(first posted 3/22/2016) Land Rover is releasing a convertible version of its Evoque soft-roader, similar to the recently discontinued Nissan Murano CrossCabriolet. The German automakers are offering more and more four-door, crossover-coupe hybrids, a trend that started with the BMW X6. In today’s automotive climate, something like the Suzuki X-90 could fly. In the mid-1990s, it sunk like a funny-shaped little rock.
Perhaps even today’s crossover-mad buyers would baulk at the bizarre little Suzuki. While cars like the BMW X6 show some buyers will pay a little extra for more expressive styling, even at the expense of practicality, today’s crossover coupes still offer seating for at least 4. The titchy X-90 offered seating only for two.
Panoramic sunroofs are helping to compensate for rising beltlines by splashing crossover interiors with plenty of natural light and/or fresh air. The X-90 provided an open-air experience too, however it achieved this through the use of now déclassé removable glass t-tops. A little bit more effort than a sunroof but with less inherent complexity. They could be removed and placed in the trunk.
Yes, in the trunk. The X-90 was designed in Japan with the then SUV-crazy American market in mind, specifically to “young and young at heart” buyers yearning for a unique vehicle thoroughly unlike any other offering on the market. Designers must have been making a list of “things other SUVs don’t have” and decided on “a trunk”. Well, it certainly made for a unique look. Unfortunately, it undermined the “utility” part of “sport utility vehicle”. With its small opening and modest 8.4 cubic-feet capacity, it made the X-90 – already hobbled by its two-seater format – far less practical than the 2-door Vitara/Sidekick.
Oh, and the Sidekick/Vitara was not only more practical, it was cheaper. In Australia, the 2-dr Vitara cost $AUD19,990, an extra $1k netting you the hard-top version. The X-90, by comparison, cost $23,990, although it added central locking and power windows. In the United States, the X-90 commanded less of a premium initially – around $600 – but the fact remained that it was pricier than the more practical Sidekick. The Sidekick’s styling may have been getting old but it was still a handsome little truck, while the X-90’s styling was far, far more polarizing.
While the bodies couldn’t have looked more different – no panels were shared between the Sidekick and X-90 – underneath, they were the same truck. The X-90 may have vaguely resembled a car but, unlike many of today’s crossovers which are cars masquerading as SUVs, underneath the X-90’s car-esque body sat a separate ladder-frame. The suspension used MacPherson struts at the front and a trailing link set-up with a centre-mounted wishbone and coil springs at the rear. The steering was a recirculating ball set-up and the rear brakes were simple drums. All of this and a short wheelbase of just 87 inches meant the X-90 was crude on the road with a choppy ride and tippy handling.
Four-wheel-drive was optional and the X-90 was capable off-road thanks to its Sidekick origins, but the two-wheel-drive version was utterly pointless, being lousy on the road and lousy off of it. Shift-on-the-fly four-wheel-drive cost an extra grand or so in most markets; in the US, it came bundled with a premium sound system and four-wheel disc brakes. If you were adamant on buying an X-90, shelling out the extra for the four-wheel-drive version made sense.
Whether it was 2WD or 4WD, the X-90 used the same 1.6, 16-valve four-cylinder engine as the Sidekick and the Esteem/Baleno with 95 hp and 97 ft-lbs. Despite a curb weight of only 2400 pounds, the X-90’s performance was rather lethargic. The standard transmission was a clunky five-speed manual, with a four-speed automatic available on the 4WD version. Gas mileage was an acceptable 25/28 mpg.
Let me be clear: it doesn’t matter what you or I think about the X-90’s styling. If somebody was “young or young at heart” and loved the styling and the packaging, they were going to buy it. Conversely, somebody who reviled the styling was not ever going to consider it, especially due to its lack of practicality and refinement. The problem for Suzuki was there just weren’t enough buyers who loved it.
Over two and a half years, Suzuki sold just 481 examples in Australia. That’s not too surprising, given the practical nature of most Aussie buyers; the X-90 similarly flopped in Europe. But in the US, the very market Suzuki designed the trucklet for, slow sales meant only 7,205 examples were imported over three model years.
Was it a case of Suzuki having the right idea at the wrong time? Maybe buyers had yet to realize an SUV need not be shaped like a box, but little Suzuki was not large or influential enough as a brand to educate buyers. Alternatively, perhaps the X-90 failed because buyers were too clever: they saw the Sidekick in the showroom with the lower price and more room and went with it instead. And, much like the styling may have motivated the scant few X-90 buyers, it put the nail in the truck’s coffin for everybody who didn’t want an awkwardly proportioned, cutesy, coupe-on-stilts.
Related Reading:
Cohort Sighting: Isuzu Vehicross
It looks fun though. 🙂
thanks for this article. It was interesting . Didn’t know much about them before.
> The X-90 provided an open-air experience too, however it achieved this through the use of now déclassé removable glass t-tops
The rise and fall of T-tops would be a good subject for an article. What made them become unpopular? Or is the design troublesome in some way?
They were often a source of leaks, if I recall correctly.
I’d also speculate that efforts to improve torsional rigidity & crash performance had a hand in T-tops vanishing. While a manufacturer might spend the effort to design a stout purpose-built convertible, the limited market for a T-top version of a particular model wouldn’t justify the investment, perhaps.
They were also a stop-gap from the days when it was feared that the convertible would be legislated out of existence due to crash and rollover standards. Once it became apparent that convertibles would be allowed, the manufacturers went back to a real drop top.
The final nail in the t-top coffin was hard-roofed convertibles.
Cute and practically pointless. Without a lid it could have been the latter day Austin A35 pick-up truck (that wasn’t a great seller either!)
https://www.curbsideclassic.com/wp-content/comment-image/25052.jpg
For those who read this but want one anyway….
Daytona.craigslist.org/cto/5475385703.html
And it’s “only” $3,500
I actually liked these little gems, but I only got to sit in one at a Toyota dealer that also sold Suzukis(!). There is/was one down the street from me, but I haven’t seen it in a while, so it may have gone bye-bye.
Kind of like a reincarnated Nash Metropolitan.
One of these would be a fun commuter. As long as it didn’t have the “Xtreme” sticker on the side.
For me, this is a “Kids, just say no” vehicle…..
But it’s SO DAMN CUTE ! =8-) .
I wasn’t aware of these when they were being sold , I’d maybe try one if I found it locally and cheaply because I like tiny little stupid Automobiles .
-Nate
Yeah, as in “so damn cute!” that you’ll never see a straight male driving one. Probably had a lot to do with its demise.
You are probably correct – the one that was down the street was driven by a young lady.
I dunno ;
I drive a Metropolitan Nash FHC every where and no one thinks I’m gay….
For a real man , whatever he chooses to do , becomes masculine by default .
-Nate
The Metropolitan had it a bit easier. When it was new, the concept of “gay” didn’t exist (the word meant “happy” back then), and if you were you kept it REAL hidden. No doubt, driving a Metropolitan back in 1961 may have gotten you an occasional sniggering, “a bit light in the loafers” comment, but nothing open like thirty years later.
Yes ~ I remember it new very well ;
I was young and thought it a ‘ kiddie car ‘ in the flesh so to speak and I wanted one oh so badly….
The Mighty Metropolitan Nash was definitely considered a ” Woman’s Car ‘ when new .
I don’t give a shit , I love it , it fits me like a glove and is comfy and *much* faster than other micro car owners expect . =8-) .
-Nate
Along with stuff like the Mercury Capri convertible, this was another attempt to get in on the hot 2-seater market brought back by the Miata in 1989. Trouble was, no one else was willing to go all-in like Mazda for a completely new, dedicated platform.
Barbie and Ken would approve of this. I could see a toy version of the X-90 being a Barbie accessory.
My overwhelming memories of these is seeing them in one of two flavours only. This is the first; eventually, the promotional fleet of X-90s was replaced by new Minis.
I think Red Bull bought about half of the 7,205.
I immediately think “Red Bull” when seeing one as well. Always being driven by an attractive young lady.
Second variety: lifted and caged, running with seriously built Samurais and Vitaras. There just didn’t seem to be any sold as actual passenger vehicles; the number of them that I saw being used as unmodified daily drivers was incredibly small.
I remember first seeing the Suzuki X-90 when it debuted. While I liked its overall appearance, I found its front end styling hideous to look at.
I recall for a time, in the 90’s, Suzuki of America did all they could to promote these machines. They ran ads on the back cover of Car and Driver for months, with swirly red graphics, and the unlikely headline screaming “WHAT ARE YOU STARING AT?”
The ad extolled the tiny trucklet as being “uptown, downtown, like nothing you have ever seen.” All it could offer was to be a unique fashion accessory.
But even I could see this thing was designed to do everything poorly. It managed to combine all the negative aspects of sports cars and SUVs with none of the benefits. Not only was Suzuki out of touch with the market, they could not even get the advertising right. C&D readers are a well-informed bunch and I’m sure they all saw what a useless machine this was.
It’s a mystery how Suzuki can build such awesome motorcycles but make such a mess of their cars.
I miss rubbery accordion shift boots!
I remember when this hit the streets, and when I say hit I mean like a roman candle in a stairwell.
I always thought of them as a Honda Del Sol on steroids
That’s a neat comparison!
The wide track Escudo/Vitara/swiftkick/Jimny/etc is likely a better car same mechanicals but more practical.
I Love my X 90 in fact I love all 4 of them
-Don
Do you still have it
Interesting comparison to a story earlier today about the death of the RWD, BOF Caprice, and all the other BOF cars.
While the X-90 had unique body stampings, everything underneath was old hat. It was much cheaper to re-dress that frame than to build a new unibody from scratch. Just like when all cars had frames, it was much cheaper to “redesign” a car every few years.
Small car companies have to try unusual things and hope for a hit.
One could almost consider the 2wd version as a 2 door, 2 seater, BOF, RWD notch back coupe.