[swiftLife]

Originally Posted by cool_dube

I had pockets deep enough to spend 35 lac, I would much much rather spend another 4-5 lac and pick up a "real" off-roader - read Fortuner, Endeavour, MUX, etc!

Exactly my thought. Buyers with pockets deep enough to spend 35L would struggle to find a reason to not spend that extra and get a full blown SUV.

To me, Trailhawk feels like a baby in-front of a Fortuner or an Endeavour.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by cool_dube

Guys, let's be realistic here - who will take a 35 lac car to "trails"?

Oh, I don't know... people like me? I did this in 2007 when my SUV was less than a week old. And did this 4 months later. And I did that many times since then. The point is... it is up to the owner and how confident they feel about it.

If I buy Trailhawk/Endy/Fortuner, it will hit the offroad trail. There is no question about it. And I know many crazier offroaders than me who can afford such cars.

[SaiSW]

With the prices of the Hector out, I find the situation of the Compass even tougher. If I had 20-24 lacs in my hand, I'd put my money on the Hector anyday. If I had 26+ lacs in my hand, I'll try and squeeze some more and go for the Fortuner/Endeavour.

[cool_dube]

Originally Posted by Samurai

Oh, I don't know... people like me?

That is exactly my point Assess the pool size for yourself!

Originally Posted by Samurai

If I buy Trailhawk/Endy/Fortuner, it will hit the offroad trail. There is no question about it. And I know many crazier offroaders than me who can afford such cars.

Just to clarify, I was talking about a proper off-road trail i.e. recreational off-road activities. Even in the Endeavour/Fortuner owner segment, how many would do that? Not nil but not many either.

Anyways, the basic point here is - why would someone prefer a Trailhawk over a full-size SUV with the price difference being what it is!

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by Guna

Are you saying that despite the revised bumper in the Trailhawk, the approach angle is bad?

No it is not bad. But [also] it does not compare with the Fortuner/Endeavor [with which we are trying to compare].

Originally Posted by cool_dube

Guys, let's be realistic here - who will take a 35 lac car to "trails"?! I'd much rather do that in a Gypsy or a Thar. Let's look at potential customer segments (within JEEP variants) here:

Tourers/overlanders - unless I am a solo traveler in this category, the real estate provided by the Trailhawk just does not cut it!


If I were serious about going to off-beat places, which might warrant low range (which is a fluke in the Trailhawk BTW), with corresponding amount of luggage space, AND if I had pockets deep enough to spend 35 lac, I would much much rather spend another 4-5 lac and pick up a "real" off-roader - read Fortuner, Endeavour, MUX, etc!

You are absolutely correct. There is no substitute for 4L as there is no substitute for a small, nimble, SWB SUV. They both excel at different purpose, but yes, as pointed out by you, the Japanese SUV's practicality and ruggedness is hard to beat, also while touring/overlanding, you need those seats and or space.

[tweaker]

Though the pricing is a definitely a bit steep, I think there are very less options when it comes to offering a true go-anywhere SUV at that price point. On-road Mumbai prices for the trail hawk would be near the 32 lac mark whereas the Endeavour is somewhere near 41 lacs for the 4X4 variant. 9 lacs is still a lot of money if someone does not necessarily want a 7 seat behemoth.

For a small family looking out for a proper 4X4 Auto, the Trail Hawk still makes some sense IMO. I don't think it's fair to compare the Trail Hawk to the bigger 4X2 SUVs which come a bit closer to the price as they won't be able to hold a candle to the off-road capability of the Trail Hawk. The new Jeep is trying to cater to the somewhat hardcore off-road enthusiasts who maybe need more creature comforts than a Thar or a Gurkha but are in no mood to spend upwards of 40 lacs for a full blown SUV. But yes, an on-road price of just under the 30 lac mark would have made a huge difference to the perceived value of the product.

[streetfighter]

Trailhawk pricing Mumbai:


A sales guy kept following up with me after I had given my details on the Jeep website. I gave him an earful about the Trailhawk price, he changed the topic to "Sir there are good offers on other models, why don't you visit the showroom to find out more?"

[cool_dube]

Originally Posted by tweaker

Though the pricing is a definitely a bit steep, I think there are very less options when it comes to offering a true go-anywhere SUV at that price point. On-road Mumbai prices for the trail hawk would be near the 32 lac mark whereas the Endeavour is somewhere near 41 lacs for the 4X4 variant. 9 lacs is still a lot of money if someone does not necessarily want a 7 seat behemoth.

Agree on the Endeavour, but MUX 4x4 A/T and Fortuner 4x4 M/T are not very far in the price range from the Trailhawk! Needless to say, the latter is no match for the former 2 vehicles!

Originally Posted by tweaker

For a small family looking out for a proper 4X4 Auto, the Trail Hawk still makes some sense IMO

Some sense, yes, but a Duster AWD makes much more sense, given that it provides 90% of the capability at 50% of the price! Oh, and yes, please throw in much better ride quality please

[saurabh sharma]

I went and had a look at on-display Trailhawk, followed it up with a test drive of VW Tiguan. Trailhawk pricing wasn't out then but guessed difference between no-discount TH and post-discount Tiguan Highline would be 2-3L.
Am a satisfied owner of a Tiguan now, what went against TH was for me:
1. Less space
2. Lower quality interior
3. Rear seats contoured not to easily accommodate 3 people.
4. Already a Skoda owner, so very happy with their improved after sales service.
Build quality of both vehicles are equivalent, both appear equally solid to the mind.

[drmohitg]

I have no experience of off-roading but just want to ask the experienced members here who are well versed with off-roading. Isn't having a Manual transmission more fun while off-roading instead of an Auto transmission? Usually when driving on Tarmac, we always maintain that apart from comfort and convenience, a manual transmission is always more fun to drive. This should become even more critical when off-roading where parameters like comfort and convenience have no/less value and it is purely a fun activity where you like to stay connected to your car at all times. With all that talk of value of the "Trailhawk" abdge and what is stands for, is an Auto transmission the best way to go forward?

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by drmohitg

I have no experience of off-roading but just want to ask the experienced members here who are well versed with off-roading. Isn't having a Manual transmission more fun while off-roading instead of an Auto transmission? Usually when driving on Tarmac, we always maintain that apart from comfort and convenience, a manual transmission is always more fun to drive. This should become even more critical when off-roading where parameters like comfort and convenience have no/less value and it is purely a fun activity where you like to stay connected to your car at all times. With all that talk of value of the "Trailhawk" abdge and what is stands for, is an Auto transmission the best way to go forward?

You are right about the manual transmission being more suited to off-roading. Off-roading requires precise control over the car, whether its steering or power delivery. Having a full manual transmission provides exactly that and can be really handy when doing tough terrains.

Although Jeep has a specfic Rock mode and other modes suited to handling off-roading, I am not sure whether one will be able to drive it with the kind of control that a manual offers.

Having said that, you also need to have an experienced driver handling the vehicle offroad. I think its the combined effect of a manual transmission with the driver experience that make a good off roader. All things equal I would prefer a manual over an automatic when off-roading.

[nsbhagwat]

Originally Posted by Traveler

Having said that, you also need to have an experienced driver handling the vehicle offroad. I think its the combined effect of a manual transmission with the driver experience that make a good off roader. All things equal I would prefer a manual over an automatic when off-roading.

On the various documentaries broadcast on Discovery and National Geographic where they have driven 4X4 on ice shelves in Antarctica or Iceland or the Arctic, they have emphasized on using an automatic box over a manual.

Can you please help understand why?

Regards
Nikhil

[sridhar-v]

I have a 2007 Grand Vitara with an AT gearbox. I find it perfectly suited for off-roading. I get all the control I want with throttle modulation alone.

And I would prefer a compact SUV, over large 7 seaters, on narrow trails and paths.

[Traveler]

Originally Posted by nsbhagwat

On the various documentaries broadcast on Discovery and National Geographic where they have driven 4X4 on ice shelves in Antarctica or Iceland or the Arctic, they have emphasized on using an automatic box over a manual.

Can you please help understand why?

Regards
Nikhil

Driving on ice and snow is very different from driving offroad on gravel, mud, slush and typical offroad trails.

On ice the extra electronics combined with a AWD vehicle is definitely a boon and helps the driver maintain a true line. The automatics with all their gadgetry can automatically sense wheel slip etc and adjust power accordingly. Provided the automatic is capable and made for that purpose.

However when you need precise slow speed control like getting out of a rut, maneuvering difficult trails uphill especially in rocks you would prefer if you can exactly control each aspect. That is where manual shines.

Rest to each his own. I would always prefer manual though.

[Guna]

Originally Posted by nsbhagwat

On the various documentaries broadcast on Discovery and National Geographic where they have driven 4X4 on ice shelves in Antarctica or Iceland or the Arctic, they have emphasized on using an automatic box over a manual.

Can you please help understand why?

Regards
Nikhil

I am not sure about other type of automatics (CVT, DSG...) but the torque converters have an advantage of multiplying the torque when required. In situations where one needs to slip the clutch and rev the engine to get going(in a manual) a TC automatic can easily handle it by instantly multiplying the torque with minimal throttle input. But the problem would be when going down a slope and the automatics don't offer much engine braking. Things are slightly better with the manual override (like tiptronic). Another potential problem with an AT is that the AT fluid getting overheated while working extra hard for long. Sorry for the OT.