[AutoIndian]

Originally Posted by Aroy

For city commuting, especially when you are the only occupant, a small hatch, say an Alto K10 or an i10 or a Spark makes more sense. You have a nimble drive, with good FE. Parking is a breeze and maneuverability in crowds a bonus.

. For highway travel a proper SUV makes more sense, as you have bad roads, Craters instead of pot holes and at times you encounter high standing water.

Thanks for your inputs Aroy. I would have loved to own two separate cars, one for the city commuting (a decent hatch/sedan) & the other one for highway outings (a SUV), but alas I cannot afford to keep two cars simultaneously, neither do I have the luxury of two parkings. Hence I am now inclining more towards a small crossover, which can comfortably seat 5 adults, have decent luggage space, powerful enough engine with decent mileage (most of the C segment sedans have these), good ground clearance (> 200mm), higher seating position, big wheels (17 inchers), easy ingress/egress (have aged parents, nearing 70's & they are only going to get older). A sedan obviously cannot meet the last three requirements & a SUV has these in its DNA.

So it is obvious that I want the best of both worlds. A small SUV like the soon to launched Renault Duster or the Ford Ecosport suit my requirements perfectly well.

[nilanjanray]

Originally Posted by AutoIndian

I am now damn sure that if you are fond of traveling on unknown roads or love driving at night the SUV is a far better option compared to a sedan. However for the daily commute on known roads SUVs cannot beat the fuel efficiency of the sedans.

+1. I had similar experiences but I escaped because I was driving an SUV.

However, still very difficult to judge or even see some potholes even in a high seating vehicles when trucks/buses come at you on high beam - especially if you are driving fast or going behind another vehicle.

[moinakg]

Originally Posted by Anarchy83

Being a Sedan guy, I didn't expect him to go for it anyways. But if I had to crystallize the thought process behind an SUV, I would state it as:

a) Strength
b) Security
c) Freedom

You forgot to mention space, in the larger ones. We tend to go out for long drives in groups and sometimes up to 7 individuals + luggage with children wanting to lie down. A sedan is simply not an option in this scenario. However for the majority it is 5 people + luggage and there are many other things to consider in that case.

Originally Posted by Anarchy83

I've seen this chap in Koramangala who has a gorgeous black Hummer 2, spinning huge rims and enough lightforce to light up a stadium. Does anyone here think he bought it after thinking about Fuel Efficiency or Body Roll? Some people love the feeling of being on top of the world, and that is what an SUV provides.

I see that guy regularly in Koramangala near to Tunday Kababi.

Originally Posted by Anarchy83

And I object to the assumption that SUV owners are bullies, or buy an SUV for bully quotient. There is no marker that says "SUV = Bully". I've seen sedan owners being absolutely uncivilized on roads as well. Considering there are more Sedans on the road than SUVs, I am definite that there are more hooligans in Sedans rather than SUVs (simple statistics guys). This is a function of the owner and not the car. In my mind, I know my SUV costs a bit to maintain. Getting into a accident over another 5 inches in a traffic jam does not justify the bill. I drive a little extra carefully as a result.

Well said. In fact off late I am noticing more rash driving among the hatches and sedans in Bangalore compared to the bigger vehicles. The smaller the vehicle the more madness he/she exhibits. The Fortuners and Santa Fes go so respectably while the swifts, M800s and others move so crazy. Yesterday I was ambling my Scorpio slowly near Sony World through water-logging so as not to wet pedestrians and other motorists and this 2 wheeler hooligan screams through at high speed pouring muddy water on my Scorpio and nearby pedestrians, imagine the frustration!

[shankar.balan]

This is exactly why this new "Crossover" segment has been born and is, from all accounts, doing so very well.

Originally Posted by AutoIndian

So it is obvious that I want the best of both worlds. A small SUV like the soon to launched Renault Duster or the Ford Ecosport suit my requirements perfectly well.

[SushilBajpai]

I've accumulated nearly 20,000 km in my crossover - Yeti - and can vouch that it is as much a pleasure to drive in the city (Pune) as it is on the highways and unkempt rural roads.

The only gripe I have, is with the tires. The stock tires are Goodyear Excellence in size 215-60-R16. It may be great tyre for smooth roads, but the sidewalls seem to be extraordinarily weak. I have damaged two of them - one of them brand new with only 300 km on it. And I a careful driver.

Another member on the forum also reports similar damage to BMW X1 tyre.

What adds to frustration is the fact that H/T or A/T tires are not available in the recommended size. So the choice is to either opt for 215-65-R16 size (which could invalidate warranty) or continue with stock tires.

Anyone considering a crossover with intention to drive in cities as well as not so good roads, should seriously consider H/T or A/T tires on the vehicle.

[Sheel]

Acceptance of cross-over reflects a market's maturity.

I can maybe own one Car at a time (discounting the A segment) so if finances permit and if the Eco-Sport has the handling of a Fiesta, I just might go for it. It would be the perfect vehicle for me. I simply love the Yeti, but its pricing is a bit of a hindrance.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by SushilBajpai

The only gripe I have, is with the tires. The stock tires are Goodyear Excellence in size 215-60-R16. It may be great tyre for smooth roads, but the sidewalls seem to be extraordinarily weak. I have damaged two of them - one of them brand new with only 300 km on it. And I a careful driver.

Another member on the forum also reports similar damage to BMW X1 tyre.

What adds to frustration is the fact that H/T or A/T tires are not available in the recommended size. So the choice is to either opt for 215-65-R16 size (which could invalidate warranty) or continue with stock tires.

Michelin has this tyre size, but I think that it is highway.
findTyre - www.michelin.in give the size and it gives the tyre.

[SushilBajpai]

Originally Posted by Sheel

Acceptance of cross-over reflects a market's maturity.

.... I simply love the Yeti, but its pricing is a bit of a hindrance.

I agree. With Yeti, Skoda has made same mistake as Honda committed with Jazz. Both companies got a fantastic product which could have given them a phenomenal first mover advantage and grandly blew it away. Like Honda, Skoda too will have to lower the prices for Jazz. Then it will be too late to recover from the lost sales.

Mahindra XUV 500, Duster, Eco-sport will be there to snipe at its heel. It is sad to see perfectly fine product fail because the companies that brought them are a little too short sighted.

[Guna]

Originally Posted by AutoIndian

So it is obvious that I want the best of both worlds. A small SUV like the soon to launched Renault Duster or the Ford Ecosport suit my requirements perfectly well.

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

This is exactly why this new "Crossover" segment has been born and is, from all accounts, doing so very well.

Originally Posted by SushilBajpai

I've accumulated nearly 20,000 km in my crossover - Yeti - and can vouch that it is as much a pleasure to drive in the city (Pune) as it is on the highways and unkempt rural roads.

I have decided that all my cars are going to be crossovers. Besides the positives like good ground clearance, they also offer the flexibility of carrying more luggage(by folding seats etc). I had good experience with Fusion and now I am driving a pre-owned Forester. Even with all the issues with spares, I can't find many alternatives to the Forester.

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by Sheel

I simply love the Yeti, but its pricing is a bit of a hindrance.(For me that is)

Corrected

Originally Posted by SushilBajpai

I agree. With Yeti, Skoda has made same mistake as Honda committed with Jazz. Both companies got a fantastic product which could have given them a phenomenal first mover advantage and grandly blew it away. Like Honda, Skoda too will have to lower the prices for Jazz. Then it will be too late to recover from the lost sales.

Mahindra XUV 500, Duster, Eco-sport will be there to snipe at its heel. It is sad to see perfectly fine product fail because the companies that brought them are a little too short sighted.

As you own the Yeti, you are in a better position to comment as to whether it is priced a bit on the higher side. I can't comment much...

XUV may look fantastic and may carry more load but almost everywhere else, especially if self-driven, the Yeti more than makes sense over all its immediate competition. I believe the same would be true for Eco-Sport as folks in major cities keep complaining about bad roads, hence a cross-over as the only vehicle in the garage should be able to do justice.

[SushilBajpai]

Originally Posted by Sheel

Corrected


As you own the Yeti, you are in a better position to comment as to whether it is priced a bit on the higher side. I can't comment much...

XUV may look fantastic and may carry more load but almost everywhere else, especially if self-driven, the Yeti more than makes sense over all its immediate competition. I believe the same would be true for Eco-Sport as folks in major cities keep complaining about bad roads, hence a cross-over as the only vehicle in the garage should be able to do justice.

Internationally, Yeti is offered in several variants, while in India, it is offered in two variants Ambient and Elegance. Personally I feel that the current Ambiente should be offered no more than Rs 12,00,000 and Elegance at Rs 14,00,000.

Skoda should also introduce 2X4 variant at Rs 9,00,000; Ambiente with reduced frills for Rs 10,00,000 and a fully loaded 4X4 DSG automatic variant of Elegance for Rs 16,00,000.

That will offer a tough competition to XUV 500, Duster et al and also get Yeti the volumes it deserves.

[Aroy]

Originally Posted by SushilBajpai

Internationally, Yeti is offered in several variants, while in India, it is offered in two variants Ambient and Elegance. Personally I feel that the current Ambiente should be offered no more than Rs 12,00,000 and Elegance at Rs 14,00,000.

Skoda should also introduce 2X4 variant at Rs 9,00,000; Ambiente with reduced frills for Rs 10,00,000 and a fully loaded 4X4 DSG automatic variant of Elegance for Rs 16,00,000.

That will offer a tough competition to XUV 500, Duster et al and also get Yeti the volumes it deserves.

I think that they are on the way to reducing prices
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/indian...ml#post2569121 though not to extent we want. If Skoda do a Jazz, then we may expect a further fall of at least 1L, and at 13L for 4x4 lowest trim it is not a bad deal - comparable to XUV 500 4x4.

[moinakg]

Originally Posted by SushilBajpai

...
Skoda should also introduce 2X4 variant at Rs 9,00,000; Ambiente with reduced frills for Rs 10,00,000 and a fully loaded 4X4 DSG automatic variant of Elegance for Rs 16,00,000.

That will offer a tough competition to XUV 500, Duster et al and also get Yeti the volumes it deserves.

Even after all this Yeti cannot offer the road presence that a lot of the SUV buyers want, myself included. Volumes will increase however due to Skoda's brand. A Skoda SUV at 900,000 will be a strong value proposition.

I am surprised that it even sells the 130 odd average monthly today given that it comes across as an oversize hatch with plain design. Yes the overall quality is awesome but that quality is perceived only after one decides to give it a closer look. I think there are about 2 factors that makes a buyer take that decision today. Skoda's strong badge value in India and lack of SUV competition in the 15L to 18L range ex-showroom.

[Jeeper1941]

Originally Posted by Anarchy83

"If you want sensibility, go for a sedan. If you have to think about an SUV purchase twice, you'll never be happy with it in the long run."

Sorry, but I disagree. We've had SUVs in our family for over 30 years now (various ones ranging from Toyota Prado to Land Rover Discovery, now we have two - a ML 350 Diesel and a Jeep Wrangler JK Diesel - the Wrangler may not be a traditional SUV, but it is a 4x4 nonetheless). No problems with any of the SUVs we've had. I've had the Wrangler since Feb. 2007 and have 170,000 km on the clock. No problems with it whatsoever. Yes, the fuel consumption is a bit high compared to a sedan car, but a SUV is so much more practical for carrying things and people (I get about 12 kmpl in the city and around 16-17 on long drives). The assumption that "you'll never be happy with a SUV in the long run" is just plain wrong.

I have also been involved in three rear-end collisions (none of them were my fault, they were all women who were driving while texting on their phones), and on two occasions, the sedan car was written off. Yes. Written off, while I only suffered minor damage and had to spend $30 (Rs. 1500) to replace my rear number plate). I don't know what would have happened if I was driving a sedan car, it would have most likely been written off as well.

Anyway, just wanted to say you cannot generalize by saying people won't be happy with a SUV in the long run, it depends on where they live and what they use it for.

[shankar.balan]

considering the top Yeti is 27000 odd Euros in Europe, the price of about 19-21 lacs in India isnt that bad really.

compare it to say, a silly Santa Fe which costs about the equivalent of 20 lacs outside India and costs 32 lacs here!

Originally Posted by SushilBajpai

I agree. With Yeti, Skoda has made same mistake as Honda committed with Jazz. Both companies got a fantastic product which could have given them a phenomenal first mover advantage and grandly blew it away. Like Honda, Skoda too will have to lower the prices for Jazz. Then it will be too late to recover from the lost sales.

Mahindra XUV 500, Duster, Eco-sport will be there to snipe at its heel. It is sad to see perfectly fine product fail because the companies that brought them are a little too short sighted.