Suzuki X-90: ‘The worst car of the 1990s’ | Drive Flashback

The X-90 looked like it had been designed by a couple of cartoon characters, and that was just the start of its many flaws…

Story by Tony Davis originally published in Drive on 3 March, 2000.

“You’ve never driven anything like this before!” announced the Suzuki X-90 brochure, and for once a brochure was right. The conveyance in question was squat and unsightly in appearance, daft in concept and lousy in packaging. And it rode like a bone-shaker bicycle.

The X-90 had been originally shown in concept form at the Tokyo Motor Show, supposedly to test public reaction. The public reacted but Suzuki proceeded anyway.

The first X-90s hit these shores in 1996 and Suzuki boasted the newcomer represented a “triumph in pure visual appeal”.

However, a vehicle responsible for such an accomplishment in aesthetics might have been expected to command a premium in the market. The X-90 was introduced at $23,990, but this price was cut by $1000 three months later and by a further $2000 in early 1997.

By mid-’97 the new little Suzi was selling for just $17,990. Or, to be more precise, it was failing to sell at $17,990. Dealers would have had an easier time clearing diplodocus evacuations from their showroom floors.

“In the Xtreme” was the slogan, a reference perhaps to a body with the packaging efficiency of a roadster, whacked on top of a drivetrain which ensured the high centre of gravity, rotten dynamics and questionable safety of a four-wheel-drive.

The X-90 could have succeeded if it looked fan-bloody-tastic. Punters have shown again and again they are prepared to buy something on looks and despite all other considerations. Unfortunately the X-90’s lines suggested that Noddy and Big Ears had pitched in on the styling.

The brochure boasted of such safety features as “three-point seatbelts, side impact protection, head restraints”, all of course the bare minimum required by law. By the same logic, luxury equipment included doors, seats, a steering wheel …

The mechanical aspects were for the most part borrowed from the Suzuki Vitara stablemate, with a 1.6-litre four-cylinder engine, four-wheel-drive and, as transmission options, a five-speed manual and a four-speed automatic.

A dual-ratio 4WD set-up was provided, though the reason for this was not given. Maybe it was to haul along the pudgy one-tonne dry weight.

Another problem was the strictly two-seater nature, coupled with a small boot further cramped by the spare wheel and pockets for the T-Top roof.

Back in 1996, Drive called the X-90 a “misguided attempt to attract the youth vote”. That youth wasn’t going to tick the box, donkey style, was evidenced by the fact that by late ’97 Suzuki was still trying to clear the 484 cars it had brought in the previous year.

No ’97 models were brought in and the final three X-90s (still ’96 compliance!) were finally cleared in 1999. Suzuki muttered something about the concept being ahead of its time. If so, it seems we’re still not ready. Tony Davis

So, what happened next?

Suzuki could be forgiven for trying something different with the X-90s styling. After all, how many times have you heard ‘all cars look the same nowadays’. The X-90 addressed that lament with a unique design that not only appealed to almost no one but was derided from the moment it broke cover. Seems the people preferred homogenous design after all.

Reviews in the day were unkind to the X-90. Jeremy Clarkson suggested it should only be driven at night so “no one can see you”, while Autocar ranked the X-90 11th in a Top 10 List.

As Autocar’s then road test editor Andrew Frankel later recalled for Hagerty, “we were working on an edition that listed the top ten cars in all the different classes. And it was my job as its road test editor to determine the class into which [the X-90] should go. I couldn’t do it. So I created the Suzuki X-90 class, left the top ten spaces blank and ranked it 11th in a class with no other cars. I was quite pleased with that.”

Little wonder then the little two-seat off-roader only remained in production for just on three years, 1995-97, before the Japanese brand cut its losses and pulled the pin.

Despite its short life, the X-90 left an indelible mark on the automotive psyche, still remembered, although not so fondly, decades later.

In 2013, Top Gear Magazine named the X-90 in its list of The 13 Worst Cars of the Last 20 Years while in the United States, Motor Trend ranked Suzuki’s awkward soft-roader number one on its list of the 25 Worst Cars of the 1990s.

Today, the X-90 has its devotees, those charmed by its unusual styling, T-Top open-air roof, and reasonable off-road ability. In Australia, the Suzuki X-90 Owners Facebook page has 611 members, more than the 484 Suzuki X-90s actually sold in Australia.

And a quick scan of the classifieds found two X-90s currently for sale in Australia. Both are priced around the $17,000 mark, pretty much what they cost new after Suzuki took the razor to pricing back in 1997. RM

So, what do you think? Has the passage of time transformed the Suzuki X-90 from a lemon into a quirky fun machine? Did you ever own one? Or do you own one today? Let us know in the comments below.

The post Suzuki X-90: ‘The worst car of the 1990s’ | Drive Flashback appeared first on Drive.