Remember yesterday, when I said I was starting a daily series where I would get an old computer to pick a random page in the 2005 book, The World’s Worst Cars, written by Craig Cheetham, and then I would do my best to redeem whatever car was being lambasted on that page? Well, I meant what I said, and here we are on the next day already, so it’s time for another Worst Car redemption. This is a project worth doing because this book, like so many of these books about what are allegedly the world’s worst cars, are really just lazy collections of what I believe are interesting cars. This daily redemption I believe will prove that to be true.
Now, as a reminder, the way this is done is by running a small BASIC random number generator program on a 1980s Commodore PET; it picks a number between 1 and 317, and I go to that page and see what car is on the page! Are we ready?
Okay, let’s run the program and see what we get:
The PET picks page 309! What’s on page 309?
A Suzuki X-90! Sure, the X-90 was a strange car in many ways, but worst? There’s no way this charming kook of a car belongs in a Worst Cars in the World book, so let’s redeem Suzuki’s happy little mutant.
Let’s be absolutely clear here: the Suzuki X-90 was a deeply, boldly weird concept. It was essentially a two-seat sporty car with a T-top roof so it could be an open-air car, something like a Honda Del Sol, mounted on a four-wheel drive (RWD was also available, but the Platonic ideal of the X-90 I think is the 4WD one) chassis, complete with a high ride height and ground clearance and a stiff, rugged suspension setup. It was an unlikely combination of concepts – sporty two-seater and smallish off-roader – and while it didn’t exactly resonate with a lot of people (only about 7,205 X-90s were sold between 1996 and 1998), it was definitely novel.
The X-90 absolutely had personality; it had proportions that almost felt cartoon-like, almost like a kid’s drawing of a car, which was the butt of jokes about the car, as Jeremy Clarkson milked in this old Top Gear segment:
Two things: that’s a cute little kiddo and no, I don’t think it’s “stupid looking.” I think it’s fun looking. It looks like a good, mildly silly time, and what’s wrong with that? And, sure, it’s small, but as far as room and practicality goes, it’s not really any worse than other smallish sports cars or off-roaders of the era. It has about as much room up front as a Jeep Wrangler, and holds more cargo than a Wrangler of the era, and holds that cargo in a way where it’s a lot less likely to get stolen. The X-90 has a usable little trunk, much more practical than the Wrangler’s open narrow storage well behind the back seat.
The X-90 had an interior that was a lot more car-like and refined compared to other small off-roaders of the era, including Suzuki’s own Samurai and Sidekick, and was comparable to small sporty cars of the time, your Del Sols and Toyota Paseos and Nissan Pulsars and whatnot. It also had upholstery available in the finest 1990s casio/movie-theater carpet patterns, which I unashamedly love, and that included the door card upholstery, as you can see:
The X-90 also has the distinction of having one of the strangest special editions: in Europe, the X-90 was sold as the Suzuki Vitara (the car the X-90 was based on) X-90 Philippe Cousteau Special Edition, named for the son of the famous oceanographic explorer Jaques Cousteau, who also continued in his father’s diving and filmmaking and exploratory exploits. Cousteau died in 1979, nearly 20 years before the X-90 came out, and I’m not really sure I fathom the connection here.
The Phillipe Cousteau edition did come with a font bull bar, fender flares, and running boards, among other things, so that’s fun, even if it’s all still a little baffling.
Thanks to the rugged suspension (MacPherson struts and coils up front, coils, wishbones, trailing links out back) ride was a bit stiffer and harsher than some of the small sporty cars you may be tempted to compare it with, but at least there was a reason: it could go off-road! And compared to other off-road focused cars, it was a good bit more civilized.
Sure, you’re probably not going to take it rock crawling, but it was capable of some basic off-roading, and, with the addition of bigger tires probably a number of other mods and a certain amount of healthy madness, people have managed to do a shocking amount of off-roading with these. Look!
That’s impressive! Now, the 1.6-liter inline-four made about 95 horsepower and wasn’t exactly a powerhouse, but it was decent enough, especially for the time (remember, a Honda Del Sol only made about 106 hp) and delivered reasonable fuel economy, in the mid-20s.
This was a car all about being unconventional and fun, the sort of thing that Suzuki’s marketing could only express via Pez dispensers:
Yes, it was a weird car, based on a weird idea, and appealing to weird people with weird demands for a car. But that hardly makes it the worst of anything. In fact, in a lot of ways, it makes it the best – as in, the X-90 had to be the best compact T-topped two-seater 4×4 with a trunk ever made.
I mean, Red Bull picked these to use as their promotional cars before they went to Minis! That has to mean something, right?
Picking the X-90 as a “worst” car is just small, crabbed thinking. That’s all it is. The car wasn’t a mainstream success, but that’s because it was a bold experiment that tried to do something new, tried to carve out a new, unheard-of niche, and while that niche didn’t really catch on, I think the car itself accomplished the task it set for itself quite well. The X-90 was what it was, and, in that extremely specific context, it was a success. They’re still cool today, and when you see one, I defy you not to smile, at least a little bit, because these things are just fun, rendered in metal and rubber.
Suzuki X-90, consider yourself redeemed. Owners of copies of The World’s Worst Cars, please tear out pages 308 – 309.
While I could diligently search the internet, I’ll just post my question here: isn’t the X-90 a proper body-on-frame 4×4 like any real hairy-knuckled off-roader?
That alone makes it a bit of a quirky unicorn.
AND it’s a real two-seater I believe. How often did you see that by then, and in an off-road-ish vehicle no less?
Well, two seat cars weren’t really rare in the 90s, not compared to now anyways. There’s the Del Sol that Torch mentioned, Miatas that sold in droves, and the usual Corvettes and actually fancy sports cars.
Body on frame, solid rear axle, available in 4×4 with low range transfer case and manual transmission. Two seater, removable targa top with a lockable trunk that returned 30MPG if you were nice to it. The X-90, not the trunk.
They’re hilarious.
Fun little car, odd name. Sounds like something Ron Popeil might’ve hocked on late night UHF (remember UHF and its circular antennna?) infomercials. “The X90: it slices, it dices, it makes perfect julienne fries. But wait there’s more!”
A lot of these ‘weird car flops’ come down to their pricing relative to (even fairly remote) competitors at the time they were new (which is historical data that is strangely hard to come across these days – I wonder why?)
For example, the MSRP of a 1995 x-90 was almost exactly the same as a 1995 4-cylinder Wrangler – which was a lot more vehicle. By that time the Japanese bubble era had burst, and people weren’t (as) willing to pay extremely large sums more for a Japanese car than a domestic, as the quality gap had narrowed significantly by then (an 86 Honda was *way* better than an 86 Chevrolet, but a 95 Suzuki was not way better than a 95 Jeep anymore…).
Not a bad car, but it was a bad car buying decision to pick one up back when they were new. Still doesn’t deserve to be in that execrable book!
I miss the days when car designers went for happy, cheerful faces instead of angry, child-eating monsters.
What a charming, if impractical little car this was.
That’s one of the reasons I really want a Rivian, probably the R3. The “happy robot” face is much more appealing than the “angry squint” that seems to be mandatory on virtually all new cars these days.
I tip a wing in the water to you on this one.
Nope, these are awesome. 4×4 stick shift almost-convertibles. Absolutely does not belong in the book.
There is a bizarre form of Motorsport in the UK called Production Car Trials which is a sort of precursor of off-road activities combined with a sort of reliability trial. A leading event is the Lands End Trial where no less than 25 Suzuki X-90s were entered. I think they have their own class. As there are 109 currently registered in the UK I suggest that 23% of their number entering a genuine mototrsports event is impressive.
Sorry. Motorsports. Not mototrsports. Autocorrect is only there when you don’t need it.
You beat me to it. It’s the two wheel drive version they use as 4wd is not allowed. So probably an even higher % of the 2wd sold!
59 manual 2wds according to “How Many Left”. (For the benefit of non UK folk this is a website which tells you how many of a model are currently registered in the UK.) So a 42% hit rate!
I love the X90…there were a surprising number of these in central MD in the 90s when I was a kid. Looking back at Japanese motoring history, a number of automakers in the late 80s were experimenting with the concept of a sporty 4×4 coupe.
We were lucky enough to have not one but two X-90s attend a TriangleRAD event earlier this year. I think the interior pattern is my favorite part.
I’m glad that in my old age I’ve come to appreciate many cars that I used to scoff at. This isn’t one of them.
Hey guys, I found Craig Cheetham, Hater of Fun Things and Happiness.
I think this car is awesome. It’s only flaw was they tried to sell it brand new to the original owner instead of used to it’s second or third owners who would truly cherish this gem.
This is true of so many cool cars.
I’ve seen lowered Sidekicks: I always wanted to find a RWD one with a Stick, redo some of the suspension and maybe a Grand Vitara V6 swap, paint it pink and go canyon carving.
IIRC, this was basically a bespoke body that dropped on to a bone-stock Sidekick/Tracker/Vitara chassis. And while it’s not cheap to design and build a body, it’s a lot cheaper than designing a whole vehicle.
And maybe the low volume made the venture unprofitable, but it got Suzuki quite a bit of attention, so maybe it was worth it.
Yeah, it’s odd and weird and didn’t make financial sense. But that doesn’t make it a BAD car.
The last entry in this series will of course have to be Torch tracking down author Craig Cheetham and confronting him.
…only to find out he’s actually Adrian, ala the ending to Watchmen.
Doing do would require a rather deep dive.
FWIW I wanted one of these in the 90s but it would have been impractical for my needs (long highway jaunts).
A few things:
Don’t tear out those pages unless there is nothing on the back of either, which seems unlikely.
What happens when the RNG spits out 308? 🙂
Have you considered populating an array with the numbers that have already come up? If so, you could add 308 and 309 to the array and do the same for other two-page spreads, allowing your program to do a quick lookup to identify duplicates and other unusable numbers.
“Doing do would require a rather deep dive.”
What you did there, I see it. And I approve!
He’s plumbing the depths.
Oh wait, are we supposed to save that joke for the amphicar or are we going with the bilge water jokes?
“Fathom” the connection to Cousteau’s diving exploits; you beat me to it!
See also “baffles” and “crabbed,” but I think I’ve taken it too far.
My Brother had 2 of these. He still has them technically but the cars are located in Resolute Bay Nunavut and my brother is not.
The crazy thing is, he had one shipped up before he moved there and there just happened to be a second one there just waiting to be used for parts. Although he did drive them both.
He said they were perfect little rigs for ripping up the tundra. Just not good for picking up people from the airport.
Ok I guess I could see the Aston Martin making an appearance in that book, but the X90?
Definitely does not belong. It has all the attributes of being the third family vehicle for the weekend, because it is anything but a practical vehicle.
I guess the primary knock (for the time) might be that it was also competing against the RAV-4 that had a similar topless, two door variant so it had Toyota’s reputation to live up to.
The “X90” is a terrible name for this fun car and a missed opportunity. Suzuki really should have come up with a fun, quirky name…like the Sombrero or the Scarry Lowly Worm Car. You definitely want to smile when you hear the name!
You know, it’s odd we don’t have more hat-themed vehicle names. Suzuki Sombrero is just perfect of course, but why hasn’t there been a Stetson edition F-150 at this point or a Isuzu Fedora SUV?
Rolls-Royce used to have Derby’s before they went with the Crewe cut
There is a Stetson Edition vehicle! Unfortunately, it’s a Bentley.
https://www.autoblog.com/2019/09/17/bentley-bentayga-stetson-edition-texas/
https://s.aolcdn.com/os/ab/_cms/2019/09/17130720/bentley-bentayga-stetson-special-edition-mulliner-texas-1.jpg
https://s.aolcdn.com/os/ab/_cms/2019/09/17130728/bentley-bentayga-stetson-special-edition-mulliner-texas-3.jpg
https://s.aolcdn.com/os/ab/_cms/2019/09/17130727/bentley-bentayga-stetson-special-edition-mulliner-texas-2.jpg
When Suzuki came up with the Cappuccino, they could’ve gone with a coffee themed name for the X 90 as well, but by then it was too latte.
Doppio is an adorable name!
The X90 is definitely a quirky fun car, great little vehicle for a college student at the time.
If it was a list of the silliest cars, yes. It’s up there with the weinermobile and a harlequin VW. But silly is good, silly is delightful. I can’t imagine looking at a X-90 and not smiling.
FWD was not available, as it’s on the Sidekick Sport Chassis. Four wheel or Rear Wheel only.
a typo, my apologies. I fixed it!
No problem! My poor Suzuki addled brain zeroed in on it.
My sister had one of these around 2003. I was in elementary school but I remember taking a ride in that thing, the crazy looking seats, and shrunken dimensions. I also remember her absolutely destroying the clutch (she was learning to drive manual) and the sound it made cruising down my grandparent’s sleepy suburban neighborhood after she removed the muffler.
Sadly I don’t think it lasted long, I believe she got in an accident with it. But I’ll always see these cars and remember that short period of my life.
The next car she got was a white (or offwhite? it mightve just been crusty) Chrysler LeBaron.
have to ask… Did she change her name from Kitty to Karen?
I was too slow by 15 seconds!
I also have questions about her jacket, how long was it?
Probably not, because she didn’t have an MG.
You never know… Being an MG it was probably her project car and the suzuki was the reliable daily driver. This was probably before before she got her good dividends and needed to trade it in to make ends meet
There is a guy at my church who brings his out in the summer. It looks great. He said he got it as a family hand me down, and I love it. It has the t-top, and graphics down the side.
It was:
-Cheap
-Fun
-Thrifty on gas
-Open top
-Didn’t take itself too seriously
… something, something this is why we can’t have nice things
I enjoy that the collected opposite of every item on your list equals a typical contemporary SUV.
Adding a car this small and cute to a “worst cars” list just feels like bullying to me. I say “Boo!” to Craig Cheetham.