[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by 84.monsoon

Just saw the article that went on-line now on Autocar site, as I had anticipated, Taigun will be positioned at the premium end of the mid-size SUV segment.
VW Taigun to be priced at the premium end of the mid-size SUV segment

The last time I checked, these were all "compact SUVs". Since when did it become a mid-size SUV? What do Xuv5oo and Harrier become now then? And Fortuner?

Wonder if ACI made some bucks for simply printing this little PR gimmick.

[Behemoth]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Agreed. Good one too IMHO, especially with the claimed figure for boot capacity already raising so many eyebrows!

Well since you have raised my favourite topic of boot space, let me mention here that the Seltos boot space given in specs of close to 440 L is nowhere close to that and is actually close to 320L in reality below the parcel shelf. The number they give includes the spare wheel as well as all the space wasted below the boot separator. Same is the case with the Hyundai Creta too and many other cars (even the Karoq).
Ironically in my actual boot space measurements I found that the actual boot space of the Kia Sonet is bigger that of the Seltos, which is a revelation!
Let me give you another example:
The Renault duster has a boot space of 470L and it is fully usable as the spare wheel is below the car and not counted in boot space.
Theoretically a Seltos boot which is 440L should be around 90% of that and should be able to accommodate as much luggage minus a small cabin bag (30L) but when you see them side by side in reality, the Seltos boot will not be able to accommodate even half the luggage as a duster! Try this test personally if you don't believe me!
So don't believe manufacturers specs just yet and see the real boot measurements personally.

https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/techn...-your-car.html (Measuring the actual boot capacity of your car)

I have been actually thinking of writing to ARAI on this to standardize the boot space measurements too and just not getting time .
Boot space numbers across manufacturers are highly misleading and even same car manufacturer follows different methods across different models! Cars which have spare wheel below the car or a fully recessed spare wheel have much more usable boot space compared to cars which do not.

[vsrivatsa]

Originally Posted by Behemoth

I have been actually thinking of writing to ARAI on this to standardize the boot space measurements too and just not getting time .

Boot space numbers across manufacturers are highly misleading and even same car manufacturer follows different methods across different models! Cars which have spare wheel below the car or a fully recessed spare wheel have much more usable boot space compared to cars which do not.

Yes, I have been following your thread on boot capacity and appreciate your efforts in creating that thread. I agree there needs to be standardization so that people are not misled when they make their choices by way of a specification on paper type of calculations.

Coming to the current context and going by your explanation of the Duster, the Kushaq has the wheel inside the boot and a subwoofer as well. So, I guess we cannot be sure of the boot space until someone measures out whether they included the wheel well or not but going by the Karoq example - they mostly would have included the spare wheel well as well.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by Behemoth

The number they give includes the spare wheel as well as all the space wasted below the boot separator. Same is the case with the Hyundai Creta too and many other cars (even the Karoq).

Agreed and I do follow your brilliant thread. By your measurements - Karoq has 375L as against a claimed figure of 520! But what hope does the Kushaq have in this regard? Claimed figure is 385!

Just going by visuals (the wheel wells can be taken for some degree of size reference) - Kushaq seems nowhere close to having 10 litres more of useable space than the Karoq. On the contrary, looks far less - considering how close the rear wheel well is to the boot door, and how the seats are almost just near the top of the wells.

We'll just have to wait till the cars hit the showroom and you can get your hands on one!

[udaikalra01]

Originally Posted by Latheesh

Total comes around 9.5L ex-showroom for the base Active variant. This variant does not even have alloy wheels and ACC (which Polo has). Skoda should price base variant ~9.5L and I will be at Skoda dealer on booking opening date (4AM) to reserve mine if they do so.

According to the press kit, the base Active variant is equipped with:
-ESC
-ISOFIX
-4+2 speakers
-7 inch touchscreen
-Ambient lighting
-Steering mounted audio controls

The feature set is equivalent to Creta EX, priced at Rs 10.83L ex-sh. Kushaq starting at Rs 9.5L seems highly unlikely.

[Latheesh]

Originally Posted by udaikalra01

The feature set is equivalent to Creta EX, priced at Rs 10.83L ex-sh. Kushaq starting at Rs 9.5L seems highly unlikely.

Hyundai Creta EX was under 10L few months back. It also has size advantage.

[Behemoth]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Agreed and I do follow your brilliant thread. By your measurements - Karoq has 375L as against a claimed figure of 520! But what hope does the Kushaq have in this regard? Claimed figure is 385!

Thanks for following my thread
The key difference hopefully between the Kushaq and the Karoq will be the height of the loading space below the parcel shelf. In my guess, it should be around 60cm instead of the around 53 cm which the Karoq has.
Also, for a change Skoda has mentioned "Usable boot space" as 384L for the Kushaq, so I hope that will be fully usable unlike earlier boot space quotes!
In most other cars even from Skoda, they simply quote the European or international boot space figure, which is mostly without a spare wheel as these cars are sold without a spare wheel in those countries.
My guess (if I were to make one) on the Kushaq's boot measurements would be:
72 cm length at bottom, 50cm length at top, 100 cm of width and 60cm of height, which would make the effective boot space: 366L and two niches of around 9L on each side, which would make it 384L.
This would be the case if they were not including the spare wheel. But if the spare wheel recess is included, it would take away around 60L from this number. But I guess we will only come to know when we see the car in reality and I have a feeling that you will certainly get to see it for detailed review much before us
Also, one request, when you do actually get the car, can you do an actual boot space test with Luggage and compare side my side with a Seltos and Creta (Please...!)
Thanks and look forward to the TBHP review of the car!

[S15]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

The last time I checked, these were all "compact SUVs". Since when did it become a mid-size SUV? What do Xuv5oo and Harrier become now then? And Fortuner?

Wonder if ACI made some bucks for simply printing this little PR gimmick.

If the creta is a compact SUV to you, then what is the sub-4m venue?

I think there have been a lot of people in the past cross-shopping a creta and XUV, so they're, IMHO, competitors, and the same segment.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Skoda has put out another video.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D1x69TuraAw

[Reinhard]

Originally Posted by S15

If the creta is a compact SUV to you, then what is the sub-4m venue?
I think there have been a lot of people in the past cross-shopping a creta and XUV, so they're, IMHO, competitors, and the same segment.

Not "to me". These are well defined car segments.
Sub4M cars (unique to India in a way) = Sub-Compact SUV (And honestly - when talking about my car - I always refer to it as a super-mini hatchback. Its a joke to call it an SUV.)
Creta-Seltos-Duster-Kicks = Compact SUV
XUV5oo, Harrier, Compass, Tucson, (Safari) = Mid-size SUV
Alturas, Endeavour, Fortuner, (Safari) = Globally mid-size SUV. But in India - pretty much full size SUV considering the buying power of majority of the customer base & lack of realistic options above these.

Anyway - sorry for the off topic, back to the thread's main discussion.

[Kosfactor]

Spec comparison in ACI.

Quote "From the table above, it is quite clear that the Skoda Kushaq is the smallest offering in the segment, at least in terms of its length, width, height and even boot space. "

Link ACI

Back in the days when mobile phones were new, small was beautiful, expensive and sophisticated. Cars are going in the opposite direction over the years - this makes me wonder if Kushaq was meant for India or Export market? All they needed was a bit of squeeze and this would have fit into 4Mtrs easily, saving tons of money and gain access to a larger potential market.

[vsrivatsa]

Originally Posted by S15

If the creta is a compact SUV to you, then what is the sub-4m venue?

Originally Posted by Reinhard

Not "to me". These are well defined car segments.

Going further off-topic - I just did an innocent Google Search and looks like the definition is not all that clear:

1. COMPACT SUVS
https://www.carwale.com/new/best-compact-suvs-in-india/

2. Compact Suv Cars in India
https://www.cardekho.com/new-compact-suv+cars

3.BEST COMPACT SUV MODELS
https://www.drivespark.com/best-compact-suvs/

I guess its loosely defined and like you said most of them should just be called "crossovers" except the true 4x4 models...

[headbanger]

Originally Posted by Kosfactor

Spec comparison in ACI.

Back in the days when mobile phones were new, small was beautiful, expensive and sophisticated. Cars are going in the opposite direction over the years - this makes me wonder if Kushaq was meant for India or Export market? All they needed was a bit of squeeze and this would have fit into 4Mtrs easily, saving tons of money and gain access to a larger potential market.

Good point. With our unique rules for length of a car, it makes sense to either go below 4m or go well above 4m to gain space. Like it or not, cars looking big from outside and inside are attention magnets for buyers. Only a niche set of customers prefer a smaller exterior footprint like the kinds of Yeti.
If Kushaq happens not to undercut Creta/Seltos on price, it's going to be a tough challenge keeping in view that Kushaq isn't imposing from exterior and its a criteria in the geography that I belong to, at least.

[rahulvv]

Originally Posted by headbanger

Good point. With our unique rules for length of a car, it makes sense to either go below 4m or go well above 4m to gain space. Like it or not, cars looking big from outside and inside are attention magnets for buyers. Only a niche set of customers prefer a smaller exterior footprint like the kinds of Yeti.
If Kushaq happens not to undercut Creta/Seltos on price, it's going to be a tough challenge keeping in view that Kushaq isn't imposing from exterior and its a criteria in the geography that I belong to, at least.

Absolutely agreed. With the 95% localisation, SKODA could have ensured a much higher and imposing stance in design; whilst still keeping the price competitive with the Koreans.

Right now- it's neither here (<4M) nor there (>4M). If they are trying to create a new segment in itself between the two (3.9M to 4.3M); then they better price it like that.

Kushaq's height is really short; on spec it looks fine only because of the really tall roof rails. IMHO, it looks to be a more of an afterthought than part of original design

[sam264_2000]

Originally Posted by Behemoth

.....Seltos boot space given in specs of close to 440 L is nowhere close to that and is actually close to 320L in reality below the parcel shelf.....

I think Hyundai/Kia removed the parcel shelf too when they calculated the boot space and measured right till the top. I am seeing several videos on YouTube highlighting how great boot space is in Seltos & Creta by removing the parcel tray and trying to fit taller bags and also putting smaller ones on top of each other. But this is not the right way to stack luggage - it severely hampers rear visibility of the driver and also is unsafe if the bags fall on the rear seats upon hard braking.

[Gizmokid]

Originally Posted by Taha Mir

The 1.5 TSI + DQ200 sounds like a lethal combo in terms of driving experience and also long term reliability. Two very complex beasts mated together, one with poor history. I wonder how patchy it's ownership would be over a span of 10 years.

Seems like the most sensible upgrade from my EcoSport so id be keen on keeping it for 8+ years.

Same boat. Upgrading from EcoSport. How would a top end kushaq compare against the jeep compass longitude? Maybe 2+L delta in price, but a reasonable comparison?