[Samurai]

Originally Posted by sparsh

On the flip side, Kizashi would never give you the solid feel of the European cars.

This is your opinion after a test drive? I felt it was very soild, not unlike my GV.

[sparsh]

I did a test drive of the Kizashi and found its a great car in its own way. I felt it did not give me the solid feel when I drove a Skoda Laura, VW Jetta. I think Maruti needs to price it more aggressively given the competition in the segment its being positioned.

[sudev]

Congratulations on the purchase.

MSIL spares and wide service network is able to handle all vehicles. As a owner of GV I have had occasion to actually attest to veracity of this. Spares and pricing is also very reasonable vis all other brand with may be exception of Hyundai.

Yes pricing of K is a blunder. CBU quality and build does not fully justify such pricing.

Ultimately beauty is in eyes of beholder. Enjoy the ownership and post the experience.

[scooby05]

Congratulations on the choice of the Kizashi! Its a superb car. Very different and has all that an enthusiast wants.
The big difference between Japanese and European are the maintenance costs, where the European cars suck, whilst the Jap cars just go on and on with just normal service. They just dont break, unlike the umpteen reasons of failure in Skoda's and the horrid service and costs.
Its overpriced sure, but thats not a bother to you, neither is the depreciation! I would buy one if I was looking for a car in that range.

[TRANSAM]

Congratulations on the first Kiz on the forum, you seem to have struck a good deal with registration etc, did you book it with Sai Service? awaiting a detailed ownership revie I-Chief..

[anandpadhye]

Congrats on the Kizashi.
What's the warranty on Kizashi?

When I was considering GV, I asked for extended warranty but they did not have any for the GV. I felt they should offer it surely for the CBUs!

Originally Posted by Samurai

This is your opinion after a test drive? I felt it was very soild, not unlike my GV.

"not unlike" means "like"?
GV has the sold feel, no?

[supremeBaleno]

^^^ Yeah, since 2 negatives cancel out, he meant "very solid, like my GV".

IMO, this does-not-feel-solid thing is a carryover from the M800 days, while Suzuki's recent cars here have moved away from that to more solid and heavy models (Swift, SX4 etc).
Though personally I prefer cars to be lean and mean (like the Baleno) - why would one want to lug around another 200kgs (SX4) resulting in performance and efficiency going down.

@I-Chief, you mentioned that you TD-ed both AT and MT versions. How was your AT experience, since I mostly see people not being happy with the drive in AT ? What made you opt for MT ?

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by anandpadhye

"not unlike" means "like"?
GV has the sold feel, no?

Yes, GV has a very solid feel. That is why I am able to rip it over bad roads confidently year after year. There, I didn't use any double negative this time.

[ObsessedByFIAT]

@I-Chief, not sure if you have already made the purchase. However, if you are still on the lookout, I would vote for the Chevrolet Cruze (Diesel version) anyday.

Though its not very good with the rear seat, but a perfect Drivers car. You would find a lot of reviews from the current owners.

Just my two cents worth. (I don't own Cruze, but have taken a test ride and it surely is a wonderful car!)

[I-Chief]

@anandpadhye, warranty is 2 years / 40000km whichever is earlier but they are giving extended warranty upto 4 years / 80000 km.

@transam, I am purchasing from Automotive. but all dealers seem to have a couple of cars with them and for a start all of them say they will give 1 lac discount.

@supremebaleno, price difference is around 2 lacs between AT and MT, I have always preferred MT cars for the involvement besides, I did notice a considerable rubber band effect everytime I tried to give it the stick. I am sure it will be good for smooth sane driving. I also have a doubt that if the CVT breaks down on a long drive (which I will do a lot of) then it will be an issue getting it up and running plus a costly affair to repair, manual in that matter is more fool proof unless I run without gear oil or break a gear. And not to mention I saw a lot of variation in the instant fuel consumption being shown every time I got excited and believe me, my right foot is really heavy, manual I know I can manipulate to a certain extent.

@obsessedbyfiat, I have extensively test driven the Cruze AT a number of times and must admit that it does have a potent engine and with the numbers it is selling I am sure it is a runaway success for GM. If it was not for the Kizashi, it would have been the Cruze for sure.

[deetjohn]

Great decision. It's one stunning car. Just make sure you're getting a fresh piece all the way from Japan.

Are there only 3 colours available in India? I love that silver which looks very grey.

[Durango Dude]

Originally Posted by supremeBaleno

Though personally I prefer cars to be lean and mean (like the Baleno) - why would one want to lug around another 200kgs (SX4) resulting in performance and efficiency going down.

It would be more in the interests of safety, otherwise 1st gen Honda City would still be around, with its light, sub 1 ton build and a screamer of an engine; so would be the Esteem and Baleno too.

[supremeBaleno]

^^^ The 2nd-gen City ie NHC was not any heavier than the 1st gen. And the current ANHC also weighs in at just 1085 - 1100kg depending on the variant. Which is not much given the design of the car (taller) compared to 1st gen.

And I somehow don't think safety is about adding more steel to the car. There are lots of other things to it.

[suhaas307]

Originally Posted by Durango Dude

It would be more in the interests of safety, otherwise 1st gen Honda City would still be around, with its light, sub 1 ton build and a screamer of an engine; so would be the Esteem and Baleno too.

OT.

More metal doesn't mean better safety. It's a myth.

This was the idea back in the '70s and '80s, when people would buy the strongest and heaviest car, assuming that it will save them from crashes. Sadly, it didn't.

In fact, most 'heavy' and strong cars aren't as safe as you'd expect them to be. While a car with a super strong body might take the impact well, unfortunately, the impact will be felt by the occupants of the car quite a bit. On the other hand, cars made of 'smart' and light material might be better. The light material used in today's cars are designed to absorb the impact and ensure that it doesn't get transferred into the cabin and to the occupants.

The SX4 is a large car. It was originally designed to be a mini-crossover SUV-hatch. It has a huge glass-area and is considerably larger than the Baleno or the Esteem. So it's bound to be heavier.

[lancer_rit]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

OT.

More metal doesn't mean better safety. It's a myth.

This was the idea back in the '70s and '80s, when people would buy the strongest and heaviest car, assuming that it will save them from crashes. Sadly, it didn't.

In fact, most 'heavy' and strong cars aren't as safe as you'd expect them to be. While a car with a super strong body might take the impact well, unfortunately, the impact will be felt by the occupants of the car quite a bit. On the other hand, cars made of 'smart' and light material might be better. The light material used in today's cars are designed to absorb the impact and ensure that it doesn't get transferred into the cabin and to the occupants.

The SX4 is a large car. It was originally designed to be a mini-crossover SUV-hatch. It has a huge glass-area and is considerably larger than the Baleno or the Esteem. So it's bound to be heavier.

Well that is only partly true. The heavier car with the same kind of safety features in the chassis, is _always_ going to be safer than the lighter car in a collision. NHTSA and other crash tests have proved that. For eg. in a head-on collision between an Accord and a CRV, the heavier CRV had lesser damage and slightly better protection to the passenger cabin.

OTOH, weight by itself does not mean safety - in that you're correct.

Between the relative safety of SX4 and Baleno, there is no comparison - the SX4 has way more stronger chassis elements and is built to newer European requirements compared to old generation cars like the Baleno, OHC or Lancer. I would any day choose it from a safety point of view!

The other aspect is dinks, and dents on very minor collisions, or even hit by a ball or whatever. Here, the old school Jap cars are bad, and a thicker gauge high strength steel body does help!