[praveear]

Originally Posted by Rajeevraj

Brochure available in the website. Specification sheet from the Brochure below.

Attachment 1412810

Airbags present in T4+ variant but not in T6 variant. That's strange.

Edit: Forgot to insert attachment

Why is it that the AMT variant makes 59KW against 61.5KW in manual version?

[drsingh]

Did some research on 3 cylinder engines,twin stage turbos,Dual mass flywheels,Rear wheel drive

187 nm torque at 1100 rpm to the rear wheels sounds impressive .will post my driving impressions soon.

Here are some nice videos explaining the engineering.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tfCwkAbKtzI

Dual mass flywheel

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eusyBOvrqrc

3 cylinder engine

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oc5_B4Qua_I

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mWtFkEwF61I

Rear wheel Drive

[hybridpetrol]

Originally Posted by jaibir

- Boot space of 384l seemed adequate. A size larger than the typical hatchback

One general question - Since the back door has jump seats, how is the boot space measured? Is this 384L including the 2 additional passengers in these seats? In other words, if the jump seats were not occupied, does the boot capacity increase?

[kiku007]

Originally Posted by GrammarNazi

I guess it costs atleast 35% lower than the S Cross. Hence the compromise is reflected in the exterior design.

Not necessarily. Kwid is expected to cost half of the TUV300. Imagine what the end product would have been, if your logic was applied

The most important requirement for a good design is the WILL to create a good design.

When the project objective is to mash up everything you see on the road, package under 4 Meters, throw Marketing BS and sell for a Million bucks, this is the output.

[fusionbang]

Originally Posted by hybridpetrol

One general question - Since the back door has jump seats, how is the boot space measured? Is this 384L including the 2 additional passengers in these seats? In other words, if the jump seats were not occupied, does the boot capacity increase?

No, 384L is without passengers in the jump seats. With passengers on it will be almost NIL boot space as the 2 people sitting facing each other will be brushing their knees. So if we need more boot space fold the 2nd row and it will give a boot space of about 720L.

[CarNerd]

This might be one of the world's most horribly designed automobile ever! The slant of the top half looks like an aftermath of a collision. If there is anything called a "box", this is it, this is it, this is it. And nearly 9 lakh rupees for such a ridiculous looking thing with 2 jump seats? Mahindra, please rise!

[RoadSurfer]

Looks wise there are 3 groups here.
1. Completely hate it
2. Love it
3. Looks are growing slowly.

So let us keep it at that.

But other than that, there are some unique things about this vehicle.
1. It is a proper SUV (so what it is sub-4m, who defined what length makes a SUV?) with ladder-frame construction.
2. Except base variant, safety kit is available atleast as an option.
3. Engine has very good torque from 1500 rpm itself. This is a must in urban driving conditions.
4. It a RWD (those who know it, understand its importance too).
5. Fit and finish looks quite acceptable as per the reviews.
6. Ride quality seems moderate too.

Now is there any other vehicle in this price bracket which will check all the above points?

P.S. - Point 5 & 6 are based on online reviews.

[Mad Max]

I guess we now know who all like boxy designs and who would burn the earth down if they are made to own one.

I kinda like the design. It doesn't look too out-of-proportion but any sub-4m vehicle is going to look a bit odd. For me, even the EcoSport looks a bit awkward in its stance like its unable to make up it's mind whether it wants to be a car or a SUV. Anyways, looks are subjective and I guess we can argue till the cows come home or someone brings a new design philosophy.

As for the price, I think it's almost DOA. At 8-10L onroad, it may not even cross a person's interest barrier before they have evaluated other options. If this is going to replace the Bolero, I am sure Mahindra needs a re-think. If this is a new line, maybe it would work.

Someone pointed out that rural folks may not be interested in gizmos and connectivity. I'd quite well disagree. It's those kinda "shiny objects" that make them buy cars. In cities, we may take these for granted but in a rural setup, these are quite novel features.

For those who love boxy designs (yes, we are still alive - not gonna apologize!), this would be a fun car to drive around. Add a few cosmetic changes like a bull bar, some additional fog lights, maybe projector lamps etc. and I think it would look quite good.

[Arindam_Nayek]

There were 4 major launches this year (The way I saw it since I am too looking out for a car) Hyundai Creta, Maruti Scross, Honda Jazz & now Mahindra TUV 300. Everyone has their own requirement and own perspective but the way all these vehicles are bashed up in our forum it confuses perspective buyers.
Loved a quote from one of our members who said go to the showroom test drive it see it physically if it connects then this is the vehicle for you if not move away.

As said earlier our expectations are sky high but we are not ready to pay for the same.
Good thing which happened to vehicle industry is we are now getting more educated on vehicle safety.

[needforspeed88]

This looks like a decent prospect for semi urban and rural areas but i am skeptical about it's prospects in urban areas. Mahindra ought to have reduced the height of the vehicle a little which would not only have helped the proportions but also helped in dynamics. With such s tall silhouette, Mahindra are forced to run a stiff suspension to keep body roll in check.

This is a good attempt from Mahindra but the massive kerb weight for a sub 4 metre vehicle is a no no. The turning radius is a bit too big for manoeuvring in tight city lanes.

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by RoadSurfer

2. Except base variant, safety kit is available atleast as an option.
3. Engine has very good torque from 1500 rpm itself. This is a must in urban driving conditions.
4. It a RWD (those who know it, understand its importance too).

I don't understand why people keep harping about safety kits when we don't have a clue about the structural stability in the event of a crash? Since this is a new launch, M&M should have revealed the crash testing results to demonstrate the safety of the structure in a crash. We've just seen the I10 grand body she'll crumple and deform in the event of a crash. So airbags and seat belts will not help if the structure is collapsing. And let's face it, we don't know whether the performance of tuv in a crash is satisfactory.

Have you personally driven the car to state that the torque is very good from 1500 rpm itself? M&M vehicles are not known for easy urban drivability. More suited for rural applications and load carriers.

Rwd has its pros and cons, just like fwd. At the end of the day this vehicle if being used primarily in an urban setting does not require rwd. In fact rwd probably makes it heavier and less fuel efficient than fwd.

[2500cc]

[quote=Lalvaz;3799761]

Originally Posted by RoadSurfer

2. Except base variant, safety kit is available atleast as an option.
3. Engine has very good torque from 1500 rpm itself. This is a must in urban driving conditions.
4. It a RWD (those who know it, understand its importance too).
/QUOTE]

I don't understand why people keep harping about safety kits when we don't have a clue about the structural stability in the event of a crash? Since this is a new launch, M&M should have revealed the crash testing results to demonstrate the safety of the structure in a crash. We've just seen the I10 grand body she'll crumple and deform in the event of a crash. So airbags and seat belts will not help if the structure is collapsing. And let's face it, we don't know whether the performance of tuv in a crash is satisfactory.

Have you personally driven the car to state that the torque is very good from 1500 rpm itself? M&M vehicles are not known for easy urban drivability. More suited for rural applications and load carriers.

Rwd has its pros and cons, just like fwd. At the end of the day this vehicle if being used primarily in an urban setting does not require rwd. In fact rwd probably makes it heavier and less fuel efficient than fwd.

-Except for European Mfrs, none of the other mfrs offer good sheet and structural integrity. Toyotas, Hondas, Suzukis, Hyundais are joke.

-M&M vehicles are best known for their urban drivability, least turbo-lag and easy to maneuver despite their size. mHawk is Jem of engine. Check the TD reports.

[salilpawar1]

[quote=Lalvaz;3799761]

Originally Posted by RoadSurfer

2. Except base variant, safety kit is available atleast as an option.
3. Engine has very good torque from 1500 rpm itself. This is a must in urban driving conditions.
4. It a RWD (those who know it, understand its importance too).
/QUOTE]

I don't understand why people keep harping about safety kits when we don't have a clue about the structural stability in the event of a crash? Since this is a new launch, M&M should have revealed the crash testing results to demonstrate the safety of the structure in a crash. We've just seen the I10 grand body she'll crumple and deform in the event of a crash. So airbags and seat belts will not help if the structure is collapsing. And let's face it, we don't know whether the performance of tuv in a crash is satisfactory.

Have you personally driven the car to state that the torque is very good from 1500 rpm itself? M&M vehicles are not known for easy urban drivability. More suited for rural applications and load carriers.

Rwd has its pros and cons, just like fwd. At the end of the day this vehicle if being used primarily in an urban setting does not require rwd. In fact rwd probably makes it heavier and less fuel efficient than fwd.

I suggest you go through the webcast and press reports. The vehicle has been crash tested and 2017-19 crash norms ready.

[MaxTorque]

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

I don't understand why people keep harping about safety kits when we don't have a clue about the structural stability in the event of a crash? Since this is a new launch, M&M should have revealed the crash testing results to demonstrate the safety of the structure in a crash. We've just seen the I10 grand body she'll crumple and deform in the event of a crash.

During yesterday's launch event, Mahindra officials were saying that, TUV300 is equipped to meet crash test norms that are expected to be in India by 2019.

[Seran Manian]

Originally Posted by fusionbang

Visited Anant cars showroom today along with my friend who took delivery of his XUV.

Thanks for the nice set of pictures. Gave a good idea of the looks. Awaiting official review.