[sups]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Ride and Handling:
- Ride does not like feel anything like a Korean/Jap car. It's more Euro. You won't be mistaken thinking you're sitting in a VW/Skoda D segment car.
- Where the Ecosport crashed over the same roads and jarred the entire cabin, the S-cross demolished the potholes without blinking. The ride quality at slow speeds and as speed picks up is just astonishing. You just don't feel anything in the cabin.
- Moderator Ampere mentioned it's very close to the Duster but the S-cross felt a little stiffer.

One of the major ride plus points of Duster had been its ride quality. Its great to know that S-cross is almost similar to that. It could have been better highlighted in the "What you’ll like" section of the official review of S-cross. After all Duster official review highlights that.

[VeyronSuperSprt]

In terms of sheer torque to rupee ratio the S-Cross has every thing else licked.

But how many would be interested in that fact?

A typical Indian buyer finds more value in a sun roof than extra power.

And that's where Maruti has goofed.

It's repeating what it does with its high end models:

Build them right but get everything else wrong.

[adimicra]

Sorry for a noob question - what's the difference between the projectors provided in the Ciaz vs those in the S-cross?

[Gannu_1]

Originally Posted by adimicra

Sorry for a noob question - what's the difference between the projectors provided in the Ciaz vs those in the S-cross?

Ciaz - halogen bulbs.

S Cross - HID/gas discharge bulbs.

[pannags]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

DDiS200:
- Initial response to get moving from standstill is very decent. Better than Ecosport. In my car, just off idle there is a little hesitation unless if you give little throttle. In the 1.3 S-cross, you can start from a small incline without throttle with 3 adults on board.
- Once moving, throttle is a bit dull but I actually found sub 2000rpm it's better than the DDiS320!! After 2000rpm, the 1.3L S-cross will be small spec in the mirror of the DDiS320.
- Once you start moving, the Ecosport has better mid throttle response.
- There is turbo lag but it isn't so bad. After 2000rpm there's no lick just linear increase in acceleration.
- Clutch is much lighter than the DDiS320.
- The DDiS320 had a reassuring click when changing gears. The DDiS feels a bot rubbery but is not notchy as such.
- NVH is decent but not as quiet as Ecosport. Mod Ampere says it's better than his Duster 85PS.
- The DDiS performance is overall quite acceptable. In daily driving the DDiS200 is actually more drivable than the beastly DDiS320.
- Except for the enthusiasts nobody will complain with the DDiS200 performance.

Thanks vid6639 for a succinct summary of your observations.

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Actually I am not sure of that. I would say a current Duster 85PS owner ike Ampere can look at the S-cross 1.3 DDiS200 or the Creta 1.4 as a lateral upgrade.
Someone moving from Ecosport 1.5 TDCI will find the S-cross DDiS200 very closely matched to his car. Other than the space and better ride it's not a big step up. So an Ecosport owner will not be too happy changing to the DDiS200 S-cross.

Originally Posted by ampere

Being a sedate driver who owns a Duster 85, in theory I would happily trade my Duster to a DDIS200.
- But do note, the 85 Duster's city drivability is outstanding. Thats why I said I would trade it in theory!

Thank you again for your valuable insights. I have a couple of questions to understand the performance angle better:

1. Its very evident that the Duster 1.5/85, EcoSport 1.5 & S-Cross 1.3 have very similar low speed driveability and performance, especially in "start & go" situations. Is this a correct understanding of your observation?

2. How poor, if at all, is the S-Cross DDiS200 versus the Ecosport TDCi 1.5, when it comes to highway cruising (80-110 KMPH)? Will overtaking need downshifts everytime (like I hear it is in the Ertiga - courtesy: a good friend)?

3. Can the S-Cross DDiS200 do top speeds of 100-110 KMPH, without being pushed too hard? (please remove the actual numbers if it's not allowed)?

You response is much appreciated.

Slightly OT: On whether the Rapid DSG Elegance warrants a 1.5 lakh premium over the other contenders is something I have to decide, in addition!

[ampere]

Originally Posted by pannags

1. Its very evident that the Duster 1.5/85, EcoSport 1.5 & S-Cross 1.3 have very similar low speed driveability and performance, especially in "start & go" situations. Is this a correct understanding of your observation?

Of all the three, I would say the Duster 85 is the easiest to drive, then in line is the Ecosport and then the DDS200. But you dont want to decide just based on that. Because Ecosport and DDSI200 are way more modern in terms of their cabin. And you can manage with them easily in a city traffic. If you need more space, DDSI200. DDIS200 has also much better ride quality. So in case you are trying to decide between the three as of now, I would say take the DDIS200. You get best of almost every thing. Space, National Engine, Quality Interiors and a Fantastic ride

2. How poor, if at all, is the S-Cross DDiS200 versus the Ecosport TDCi 1.5, when it comes to highway cruising (80-110 KMPH)? Will overtaking need downshifts everytime (like I hear it is in the Ertiga - courtesy: a good friend)?

Not at all. Its a brilliant highway cruiser at the speeds you mention. Ideal for sedate cruise. Of course people can do higher speeds. Talk to all Ertiga and Ciaz owners and you will know!

3. Can the S-Cross DDiS200 do top speeds of 100-110 KMPH, without being pushed too hard? (please remove the actual numbers if it's not allowed)?

Thoughts remain same as above.

Slightly OT: On whether the Rapid DSG Elegance warrants a 1.5 lakh premium over the other contenders is something I have to decide, in addition!

Now that is a different line of thought, which you will need to think through! Depends on what you want.

[Vid6639]

I think Ampere pretty much answered all your questions so I'll add a couple of things.

Originally Posted by pannags

1. Its very evident that the Duster 1.5/85, EcoSport 1.5 & S-Cross 1.3 have very similar low speed driveability and performance, especially in "start & go" situations. Is this a correct understanding of your observation?

Yup. I would say the Duster 85 and S-cross 1.3 has slightly better response in stop and go. Once you get going the Ecosport then fairs much better. Just off idle, the Ecosport struggles to pull it's weight. Once you get moving it's fine.

2. How poor, if at all, is the S-Cross DDiS200 versus the Ecosport TDCi 1.5, when it comes to highway cruising (80-110 KMPH)? Will overtaking need downshifts everytime (like I hear it is in the Ertiga - courtesy: a good friend)?

Both will be fine on the highway. You will need a downshift for a quick overtake in both. When braking from 90-100 to say 60-70, you might get away without a downshift in Ecosport but S-cross will need a downshift whenever you shed speed.

3. Can the S-Cross DDiS200 do top speeds of 100-110 KMPH, without being pushed too hard? (please remove the actual numbers if it's not allowed)?

The ratios did not appear too short so I don't see any issue with keeping triple digit speeds comfortably.

I would say it's even better than Duster 85PS which has short ratios which strain the engine beyond 110kmph.

Slightly OT: On whether the Rapid DSG Elegance warrants a 1.5 lakh premium over the other contenders is something I have to decide, in addition

This is the big conundrum. The Rapid/Vento TDI DSg is a brilliant package and the ease of automatic.

What you lose is rough road capability. You cannot drive as carefree over bad roads as in the S-cross. The reason I went for Ecosport was only so that I don't have to worry about road conditions. There are 2 routes to my office. One with potholes and massive speed breakers and other smooth highway with lots of traffic. I used to struggle in the Figo over the potholed road vs the Ecosport which gives me opportunity to take good or bad road and not limited because of the car.

Whenever I encounter a smoothly laid road with lots of turns, I miss the Figo and the feeling of sitting in a low slung car.

The S-cross with lower height might just be the ideal recipe with a little bit of both worlds.

[adimicra]

Originally Posted by Gannu_1

Ciaz - halogen bulbs.

S Cross - HID/gas discharge bulbs.

Thanks.. I always thought projectors would come with HID.
Anyways, I will post my doubts on the auto lighting thread.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Performance:
DDiS320:
- One word : Insane!!
- It's like an on/off switch. Hit 2000rpm and all passengers slam their heads against the head rests. Gives head banging a new meaning. Acceleration is quite insane and scary at times.

I'm not in the market for an S-Cross and would never buy a car that looks like it. It simply lacks character and looks too old / boring.

However, if for any reason I was buying the S-Cross, I would get the 1.6L only.

Yes, it's overpriced. And overpriced by a fair amount.

But if I'm going to live with a car for many years, it had better bring a smile to my face every time I drive it. I'd rather have the best-in-class engine than 3 lakhs in the bank. The heart keeps me happier than a heavier wallet would. End of the day, some things are more important than calculations & cost / benefit analysis. Didn't we spend 1 lakh more for a Vtec engine (1st-gen Honda City) which gave only 6 horsepower more? Haven't we spent 2 - 3 lakhs on rebuilding junk Jeeps? 1 - 2 lakhs on ICE systems? 2 lakhs on after-market turbo installs?

They say the engine makes the car; it's definitely the case with the S-Cross 1.6. However ugly & overpriced it is.

[sreepathy]

GTO, you said it.

I was searching for similar words for some time now.

This is what I was trying to tell myself and my friend who came with me for the test drive too – if you are buying an S-Cross it has to be the ddis 320.

No point in regretting later when you see the beast whiz past you on the highways.

I know it will take some efforts to convince by finance minister, but try I will. Else I will have to live with my vento petrol for some more time

[romeomidhun]

Originally Posted by GTO

The heart keeps me happier than a heavier wallet would.

That's the quote of the day!

And true for all auto enthusiasts.

Originally Posted by sreepathy

if you are buying an S-Cross it has to be the ddis 320.

Not always.

If you are in a very tight budget, urgently need your car and stretched a lot to reach till SCross 200, then there is no point in spending another 3L for 320.

Also, if you currently drive a hatch back of the likes Alto, Eon, WagonR, Santro, Figo, i10 etc, the SCross 200 itself is a good upgrade.

But if you are a highway racer, then buy 320 only

[sourabhzen]

Originally Posted by GTO

However, if for any reason I was buying the S-Cross, I would get the 1.6L only.

Yes, it's overpriced. And overpriced by a fair amount.

They say the engine makes the car; it's definitely the case with the S-Cross 1.6. However ugly & overpriced it is.

You should have not posted this comment for greater good.

My brain had decided that I will not go for this car and continue my search (even though my heart was not giving up the fight for this engine). This post gave extra ammunition to my heart in this battle. I guess I will have to test drive it before completely writing off the Scross from my list. However, I will hold myself till Diwali before deciding on something.

[pgsagar]

Originally Posted by GTO

I'm not in the market for an S-Cross and would never buy a car that looks like it. It simply lacks character and looks too old / boring.

You said it GTO. This car looks totally bland. No will give this car a second look. Looks very 90s. The 320 engine may have good punch but it is not like it is the best out there under 20 L. At close to 18 L, it is insanely over-priced. I would rather add some more and buy a Cruze.

[NPV]

Originally Posted by GTO

I'm not in the market for an S-Cross and would never buy a car that looks like it. It simply lacks character and looks too old / boring.

However, if for any reason I was buying the S-Cross, I would get the 1.6L only.

Perfectly summarised
I just couldn't convince myself that the 1.3L offerings will be a good upgrade for me going from the first generation Swift Dzire petrol Vxi (though it includes airbags, ABS and disc brakes, the price was way too high just for those and more if one wants the Zeta/Alpha!). But with the 1.6L, yes it does feel like an upgrade but then again what a hefty price to pay
I was never seriously looking for a change so will prefer to wait & watch how/if the scene changes in a year or two.

[ssambyal1980]

Now with most of the information regarding S-Cross out in open, it's time for the officials at Maruti Suzuki to keep their fingers crossed, while waiting for the customers verdict in the coming few months.

There cannot be denying in the fact that both the 1.3 and 1.6 litre engine versions of S-Cross are overpriced as compared to their nearest competitors but still they will definitely attract a substantial number of prospective buyers due to the following reasons:

* Maruti Suzuki's wide and well anchored service network spread across the country ensures total peace of mind.

* The goodwill which Maruti Suzuki has earned over the years in terms of customer satisfaction.

* Maruti Suzuki has always ensured easy availability of spares at quite reasonable prices.