GTP Cool Wall: 1999-2002 Suzuki Carry 660 Turbo

[Dennisch]

Man. I wished they would bring those tiny turbo engines here.
660cc turbo. I would be smiling every day driving it.

It isn't cool. But neither am I.

 

[Major_Arcana]

It has a face that says Kill me now - uncool.

 

[VXR]

Scraping the barrel for the cool wall.

It has no pretensions, it provides a function. You could be selling vinyl records from the back of it, but the person would be cool, not the vehicle.

Meh.

 

[C_Raccoon23]

Scraping the barrel for the cool wall.

It has no pretensions, it provides a function. You could be selling vinyl records from the back of it, but the person would be cool, not the vehicle.

Meh.

I found out about the Carry through Tokyo Xtreme Racer Drift 2, which is the only racing game where you can drive it. I would expect something like this to be in Gran Turismo first before anything else.

Suzuki_Carry

• C_Raccoon23
• Feb 11, 2017

The fact that it's a mid-engine truck made me interested in it, which is why I picked it for the cool wall.

 

[Cowboy]

I love it. I have a thing for trucks like this, regardless if other people dislike it.

SZ

 

[CSLACR]

Around half of the "normal cars" sold in Japan also fit into kei-car regulations, just like this truck.

And inevitably there are things you'd want to carry when running a business that you wouldn't want messing up the back seats or the luggage area: hence vans and pickups.

"Most things". Like what? I doubt people down narrow Japanese side streets have much use for say, large quantities of lumber, or the ability to tow a speedboat. They may have use for small vans delivering local goods however.

I'm abundantly aware you don't care. That doesn't mean it isn't useful.

Just as well your world isn't urban Japan then, isn't it?

You are allowed to have opinions like that, but opinions are only worth listening to when they're based on knowledge.

All this banter about how great it really is, and you've never answered the question that ruffled your feathers in the first place.
Hm. Guess that answers that.

Afterwards over drinks we can discuss the amazing usefulness of U.S. mail trucks.
Actually, we can discuss if the "carry" can actually carry said plant and chickens up a Japanese mountain or not

 

[homeforsummer]

All this banter about how great it really is, and you've never answered the question that ruffled your feathers in the first place.
Hm. Guess that answers that.

Oh dang, you got me good!

Oh wait, you're being serious? Okay - the Carry van has a 550kg payload and the pickup's is 575kg (as far as I can see - finding figures for a small van sold on the other side of the world isn't as easy as it seems). That's how much a Carry can carry.

Now answer mine:

Why would giving it more power make it more useful?

 

[TB]

Lightweight, 4WD, tiny engine. I would drive the hell out of it.

Cool.

 

[CSLACR]

Oh dang, you got me good!

Oh wait, you're being serious? Okay - the Carry van has a 550kg payload and the pickup's is 575kg (as far as I can see - finding figures for a small van sold on the other side of the world isn't as easy as it seems). That's how much a Carry can carry.

Now answer mine:

First off, thank you. I appreciate when people answer questions rather than go off into semantic banter avoiding said question.
A 1,200lb payload is honestly impressive, but I'm not convinced 63hp can move 1125kg very effectively.
Something as simple as 80-100hp would make this truck heaps better imo.

Granted it may be great at hauling dirty messes that aren't heavy or large through small areas, adding 20hp wouldn't make it any less effective there.
It would however, make it more effective up hills or mountains, or for someone in the slightest bit of a hurry.

 

[ToyGTone]

If someone asked me what's the first thing pops out in my mind when i think of Suzuki, it would be ether this or the Suzuki APV. It's just a labor work truck that does it job and nothing more.

Uncool.

On the plus side, at least it used for what it's build for unlike some pick up owners i met who use them for show off *coughs* Chevy Silverado and it's GMC twin brother.

 

[axletramp]

There's no way you couldn't smile every time you drove it. Cool.

 

[Beeblebrox237]

I'm not convinced 63hp can move 1125kg very effectively.

I suspect you haven't driven many cars with that sort of power, no? Well, it's not the perfect analogue, but I'll use my Yaris as an example. 68 bhp, 70 lb-ft of torque, and a kerb weight of 850 kilos. I'm 90, and my colleagues were roughly 75, 105, 55, and 65. That comes to 390 kilos of people on board. Add those two figures and you get a total weight of 1240 kg, and do you know what? It was slow. But, and this is crucial, it never felt too slow to keep up with traffic or to tackle hills, even when in the reduced power cold engine mode, or while on the motorway.

 

[CarBastard]

As much as I love anything Suzuki, it's not a cool car. It's a commercial vehicle, you'll look like a low-wage delivery driver driving it around town. Seems fun to drive though and I'd absolutely rock one, but it's seriously uncool.

I suspect you haven't driven many cars with that sort of power, no? Well, it's not the perfect analogue, but I'll use my Yaris as an example. 68 bhp, 70 lb-ft of torque, and a kerb weight of 850 kilos. I'm 90, and my colleagues were roughly 75, 105, 55, and 65. That comes to 390 kilos of people on board. Add those two figures and you get a total weight of 1240 kg, and do you know what? It was slow. But, and this is crucial, it never felt too slow to keep up with traffic or to tackle hills, even when in the reduced power cold engine mode, or while on the motorway.

Can confirm. I've driven an 80hp car through the Andes with a full load of people and I'm still able to tackle steep hills or keep up with traffic. Realistically, it's a 35-40 fwhp car, considering the loss of power due to the altitude, weighing close to 1000kg and with 5 adults between 50 and 80 kgs each. Adding power wouldn't help much, the reasons why the little Fiat I'm talking about can do what it does is it's relatively high low-range torque, a very short ratio gearbox and a relatively low weight. That's what you need in an urban transport, regardless of what you're transporting.

Seems like the items could fit into a normal car.
Most things so large that you need a truck for are heavy, something this vehicle would have difficulty with.

If your arguing it's usefulness in Japan, I don't care.
It's useless and stupid in my world. I know Im not allowed to have opinions like that, but I do anyway.

You are allowed to have such opinions. Likewise, we're allowed to mock you and retort to your drivel with proper arguments. The Carry is a tool perfectly suited for a specific task in a specific world. For those of us with enough brains to think about more than a world at once, it makes perfect sense and it's as useful as it's brilliant. That said, I'm not claiming it's anything other than Seriously Uncool, but saying it's "useless and stupid" just because you can't understand it?

 

[TexRex]

relatively high low-range torque, a very short ratio gearbox and a relatively low weight

Those who make a blanket "needs more power" statement rarely consider how a vehicle makes or uses the power that it has.

I had a Beetle convertible with a standard 40-horse engine, however I've no doubt that a few of those horses ended up being made into dogfood. Sure it weighed quite a bit less than 1125kg--probably more like 750--but it had no trouble running on the freeway with a .82 4th (commonly referred to as a "freeway flyer" gear) instead of the standard .89. And that's a with a top that neither opened nor closed completely.

 

[CSLACR]

I suspect you haven't driven many cars with that sort of power, no? Well, it's not the perfect analogue, but I'll use my Yaris as an example. 68 bhp, 70 lb-ft of torque, and a kerb weight of 850 kilos. I'm 90, and my colleagues were roughly 75, 105, 55, and 65. That comes to 390 kilos of people on board. Add those two figures and you get a total weight of 1240 kg, and do you know what? It was slow. But, and this is crucial, it never felt too slow to keep up with traffic or to tackle hills, even when in the reduced power cold engine mode, or while on the motorway.

The slowest drivers on the road usually don't feel they are having a hard time keeping up with traffic, nor do they typically think they're holding people up.
If you're trying to tell me it succesfully puttered and plodded along, simply completing the trip, that's one thing. If you're saying the speed limits were so low it didn't have to exceed 30mph, or by "hills" you mean miniscule elevation changes, that's fine.

But if you're saying it can maintain the speed limit outside of perfect parameters, I don't believe you.
It can maintain speed if the conditions fit, and only then.

 

[Wolfe]

...If you're saying the speed limits were so low it didn't have to exceed 30mph, or by "hills" you mean miniscule elevation changes, that's fine.

But if you're saying it can maintain the speed limit outside of perfect parameters, I don't believe you.
It can maintain speed if the conditions fit, and only then.

You just don't know. I drove a car slower than @Beeblebrox237's Yaris through the Appalachian Mountains with two other guys on board and a hatch full of luggage. At one point on a steep uphill slope at high elevation, it struggled in 2nd gear -- one time. It was slow but not holding up anyone. We were speeding most of the whole trip.

It cruised at 80mph without wheezing or anything. It just took a little longer to get there; not ages. We may or may not have topped 100mph on one stretch...

You really don't need very much horsepower to get around. More power is only quicker (duh), that's all.

 

[homeforsummer]

First off, thank you. I appreciate when people answer questions rather than go off into semantic banter avoiding said question.
A 1,200lb payload is honestly impressive, but I'm not convinced 63hp can move 1125kg very effectively.
Something as simple as 80-100hp would make this truck heaps better imo.

Granted it may be great at hauling dirty messes that aren't heavy or large through small areas, adding 20hp wouldn't make it any less effective there.
It would however, make it more effective up hills or mountains, or for someone in the slightest bit of a hurry.

It would also lift it above the tax breaks and lower insurance rates that make vehicles like this hugely significant in the Japanese market...

...which was what I've been trying to get across in the previous posts (and someone else already mentioned). Irrespective of the Carry's payload, it is a vehicle that has been explicitly designed for its intended market.

Now that doesn't make it cool - you'll note I said it was uncool in my first reply - but it also doesn't make it useless, despite any personal views you might hold on the effectiveness of a vehicle such as this.

You could even make the argument that it's more useful than say, the full-sized pickups that sell by the bucketload in the US, since whatever veneer of usefulness those have, many people buy them simply because they can. I doubt many people in Japan buy a 660cc pickup just because they can - they do it because it's an effective tool that allows them to do their job.

And the regulations that limit it to 63hp are the regulations that have effectively provided Japan with mobility since the end of WWII. Other than the limitation that such vehicles are of limited value outside of their home market (Google "the Galapagos effect", in relation to automobiles), I'd say Japan is getting by just fine with 63hp trucks like the Carry.

It can maintain speed if the conditions fit, and only then.

I mentioned Japanese speed limits in a previous post. Given they're lower than those you may be more familiar with, and given Japan's topography isn't quite as dramatic as the topography you may be more familiar with, is it not safe to assume that those running vehicles like the Carry probably aren't significantly affected by their vehicles' low power?

My first car here in the UK had 59bhp and I managed to get by with it just fine for over six years. And I arguably need more performance here than Japanese business users do in a country with lower speed limits.

 

[Tornado]

There have been cars with worse PWR than a theoretically fully laden Suzuki Carry, that sold in great numbers in the United States (a country with considerably different automotive requirements than a Japanese work vehicle) that didn't cause mass pileups on freeways every time they were encountered.

 

[CSLACR]

How do I address so many good points at once?
One guy says it's really a 35-40hp car can't travel mountains better with more power, another says I pronably don't understand power delivery.
Another claims he is part of a "we" mocking me, but I think it's his first post?
Somebody drove a car slower than a Yaris at 100mph up a hill too?

Man, I need some education from you guys. Teach me about this world of different physics you live in.
I always though the physics in NA were identical to the rest of the world, but here I stand, eagerly corrected by GTP's finest.

@homeforsummer is the only one currently using rational reasoning.
I agree with your sentiment, and understand regulations this and that. Cars fitting super exact regs usually makes them more useless though, fyi.
As is clearly the case here.

 

[Tornado]

How do I address so many good points at once?

You could start with addressing one of them, but I imagine if you were capable of doing so you would have done so already.

 

[CSLACR]

You just don't know. I drove a car slower than @Beeblebrox237's Yaris through the Appalachian Mountains with two other guys on board and a hatch full of luggage. At one point on a steep uphill slope at high elevation, it struggled in 2nd gear -- one time. It was slow but not holding up anyone. We were speeding most of the whole trip.

It cruised at 80mph without wheezing or anything. It just took a little longer to get there; not ages. We may or may not have topped 100mph on one stretch...

You really don't need very much horsepower to get around. More power is only quicker (duh), that's all.

I had to get this one directly, sorry my phone doesn't like editing and adding quotes.

Please do explain how horsepower only makes a car quicker.
Seriously. I'm dying in anticipation.

 

[Mike458]

A Daihatsu Move(???, I think some toastermobile) rear-ended by apparently a Daihatsu Midget. Doesn't work...

SU.

 

[Wolfe]

I had to get this one directly, sorry my phone doesn't like editing and adding quotes.

Please do explain how horsepower only makes a car quicker.
Seriously. I'm dying in anticipation.

The crux of it is that small vehicles with maybe 40-60hp get around as quickly as law-abiding traffic in most places. Up to freeway speeds and beyond with the right gearing, up and down mountains. I've driven one, others here have driven one, you haven't. I'm on the same continent as you, so rest assured there are no discrepancies in the laws of physics or gravitational pull.

You might hold up traffic merging onto an LA freeway, but you could also trade lanes with them at 80mph once you're up to speed, which doesn't take as comically long as you probably imagine. That's what I mean when I said more power only makes a car quicker.

 

[CSLACR]

The crux of it is that small vehicles with maybe 40-60hp get around as quickly as law-abiding traffic in most places. Up to freeway speeds and beyond with the right gearing, up and down mountains. I've driven one, others here have driven one, you haven't. I'm on the same continent as you, so rest assured there are no discrepancies in the laws of physics or gravitational pull.

You might hold up traffic merging onto an LA freeway, but you could also trade lanes with them at 80mph once you're up to speed, which doesn't take as comically long as you probably imagine. That's what I mean when I said more power only makes a car quicker.

It actually sounds like a handful of you think I can't grasp the speed of these vehicles.
Based on absolutely nothing other than presumption of course.

 

[homeforsummer]

Doesn't work...

If you'd been following, you'd know that "work" is exactly what this vehicle does...

Cars fitting super exact regs usually makes them more useless though, fyi.

That depends on your definition of "useless" - and in this context I'm not sure it's the correct term.

While I don't have any first-hand experience - I am not a small-business owner in Japan, nor indeed an anything in Japan - the absolutely vast number of vehicles similar to the Suzuki Carry suggests they're actually very useful.

Do kei regulations limit them in some way? Perhaps, but (even ignoring that any increases in anything would mean they no longer fit kei regs and therefore cost their owners extra money) ultimately vehicles like this are very much suited to Japanese driving conditions.

Low speed limits, crowded cities, narrow streets, limited parking and relatively high cost of living all mean that keis are ideally-suited to their task and making them say, more powerful, wouldn't necessarily be an improvement.

It's perhaps worth noting at this juncture that it's entirely possible to buy a bigger commercial vehicle in Japan. One imagines that those who need such a thing buy it, rather than wondering why their kei truck isn't capable of doing the job they require of it. By extension, the huge market for kei trucks suggests plenty of people have businesses that don't need anything bigger than a kei truck...

 

[TexRex]

I'm given to understand that the limitations on vehicles fitting into the kei category aren't limited to power, and indeed their dimensions are regulated as well. In light of that understanding (which I realize may not be correct), I'd be far more concerned by how a kei truck's load might affect the way it handles around corners and under braking compared to a kei car than how quickly it gets to speed.

 

[Sage Ages]

How much can a carry actually carry?

Enough.

 

[Mike458]

If you'd been following, you'd know that "work" is exactly what this vehicle does...

Just talking about the looks of the car...

 

[SVX]

@CSLACR are mopeds/scooters also pointless in your point of view?

 

[Beeblebrox237]

The slowest drivers on the road usually don't feel they are having a hard time keeping up with traffic, nor do they typically think they're holding people up.
If you're trying to tell me it succesfully puttered and plodded along, simply completing the trip, that's one thing. If you're saying the speed limits were so low it didn't have to exceed 30mph, or by "hills" you mean miniscule elevation changes, that's fine.

But if you're saying it can maintain the speed limit outside of perfect parameters, I don't believe you.
It can maintain speed if the conditions fit, and only then.

I'm telling you that it would top 90 mph happily (but with the national speed limit being 70, I can't tell you where ). Is that fast? Not at all. Is it fast enough? Definitely. Going uphill? As with level ground, I never reached top speed with 5 people in the car. But I do know it was well over 70. I find it hard to believe that I was the slowest on the road when I was overtaking cars and lorries. Surely if I was the slowest on the road I would only ever get overtaken, no?

As an aside, rush hour on the M4 sucks no matter what speed you're going. I've 'raced' faster drivers than me to work, and due to traffic the one doing 70 will do 25 miles about 30 seconds slower than the one [trying to be] doing 90, on a 25 mile commute.

So, coming from that aside, let me just mention that I've never seen traffic in the US that begins to compare with what I've encountered in the UK. I've never driven around LA, or NYC, or Chicago, so perhaps rush hour there is worse than rush hour in London, but rush hour in Reading (population 161,000) is far, far worse than rush hour in Pittsburgh (population 304,000) or Indianapolis (population 820,000).

I'd like to mention at this point that I voted the Carry to be uncool. It has nothing to do with power, just like any cool wall should. It's simply not a cool car, as it's used to do a job. My Yaris is the same; it's an utterly brilliant commuter car which will carry 4-5 people and bags whilst doing 45+ a gallon, but there is precisely nothing that is cool about it, apart maybe from the digital gauges.

EDIT: One last item (now that I'm a bit more sober), I've seen economy from between 39 and 64 mpg in the Yaris for a journey. When you're running a business, why buy a van which does 25 mpg when you can have one which does 50? In America it might make little difference, but when petrol costs the equivalent of $7 a gallon fuel economy does tend to be an important consideration.