[sprocket]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Its not an objective evaluation when buying a car. If you are looking for an SUV, why would you even look at the Hexa? Similarly if you are looking at an SUV why would you even look at TUV300 Plus? Your whole argument fails the first question - Is it an SUV? No.

Why not? Ladder on frame, all wheel drive, high ground clearance, 400NM of torque, seating position, etc. Is it the looks?

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by sprocket

Why not? Ladder on frame, all wheel drive, high ground clearance, 400NM of torque, seating position, etc. Is it the looks?

Of course it is the look. Why do you think Ecosport, Creta, Brezza and Nexon sell? Even Safari sales numbers are still within 70-80% of the latest Hexa numbers.
Safari sales in September - 497, Hexa - 692

[sprocket]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Of course it is the look. Why do you think Ecosport, Creta, Brezza and Nexon sell?

Fair enough.

However, I understand what crazy_driver is saying (as this was something I was asking for in an earlier post); a comparison between the Hexa and the Harrier. If they are overlapping prices then it is fair enough to pitch them against one another. What would be of the biggest interest in their difference in highway munching ability (comfort, high speed dynamics, braking ability etc.).

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Comes in 6 or 7 seater options in XE variant.

Now if Hexa XE is priced at 12.5L, how much does Harrier XE justify?

Are you sure about the XE coming with a 6 seat option?

About how much the base Harrier justifies; I do not think any more than what you quoted.

[chittybang]

Not everyone goes to a showroom with clarity on the chosen vehicle. Often they have a wide range of preferences but the common strand would be their price range. So I could walk in to a showroom wanting an SUV in the price bracket of the Harrier but my family could be more inclined for some variants of the Hexa while another might feel its better to reconsider the whole idea and move to another brand in the same price bracket. In other words the person in the showroom often needs to be nudged towards a product. Thats what the sales team does or at least should be doing by understanding the needs and helping in zeroing in on the ideal product. So , its fair to compare with all vehicles across segments keeping price point as the common strand.

[abhi7013]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Of course it is the look. Why do you think Ecosport, Creta, Brezza and Nexon sell? Even Safari sales numbers are still within 70-80% of the latest Hexa numbers.
Safari sales in September - 497, Hexa - 692

I hope you know what the term SUV stands for! There's no 'looks' in it! There's the word sports and utility in it. Does it offer them? With driving modes and assist features like HHC, HDC, the GC, 4X4, TOD and going by how much more capable an off roader it is as opposed to XUV or the psuedo SUVs like Nexon, Brezza, etc, it sure does offer loads of utility.

How can we discredit all the above just by the looks? People want comfortable 3rd rows in their SUVs and we know how comfortable the ones in the competition are! If you try increasing the leg room for the third row, the profile elongates. I'd rather buy a much capable SUV which seats everyone in comfort than have a car that just looks the part and have a third row for the heck of it!

If you ask me, am in a fix looking at Harrier. What is it? Does it belong to the psuedo SUVs like creta or is it a true one like the JLRs. Nonetheless, whatever it is, Indians need to really re-think what a true SUV is. Something like the Endeavor!

[prakash_ajp]

Okay, since the debate about pricing continues, I wanted to bring in another perspective.

Assumptions made:
1. Tata doesn't want to start selling Harrier with a loss.
2. Nexon is fairly priced.
3. Tata wants to price at least as reasonably priced as Nexon.

I am going to start with the price of a Nexon equivalent model (XE) to a Harrier XE and bring in some very very crude and some practical factors to arrive at a price for the latter.

Nexon Diesel XE ex-show room price as a sub 4 meter car: 7,25,812 (1)

If Nexon were to be a longer than 4M and an SUV, the tax on factory price would be 50% instead of 31%
That makes Nexon's price (as a 4+ meter SUV) : (7,25,812/1.31) * 1.50 = 8,31,082 (2)

Now, however technologically/technically challenged you are, you ought to understand and respect the size and weight of a car. I don't have the volumetric weight, but for simplicity sake, I will only consier the kerb weight. Nexon diesel is said to weigh about 1,250 kilos whereas the Harrier weighs about 1,700 kilos.

So, I am simply going to pro-rata the price of (1) from 1,250 kilos to 1,700 kilos.

(8,31,082 / 1250) 1700 = 11,30,271

Here are several factors that I have not included in the calculation, lest they complicate things and could have easily taken up the price:

1. The pedigree
2. R&D and inclusion of JLR team
3. Higher quality materials
4. Light weight alloys if any (which are usually very expensive)
5. Sourcing an engine from a third party

Remember, we are only talking about an imaginary Nexon if it were to be the size of the Harrier. Harrier rides way better, is much more capable and a very handsome looking car for most (if you don't like it, you can very well be the exception, no issues). It is up to anyone's imagination and prerogative as to how much extra the Harrier can command, just on looks alone. I would wager about a lakh, which will take it well over my guesstimate of 12L for the base variant. And if you aren't willing to pay 1L for the looks, you would have already bought the Hexa or Creta, you won't be in the Harrier camp to begin with. Remember, you can't have your cake and eat it too!

Now, where is the unfair, greedy pricing here?

[rovingeye]

Let's look at how a typical car buyer makes his/her decision.

1. Need to buy a car.
2. It has to be an SUV/MUV, large, spacious comfortable and rides well.
3. Has to be an auto (knee hurts from daily clutching)
4. Budget ball park about 20 lakhs with flexibility to go up a bit.
5. Let's check TBhp.
6. Ok, looks like it has to be XUV 500 or Hexa or Harrier
7. Let's schedule some test drives.
8. Can't TD the Harrier. The other two are good, but the Hexa felt better and smoother to drive around.

A lot of people, me included, does all of the above and then gets stuck at this stage. Why?

Because, the XUV definitely has some good features that the Hexa lacks. The mind is now subconsciously weighing up value.

I think car manufacturers like Tata should learn a lesson from the above. They've made a great car - Hexa. Had they been smart, they would have filled the feature gap with the XUV and sucked in so many customers, it wouldn't be funny. They need to make the purchase decision a no brainer for potential customers to address the tug of war that goes on in a customer's mind.

Same goes for the Harrier too. Give the Harrier everything the competition is giving and then some. Don't skimp on small things here and there. Make the purchase decision a no brainer and see sales fly.

[civic-sense]

Indians love SUVs, not because they can off-road, but because they look butch. So lack of AWD is not going the affect the Harrier sales by a large margin. Nor the lack of petrol option or the rear discs.

But perhaps the lack of AT would.
and the lack of 3rd row seat would.

But if there is one reason why anybody would buy the Harrier over the XUV500 is that XUV is OLD. Its been almost a decade. And people any day would buy a new, good looking car over a decade old ugly looking car.

But yes, Tata better add the missing third row.

[puntOOs]

Originally Posted by prakash_ajp

(8,31,082 / 1250) 1700 = 11,30,271

This is the best sensible estimate I have seen amid all the speculation!

I agree with you that other factors will likely push this number upwards.

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by sprocket

Fair enough.
However, I understand what crazy_driver is saying (as this was something I was asking for in an earlier post); a comparison between the Hexa and the Harrier. If they are overlapping prices then it is fair enough to pitch them against one another. What would be of the biggest interest in their difference in highway munching ability (comfort, high speed dynamics, braking ability etc.).

Originally Posted by chittybang

Not everyone goes to a showroom with clarity on the chosen vehicle. Often they have a wide range of preferences but the common strand would be their price range. So I could walk in to a showroom wanting an SUV in the price bracket of the Harrier but my family could be more inclined for some variants of the Hexa while another might feel its better to reconsider the whole idea and move to another brand in the same price bracket. In other words the person in the showroom often needs to be nudged towards a product. Thats what the sales team does or at least should be doing by understanding the needs and helping in zeroing in on the ideal product. So , its fair to compare with all vehicles across segments keeping price point as the common strand.

I don't necessarily agree.

Every car is designed for a specific purpose, and customers should understand what their requirements are. It is true that several people do not have clarity, and often people find themselves cross-shopping between two segments even though the products are priced similarly. And that's perfectly alright for the individual making the purchase.

However, I would say it's unfair to compare two products on merits belonging to different segments even though they are similarly priced.

My neighbour, for example, was looking to buy a weekend drive, and he had narrowed down his choices to two cars: Audi A5 Cabriolet and Porsche 718 Boxster. Both cars are similarly priced, but are as different as chalk and cheese. Now, it's fine to look at these cars and compare based on your requirements. But it would be ridiculous to say "The A5 Cabriolet makes more sense for the price because it has extra seats" or "the 718 Boxster is the better car between the two as it's a true sports car", because it's an unfair comparison that can't be validated because they are merely priced in the same ball-park.

Each car has its merits and thus, each car should be considered based on its individual strengths with cars from the same segment. To say that the Hexa is a better car for you because it has 7 seats and an AT (at the moment) is perfectly alright. But to say the Hexa is a better car overall because it has 7 seats and an AT is an unfair comparison.

Originally Posted by abhi7013

I hope you know what the term SUV stands for! There's no 'looks' in it! There's the word sports and utility in it. Does it offer them? With driving modes and assist features like HHC, HDC, the GC, 4X4, TOD and going by how much more capable an off roader it is as opposed to XUV or the psuedo SUVs like Nexon, Brezza, etc, it sure does offer loads of utility.

How can we discredit all the above just by the looks? People want comfortable 3rd rows in their SUVs and we know how comfortable the ones in the competition are! If you try increasing the leg room for the third row, the profile elongates. I'd rather buy a much capable SUV which seats everyone in comfort than have a car that just looks the part and have a third row for the heck of it!

If you ask me, am in a fix looking at Harrier. What is it? Does it belong to the psuedo SUVs like creta or is it a true one like the JLRs. Nonetheless, whatever it is, Indians need to really re-think what a true SUV is. Something like the Endeavor!

I disagree vehemently.

Firstly, the term SUV was coined NOT on the basis of a car's passenger hauling capabilities. If that's the case, the SWB Pajeros and even the Jimny ought to be called something else.

Further, SUVs used to be all about utility and ruggedness. But now, they stand for something else entirely. SUVs, especially the urban crawling types, are merely style statements in this day and age. So it's the design and styling that dictates the cars in their segments.

The Hexa may be described as a SUV and you wouldn't be entirely wrong. But let's face it. The focus of the Hexa is to transport 7 people in comfort and carry a whole lot of luggage. There's another established term for that, and that's "MUV". The fact that it looks like a MUV helps cement its position in its segment.

[mallumowgli]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

Firstly, the term SUV was coined NOT on the basis of a car's passenger hauling capabilities. If that's the case, the SWB Pajeros and even the Jimny ought to be called something else.

Term SUV was coined by BMW when they launched their soft roaders to differentiate the more off-road centered competitor offerings. But the terminology would not matter in the Indian market - what Indians perceive as an SUV is what matters. Harrier, Creta, XUV, Kicks - all are SUVs. Butch styling, powerful engines, spacious for the segment and with good ground clearance. And ultimately price vs perceived sum total of value the car offers is what matters

[abhi7013]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

I disagree vehemently.

Firstly, the term SUV was coined NOT on the basis of a car's passenger hauling capabilities. If that's the case, the SWB Pajeros and even the Jimny ought to be called something else.

Well, neither did I intend to say passenger carrying is a factor to define an SUV. That's an MUV. But, if there's a car that intends to provide more comfort for the third row and also has capabilities of an SUV, what then? With the type of cars populating our roads, the line of differentiation is bound to blur. It ends up on an individual's preferences. I for example would not dwell much on the looks but would look at capabilities of the vehicle.
To conclude, as in my previous post, we need to re-look on what an SUV is. Increasing the GC and adding bold curves doesn't justify somehow. That's how I feel though. Id rather call Hexa an SUV than use that term for a Nexon or a Creta. Categorising based on looks or just the style statement is just not done!

You've got all those going for the Harrier though. And yes, its a shame to talk of pedigree and not give that one feature for which that platform stands out for! And therein lies my confusion!

[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by abhi7013

I hope you know what the term SUV stands for! There's no 'looks' in it! There's the word sports and utility in it. Does it offer them?

Condescending tone aside please argue your case with the buyer, not me. I have given you the sales numbers and the so called lack of utility and sports seems to have no effect on the sales of the SUV look alikes. I could argue that anyone looking at a real SUV will at least ask for a low range gearbox and rear and center differential locks and we could go on and on but I am just not interested in a fruitless discussion which servers no purpose on this thread. It is what it is.

Originally Posted by abhi7013

How can we discredit all the above just by the looks? People want comfortable 3rd rows in their SUVs and we know how comfortable the ones in the competition are! If you try increasing the leg room for the third row, the profile elongates. I'd rather buy a much capable SUV which seats everyone in comfort than have a car that just looks the part and have a third row for the heck of it!

Again I am not sure why are you taking this personally. As I said please argue with the market. I am pretty sure manufacturers are after volumes and not SUV’s which no one’s seems to be interested in.

Originally Posted by abhi7013

If you ask me, am in a fix looking at Harrier. What is it? Does it belong to the psuedo SUVs like creta or is it a true one like the JLRs. Nonetheless, whatever it is, Indians need to really re-think what a true SUV is. Something like the Endeavor!

And how does it matter to me? If you are in a fix, don’t buy it simple. Are you going to argue with everyone who is going to buy and call this an SUV. Be my guest.

[nainan]

Originally Posted by prakash_ajp

Okay, since the debate about pricing continues, I wanted to bring in another perspective.

Now, where is the unfair, greedy pricing here?

Let me do another perspective here but with the Hexa instead of the Nexon :-

The sub 4m/SUV rule applies equally for both.

Hexa XE 4x2 is 12,57,252 and weight is 2280 Kg

By the previous logic Harrier XE should cost (1700/2280)*12,57,252 =937425 with 1 lakh extra for looks and everything else 1037425.
and the Harrier XT should cost (1700/2280)*16,58,555=1236642. Since this is the top end we can add 1 lakh more for the ESP features and another for looks etc so 14 lakhs and change.

With the Nexon calculation its (1700/1250) *9,15,651*(1.5/1.3)= 1436857+ 2 lakhs like above = 16 lakh and change

If you compare with length and width too you would reach similar conclusions. Now lets compare platform. The Hexa/Aria was built on a heavily modified X2 platform like the Harrier is built on a heavily modified D8 platform. Both were built with JLR inputs.

Comparing engines. The national engine MJD 1.3 was used in the Tata Vista without the Vista having an appreciable change in price. So why would the 2.0 MJD 2 cost structure be any different since both are made by the JV plant Tata and Fiat have.

If there are any parameters left to compare lets look at that too.

So we should have a Harrier start at 10-12 lakhs and top end at 14-16 ex showroom as per your calculations. This pricing I agree with not due to the calculations but due to what I hear common buyers who have booked the Harrier I know of expecting and my belief that its possible comparing Hexa price and the additional process automation that Tata has done which will make the manufacturing process more cost effective.

Its good to see we are converging on a price now.

[abhi7013]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Condescending tone aside....


And how does it matter to me? If you are in a fix, don't buy it simple. Are you going to argue with everyone who is going to buy and call this an SUV. Be my guest.

Looking at the quote, how paradoxical. Exactly, nothing here matters to anyone (car's yet to launch and we're merely talking on what's an SUV!) . I put my points across! Apologies if it came out in a negative tone though, wasn't my intention!
Why would i argue with folks interested in the Harrier? I just said its confusing categorizing a car these days in the Indian market. Put a zen on stilts and call it an SUV, doesn't matter! Will continue to post on the Harrier in an attempt to remain on topic. All these speculations and discussions (including mine) are just diluting the thread. Will hold on untill I have something of importance to share, thanks!