Sequelizer: Isuzu Crosswind Driven

August 24,2009

Everyone detests sequels—just ask those who sat through the latest Transformers movie, and you’ll get the point. Sequels are done to cash in on a good brand, but are usually badly written and poorly developed. It’s an excuse to merchandise, period. In the automotive world, there’s no renowned sequel better than the Isuzu Crosswind. Believe it or not, the Crosswind has been around circa the 1990’s, when it was then known as the Hi-Lander. Since then, it has developed countless sequels and facelifts and in the process, it has outlived just about anything. Now, it moves with a zombie-like daze, preying the Manila streets for unsuspecting victims known as buyers.

Although you have to commend Isuzu for actually trying to refresh the Crosswind every single year it’s been in production, the changes are limited to the cosmetic; mostly in the areas of chrome and body colors. That said, the biggest drawback to the Crosswind has yet to be rectified: the fossilized drivetrain. In this age when everyone’s going CRDi, the Crosswind has retained its prehistoric engine—something that can be traced back to the first-ever Hi-Lancer. There’s a ‘turbo’ sticker slapped on the back, but don’t expect anything remotely fast or smooth or quiet for that matter. It behaves like the diesels of yore: slow and gutless. The mild-turbo 2.5-liter was plopped into the Crosswind mainly to improve its emission levels, bumping it to Euro-2, but that’s it.

Because of the Crosswind’s taxed engine, it’s best to save a couple thousands of pesos and opt for the manual transmission than the automatic. Though the shifter feels like it’s actuated by ropes than by gears, at least the clutch is very easy to modulate in heavy traffic. It’s very forgiving, and stalling the Crosswind takes a lot of effort on the part of the driver.

On the handling front, the Crosswind feels lumbering at the best of times, and lumbering in the worse of times. In theory, the thick, 70-series tires should do the job of absorbing the majority of road imperfections. However, in reality, the Crosswind tends to hop through even the smallest of ruts. It won’t jostle the folks at the front, but those sitting on the third row will find themselves sickened. Oddly enough, as the roads worsen, the Crosswind will exhibit a better ride, due perhaps to the long suspension travel provided by the raised suspension. However, the choice of putting in all-terrain tires as opposed to highway-biased tires, hampers the Crosswind’s braking performance. On the twisty bits, this car will give new meaning to the word ‘body-on-frame’. There were several circumstances where you’ll feel the body lean through the corner, while the chassis wants to go straight. Thankfully no one got hurt or sickened that much in the more than 700 kilometers of testing.

If there were absolutely no changes done to the Crosswind’s mechanicals, where did all the new stuff go?

For the 2010 model year, the Crosswind has noticeably gained amber-colored turn signal indicators and the lessening of chrome on the front bumper and grille outside. Those changes are mostly subjective in nature, but the return of the full-cover spare tire cover (as opposed to the grille-type seen last year), is welcome. Inside, the same two-tone look has been retained, but new is the center tunnel console, where it ditches the three-tier sliding one for a simpler one with two cup holders (of course, whether the cup holders are actually usable or not is another question altogether). The shallow depth and small diameter makes fitting even the smallest size Starbucks coffee difficult. And if you can manage to fit something there, it can still slide out when you brake hard enough.

Like the previous Crosswinds, the new model sees yet another change when it comes to its entertainment system. Though it’s still a JVC-branded head unit, the new one fitted now features a nifty touch screen interface, which makes for an interesting conversation piece for all the wrong reasons. For one, navigating through the in-depth menus is very tricky (luckily the test unit had the operating manual). And that’s when the car’s perfectly still. The bigger problem arises when the car’s actually moving. The lack of tactile buttons make for extreme difficulty in doing simple tasks like adjusting the volume—it’s like trying to text on an Apple iPhone blindfolded.

Though the Isuzu Crosswind has existed for quite a while as a 7-seater MPV, the 2010 model marks the first time where all three rows were used for a long-distance drive. The most comfortable place to be in would be at the front. The second row is just as good, but it can shudder almost violently when the car hits heavy potholes. Unlike other MPVs though, the Crosswind’s second row seats only have one recline setting. It flips up via two-lever action, opening access to the third row, which—surprise, surprise—actually has headrests! This should make it an even more inviting place to sit in than the headrest-less Everest, but the oddly raked seats as well as the cramped knee room (you actually have to sit at an angle), make it tiring to ride in after just 30 minutes.

As a never ending sequel, the 2010 Isuzu Crosswind remains closely related to the original spectacle. However, like a typical Hollywood sequel, the magic is slowly fading away. The advent of much more modern and cheaper MPVs (after all, the Crosswind Sportivo costs P 1,210,000 as opposed to the Toyota Innova V’s P 1,184,000) makes this model a much less convincing buy. Debate all you want about value-for-money, but the P 26,000 difference is enough to get you a decent entertainment system. In as much as you can applaud the Crosswind for its longevity, it is pretty much past its sell-by date. It’s tired and needs a worthy replacement soon. In other words, it’s time to stop making sequels and do a series re-boot.

Disclaimer: The comments uploaded on this site do not necessarily represent or reflect the views of management and owner of Cebudailynews. We reserve the right to exclude comments that we deem to be inconsistent with our editorial standards.