hate hatchbacks. They like SUVs (or were told by the manufacturers' marketing people that they like them), and those are just hatchbacks mounted on pickup truck frames, so there really isn't any logical explanation for this at all.
As for crossovers, I almost hate them more than I hate SUVs. They're bloated, they're silly-looking, and they exist only to assuage the guilt people would ordinarily feel when buying today's latest petroleum-wasting status symbol. The only reason they exist is because manufacturers get to classify them as light trucks instead of cars, thus getting considerable leeway with the EPA. I eagerly await the day when the Obama administration's EPA puts an end to this and says, "if it has a back seat, it's a car, even if it looks like a truck."
Now this particular hatchback isn't as cool as my Scion xA, which is a discontinued hatchback that somebody really needs to give the Car Lust treatment. Maybe I'll submit something. Finally. When I get around to it.
Anthony Cagle on January 05, 2009 at 10:44 AM
It's harder for those of us out here in the farfreluches to really know anything about newer cars since we've gotten most of our Car Lusts from long experience either owning them or seeing how they've aged over the years.
I feel a little uncomfortable writing about something that someone might use to actually buy something that requires a substantial investment (although I suppose one could argue that singing the praises of some old thing that would require a substantial time and monetary commitment to own and operate is similar; then again, I wrote a post making that part pretty clear!).
I was going to say there's a wealth of magazines and online sites you can go to get tons of information on cars of recent vintage, but I guess there's something to be said for looking past the numbers and seeing what a bunch of us "real people" think of some modern ones.
I dunno. I alternately loathe and love my Mustang II hatchback. I love it when I need to haul something, but that's fairly rare. I generally prefer trunks for the security and keeping cargo separate from passengers. Interestingly, the M-IIs were mostly developed as hatch-only models but when they conducted focus groups they always ended up having about half the people prefer trunks, so they'd make a notchback. I think it was similar with the earlier Mustangs as well.
David Colborne on January 05, 2009 at 11:21 AM
Hey, I like the SX4! Don't let the "crossover" badge fool you - it's about as much of a "crossover" as a Legacy Outback wagon. The one knock I'll give on it is that it's incredibly tightly geared - think 75 at about 4,000 RPM or thereabouts in 5th. Very strange.
As for the Aerio... I don't know. I see where you're going with it - it does look practical, if nothing else. I just can't get over that rear end. It's not the shape, mind you, that I have a problem with; it's that wonky plastic in the back. It just makes it look a little too much like a toy for my taste.
That Car Guy on January 05, 2009 at 11:32 AM
Folks, please forgive me for this, but I have to say that I feel there is too much upright sheet metal above the back bumper for this to be called a hatchback... there is no fastback here. IMHHO, it's a station wagon. Still a great vehicle, and I like hatchbacks (I'm looking at a GTI right now), but there's a point where a hatchback becomes a wagon, and I think this car has crossed that barrier.
As far as crossovers, we have a 2003 Mazda Tribute that is (A) Classified as a "Farm Utility Vehicle" by State Farm, and (B) We have to have it emissions-inspected every year as a car here in the Nashville area. It drives like a sports car and still shuttles the trash to the dump. A very versatile vehicle - comfy as a car, but useful as a hauler as well. It def has some "Zoom-Zoom, gets 25 mpg on the interstate at 70, and handles very well. If and when I have to have only one vehicle, something like this would be my choice.
Steaming Pile on January 05, 2009 at 11:44 AM
Here's an interesting article in this morning's Salon about crossovers: http://www.salon.com/news/feature/2009/01/05/suv/
djkenny on January 05, 2009 at 11:56 AM
I drove an Aerio and liked the ride quality. It was also pretty quiet. The materials were a little dark inside, but appeared sturdy and well put together. Gas mileage seems Meh for this segment. I dug the digital dash as it reminded me of the one in my parent's 87 Mazda 626 touring sedan (that was imprecise most of the time).
What I cannot get over with most modern vehicles is the dashboards being so lofty. I do not like not being to see the front of my car and having this monster panel. Whether it is the way crazy dash in the Beetle or over 1/2 the cars on the market. I feel like I am in the center of a room with a steering wheel.
Mochi Mochi on January 05, 2009 at 12:55 PM
I really dig the aerio. Soon as i saw it i was happy - a funky odd looking little hatch - with that formula it does not take too much to make me happy. I specifically liked it because it did not look serious and it did not look like anything else that was rolling off the show room floor at the time. I still like it.
All that said i never knew if it would be the right car for me, but that did not matter, there were others that i felt i could coax into ownership, and they would let me drive it. My biggest concern was the overall appearance of a high center of gravity. not exactly as low to the ground or as wide tracked as i would want for myself. But spacious and funny looking.
AND IT'S A HATCHBACK!
I have tried to understand what it is about the american buying public that causes them to snub hatches. it makes no sense. this morning as i ponder the question yet again i find myself wondering if it has to do with practicality or a vague reference to station wagons. You notice you don't see a lot of station wagons on the roads either. There was a time when that was not true. And the image of an american wagon with fake wood side panels may have left some kind of scar on the american psyche.
It's also possible that practicality is the problem. let's think of it this way. "Luxury" seems to be something that people aspire to - many people - but not me. If you aspire to luxury then you want a luxury car. A luxury car puts luxury and status above all. Hence practicality is anathema to the luxury car, because you don't want your luxury tainted by practicality - no need to be reminded of the working-class cars on the road. Luxury often has an element of waste or mindless disregard for actual need. It's like the times in western society when having a tan was seen as "working class" because only ditch diggers and farmers got them, pale skin was seen as something that high class folk had. Now it's reversed and having a tan means that you have the means to vacation and enjoy that "healthy glow" - money enough so you can work on your tan.
Status. Aspiration. Luxury. Class issues. All these things get tied up in cars - and car purchases. I'd really like to know which are the elements that cause people to eschew hatches. But more importantly i would really like the hatch-back to make a come-back. I'd love it if something could be done to make luxury-loving-classist-hatch-haters lighten up and stop influencing what gets imported or sold in this country. Honda sporadically reintroduces hatches, then pulls the plug - over and over again.
Sedans can be great - but hatches due to their rarity are inherently more interesting. I don't care if its a station wagon - those are great too. I don't even care if they are cross-overs. If it's a hatch i'm happy. I've spent some time with a friend's Matrix - that thing may not be the greatest car on the road but it has enormous cargo capacity and it's a good ride. The Scion Xa was a completely awesome little hatch. I think this anti-hatch thing is something that falls outside of the realm of reason - there's some base level social prejudice at work.
Anthony Cagle on January 05, 2009 at 01:44 PM
I think we mostly just have a wider range of choices, with hatchbacks making up a chunk of it. We have minivans and full-size vans for passenger and cargo capacity, pickups for pure cargo and load hauling (which probably takes up a large part of the possible hatchback niche), station wagons for smaller people and cargo loads, etc.
There's probably some social thing going on, but then you can just as well wonder why other people are so enthused about them.
That Car Guy on January 05, 2009 at 01:48 PM
I hope ya'll did not have to drive in the 1970s and early 80s. Then, we were sold some of the worst cars ever to travel the roads of our country. Cars like the Vega, Pinto, Gremlin, X-Cars, and Chevette were everywhere... and nearly all of these were hatchbacks. The Vega LX was an attempt at a small luxury car, and it was a notchback with an enclosed trunk. The pseudo-luxury Mustang II Ghia was also only offered with a trunk.
Hatchbacks were noisier than sedans (I'm calling a sedan here anything with a trunk) partly because the rear tires generated nearly-unfiltered road noise booming around in the load area and entering the passenger compartment unchecked, and the hatches themselves would rattle in their enclosures. They leaked. Radios became almost useless. These cars were rubbish!
So since most entry-level, shabbily-built cars then were hatchbacks, the style became associated with being cheap. I can't remember any premium brand at that time offering a hatchback. Today's hatches are vastly superior to those of yore, and my fave body style is a hatch with a hard cover to filter out at least some of the noise, but easily removable for cargo hauling... the best of both worlds!
I love wagons, too... where would we be without the Griswolds' Auto Queen Family Truckster? Look what a purpose it served after the demise of Aunt Edna. And again, today's wagons are far superior to earlier ones, especially in build quality.
Long live the hatchback! But please, just build it right!
Mochi Mochi on January 05, 2009 at 02:33 PM
The ad with the shotgun is my favorite.
TCG - a crappy car is a crappy car - hatch or sedan. I think you're right about there being a lot of entry level hatches that were crap... but most of those were more recent imports - GM pulling in seriously cheapo cars from questionable foreign manufacturers.
BUT... there have also been good hatches for quite a long time. The rabbit/golf was and is a great car and did establish a high point for hatchbacks. The civic in it's first generations were tiny but still great little cars. I remember being surprised at how small the 72 civic was, but it was an awesome little car. Certainly later editions of the civic established how great a hatch can be. And maybe that's something that influenced people to think of hatches as economy cars or non-luxury cars.
I'm guessing that sedans are as prevalent as they are because people think of sedans in an iconic sort of way when they think of a car. So people are pre-disposed to think of sedan as car. Or they are pitched the SUV (or the SUV-lite) as the object they should own.
Cookie the Dog's Owner on January 05, 2009 at 02:44 PM
I don't know that there's all that much disfavor toward hatchbacks. I see a lot of Fits and Mazda3s and Yarises and Matrices and Priusses and the occasional Rabbit as I'm driving my GTI to work.
Anthony Cagle on January 05, 2009 at 03:21 PM
The Wikipedia entry on hatchbacks suggested that we in the US were introduced to them as the cheapie small entry-level things in the 1970s and that view of them sort of stuck. I tend to think of them as either entry level or for singles or maybe small urban families.
Lot of it seems like arm chair hypothesizing though. I'd be interested to hear what any actual auto marketers have to say.
Rob the SVX guy on January 05, 2009 at 04:05 PM
Nice Chris! I like these things too, though I can't help but think of Anime when I see them. I think I'd be playing obnoxious japanese techno music while driving this thing if I ever had one.
Mochi Mochi on January 05, 2009 at 04:07 PM
I think things are changing. The newer breeds of hatches are doing better - mazda and the gti as good examples. But it's clear that the history is mixed. The more i think about it, i think that lack of familiarity part of the equation. Hatches are much more accepted in other parts of the world - they are more the standard rather than the exception. Probably due to the fact that they are the most practical format for a small car that delivers good gas mileage. One does not tend to see large car hatchbacks... except in SUV form as pointed out above. Japanese and European drivers overwhelmingly drive small cars. The US has been a large car country for decades. So people are going to go with what's familiar and/or what's big.
Every time honda has pulled a hatchback it is for the stated reason that they are not selling as well as the sedans or the coupes. Scion pulled the Xa and replaced it with a car that is more SUV like, bigger, and with terrible visibility, then hyped it as a car for trend setters. The Xa was smaller, cooler, and had better visibility.
I think mazda and VW have carved out performance markets that feed the need for hatches - and have captured the imagination of people who would buy a civic hatch if they could. yes I'm talking about myself here. I would buy either of those if i were in the market for a new car. The Fit is like a small version of the Matrix - and is very much positioned like the Squareback was in the 70s.
Shawn on January 05, 2009 at 04:09 PM
Back to the Aerio, the "weirdly angled gash in the dashboard" instrument panel was designed to be perfectly symmetrical with the passenger side, for easy Worldwide steering placement. It's still awkward, though.
I think Americans won't take hatches seriously partially because they seem to come in clown car colors like the yellow Aerio above. It makes a somewhat unusual design look even more jarring. Just because you are young and on a budget doesn't mean you can't have a sophisticated paintjob.
Semi-premium hatches existed even in the 1970's - just look at the Saab 99/900 series, Volvo P1800 Sportwagon, and perhaps even the Lancia Beta HPE.
Mochi Mochi on January 05, 2009 at 05:12 PM
mmmm... Lancia Beta HPE... me like. thanks for making me dream Shawn.
...m... on January 05, 2009 at 07:21 PM
...that car guy nailed it - economy hatchbacks were introduced in the seventies as a bottom-market alternative to full-sized cars in the face of a crippling fuel crisis, their hatches a cheap space-saving trick in lieu of properly separate back seats and trunks...in an era when real station wagons had not yet aquired their full stigma of domestic surrender, inexpensive hatchbacks were positioned as the automotive equivalent of paper plates to the sit-down meals of big detroit iron, and that niggardly tawdry stigma stayed with them really until the SUV arms race killed off the subcompact market entirely by the mid-nineties...
...i think hatchbacks have made a genuine comeback this decade, though: it took a generation removed from first and secondhand experiences with the notorious hatches of yore to come of age with a fresh automotive palate and appreciate modern hatchbacks for the straightforward design they offer...
...similarly, i think station wagons have made a huge comeback recently as well, albeit in drag as crossover vehicles...now if only america's most popular car, the pickup truck, can make the transition to a small lightweight economy form-factor, our collective recovery from the last decade's road tank apocalypse will be complete...
Rob the SVX Guy on January 05, 2009 at 09:05 PM
That Car Guy, your SUV does not handle like a sports car. Sorry. It just isn't the same thing at all.
That Car Guy on January 05, 2009 at 09:15 PM
The Tribute is built on Mazda 3 architecture. I also have another car: http://www.carlustblog.com/2008/11/mazda-miata.html
That Car Guy on January 05, 2009 at 09:31 PM
...er, make that the Protege architecture.
Rob the SVX guy on January 06, 2009 at 05:10 AM
And? It's still a large chunk of mass up in the air with tall sidewalls.
Mikey on January 06, 2009 at 05:14 AM
I'm with David on the SX4... I like it. In fact, I bought one. The hatchback, of course. I AM a Car Lust reader!
It has lots of room for its size, has AWD (I like that up here in Canada!) and has a really solid, well-put-together feel. It may lack the quirky quotient of the Aerio, but it also - thankfully! - lacks that gawdawful hideous back end. I've had it for a year and a half, put up 58000 km (36000 miles) and had an absolutely great ownership experience.
If the Aerio's anywhere near as good, I can see how you might grow to love it - nasty hatch and all.
David Colborne on January 06, 2009 at 11:03 AM
Interestingly, Wikipedia's article on hatchbacks lists the Dodge Shadow, which was my first actual (non-parental owned) car. Technically, it was a hatchback, with a fold down rear seat and a little cloth lid that fit between the back seat and the "hatch", but only just. Thankfully, due to that fold-down back seat, I was able to fit a full dorm room's worth of stuff in there, which was incredibly handy. Of course, the rear end would be dragging and its already mediocre steering would get orders of magnitude worse, but, hey, what did I expect?
I miss that car.
Chris Hafner on January 06, 2009 at 11:48 AM
Anthony Cagle: "I was going to say there's a wealth of magazines and online sites you can go to get tons of information on cars of recent vintage, but I guess there's something to be said for looking past the numbers and seeing what a bunch of us "real people" think of some modern ones."
Yeah, I'm happy to talk about new cars when they're interesting, but this blog is emphatically not a new-car buyer's guide. If anybody is looking for a new car and buys it on our recommendation, they're nuts!
That Car Guy: "Folks, please forgive me for this, but I have to say that I feel there is too much upright sheet metal above the back bumper for this to be called a hatchback... there is no fastback here. IMHHO, it's a station wagon. Still a great vehicle, and I like hatchbacks (I'm looking at a GTI right now), but there's a point where a hatchback becomes a wagon, and I think this car has crossed that barrier."
I can see this - but it seems too tall to be a bona fide station wagon. If the Mazda 5 could be called a mini-minivan, perhaps the Aerio is a mini-mini-minivan? In a way it's like the Colt Vista and the Nissan Axxess and the other breadvan-like economy cars of the early 1990s.
Mochi Mochi: "I have tried to understand what it is about the american buying public that causes them to snub hatches. ... A luxury car puts luxury and status above all. Hence practicality is anathema to the luxury car, because you don't want your luxury tainted by practicality."
I think this is pretty insightful, Mochi. And to your tan/pale comparison, I would add the thin/chunky comparison. Hundreds of years ago, when it was difficult to get enough food, large people were considered attractive - very curvy women were featured in paintings, and big men were considered powerful. Now that food is abundant and it takes more money to buy healthy food and to have time to work out, thin is in.
It's all about scarcity. It was harder then to be large, so it was preferred. It's harder now to be slim, so that's preferred.
I think you're right that usefulness has hurt the cause of hatchbacks. They will always be around on economy cars because in that class there will always be practical buyers. But even for those cars, and any higher class, hatches are a tougher sell because they seem more plebeian. This is why the Porsche Panamerica surprised and impressed me so much.
It's the same thing with station wagons, minivans, and, now, SUVs. Station wagons became associated with boring practicality, which led to their drivers being stereotyped as boring family types. So in come minivans, which are fantastic at that job - the stereotype shifted over. In stepped SUVs, which were close but not quite as good at the job as minivans. Now even SUVs are getting the "soccer mom" stigma.
Hatches are becoming more common again, which is great.
John Hawkins on January 06, 2009 at 06:09 PM
Mochi Mochi, I don't get the anti-hatch thing either, but then in my auto-dementia, I always look back to the first real hatch back: the Aston-Martin DB2/4 of 1955, very tasty, particularly in Vantage spec, although I like the later Mark III better. Other hatches: Aston DB-4, 5, & 6, Jaguar E-Type, MGB-GT, and Triumph GT-6. It was the British answer to the fastback body style, and seems to have had an affinity for the proper grand touring car. Except for the Lancia Beta HPE, I can't think of an Italian example from the era; they liked little trunks out at the back beyond the glass. When one's first association with hatchback is the Aston-Martin, is it any surprise that my first new car was a Saab 900 hatchback? Of course I had lots of miles in my father's 81 900 Turbo behind me, five-door hatch, great car! I have a B-GT slowing crawling back together, so I am with you on the barricades for the Hatchback. And I wouldn't say no to a clean 65 E-type either!