Suzuki Jimny vs. Toyota Land Cruiser off-road

This latest version is shorter than its predecessor but to my eyes looks bigger, perhaps due to more chiselled edging, giving it a more Defender/Jeep/G-Class/original SJ-like appearance. 

But it feels no bigger inside. The Jimny is unashamedly compact, and though it can fit occupants in the rear, if you fold down the thin rear seat backs to create a flat plastic load floor, from the front seat you can reach deep into the load bay – which I reckon would take a hay bale or a couple of spaniels. With the rear chairs upright, there’s barely a sliver of boot, but the Jimny never was a family car. 

It has resisted the move to accepting the mechanical layout of one, too. Where other small off-roaders have adopted a monocoque, the Jimny retains a separate chassis with live axles sprung off it, both front and rear. Where most cars get a turbocharged engine, the Jimny’s naturally aspirated four-cylinder unit is a 1.5 of just 100bhp at 6000rpm and 95lb ft at 4000rpm – high revs for a 4x4, which is why the low-range transfer gearbox is proving a considerable help as it springs in and out of steep troughs with precious little chance of grounding its extremities.

The approach angle is 37deg, breakover 28deg and departure angle 49deg. Is that good? Don’t just look to the Land Cruiser, but also to the latest Jeep Wrangler – probably the most impressive unmodified 4x4 I’ve driven. That betters the Jimny’s approach angle (44deg), but can’t match breakover (27.8deg) or departure (37deg). 

Those aren’t the only important numbers, of course, because off-roading is more nuanced than that. In cars with a live axle, draw a line between the wheel centres, and a bit below that you’ll find the car’s lowest point to the ground. That the Jimny rides on 195/80 tyres and 15in wheels leaves its ground clearance at 210mm, while a Jeep can have up to 300mm. So on rutted tracks or rock crawling, there are cars that will go further. But then the Jimny’s 1645mm width and 9.8m turning circle will see it squeeze through gaps other off-roaders cannot, while its kerb weight has it skipping over mud patches that suck heavier cars in. 

Conversely, though, some cars get big turbocharged diesel engines and locking differentials. The Jimny’s open differentials have torque vectoring via braking, which only artificially replicate lockers, and then not always successfully. They sometimes leave a wheel spinning helplessly for grip. Usually, but not always, the answer is to back up and try again with a bit more speed, and allow the lack of inertia to do the job. 

Would the Jimny benefit from a turbocharged engine? Certainly on the road, where it’s dreadfully buzzy, and off-road it’s easy to stall if you’re trying to creep forward without over-working the clutch. But if a turbo and cooling adds 20kg, perhaps necessitating a beefing of the clutch, it’d be easy to get trapped in a cycle of making things heavier to cope with something else you’ve just added weight to, and end up with a 4x4 that isn’t a Jimny at all. 

A couple of months ago, it was reported that Suzuki was the most profitable car company, per unit, in the world: an examination of the Jimny’s underskin shows you why. You tap at it and wonder how thin the sheet metal is, you can see where they’ve stopped painting it, and what’s left uncovered by vanity plastic in the engine bay. The absence of a turbo saves cost, as does only having five speeds on the fairly sweet gearbox, and if a less than brilliant 35.8mpg and 154g/km of CO2 is the result, you can see how Suzuki makes money on cheap, tiny cars while other car makers cannot. 

The Land Cruiser is not a tiny car, but in ethos it’s not that unlike the Jimny – it puts off-road provenance before on-road refinement, although not to quite the same extent as the Suzuki, which as well as being breathless, is a bouncy and tiresome car on asphalt. But a car like the Land Cruiser, which is the choice of most of Africa, should deal with a Rutland quarry, right?