[ACM]

Originally Posted by PrideRed

Check with you dealer when buying insurance from outside. Some dealers do honor cashless if bought from outside and some don't. I bought New India insurance for my Kwid from outside(the dealer was also offering from New India assurance), the dealer clearly told that he will not honor cashless if not brought from us. Same with Toyota. So I would suggest you check with insurer and dealer before you make the purchase.

That is true. Yet have also seen dealers change the insurance companies they honour for cashless middle of the year.

Have made 10+ claims with various dealers using various different insurance companies over the last 20 odd yrs.

In 80% of these it was managed cashless. The one odd case was actually of Ford dealer changing the acceptable insurance company list during my policy tenure. The other case was of Skoda.

Never bought insurance from the dealer unless they managed to match outside quote within Rs. 1000 of the lowest quote.
I have mainly used ICICI or HDFC in 80% of the years.

I feel cashless is overvalued and even if you have to pay out of pocket initially it is best to go with lowest quote if dealer quote is much higher as making a claim within the year is itself not a high probability.

Originally Posted by eternalck

I think you wrote downshift instead of upshift, since trying to floor it would result in changing to a higher gear (upshift).

An aggressive pressdown of the accelerator will result in a downshift in most automatics. This is called kickdown mode.

[eternalck]

Originally Posted by ACM

An aggressive pressdown of the accelerator will result in a downshift in most automatics. This is called kickdown mode.

Aaah yes now it all makes sense. Perhaps the D mode is being true to the name of the car

[Mad4bhp]

Been over a month since I got my Canyon ridge T+ D. Have driven her for around 1400 kms now. One slightly long trip to Arga which saw her return 19.5 on the MID overall. From Delhi to Agra and back. I have not reset the trip and it now shows 19.2 after driving 100 odd kms more. I was gentle and set the cruise to 90. Occasionally went to around 100. Not more.

The only issue other than the tyre change I faced was with the capacitive controls on the door. Just after the wash, the driver side touch refused to work whereas the passenger side did. I thought that it's an issue and would probably need an visit to the service centre. Thankfully it started working normally the next morning. I then realised that it's an issue after wash. Confirmed now after reading some posts here.

On the tire issue, the dealer gave me an discount of 25%. Which I believe is quite reasonable since Bridgestone declined on the warranty and said its due to external factors.

Each tyres cost a whopping 9k. In comparison, the ones on titanium costs 6k. I recently replaced tyres on my Eon and spent 8800 for 4 tyres.

The canyon ridge really stands out. Looks really good after a good wash. Attaching some pictures

[vprabu]

Just saw this news from Autocar:

https://www.autocarindia.com/car-new...evealed-407166

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by Mad4bhp

The only issue other than the tyre change I faced was with the capacitive controls on the door.

On the tire issue, the dealer gave me an discount of 25%. Which I believe is quite reasonable since Bridgestone declined on the warranty and said its due to external factors.

Each tyres cost a whopping 9k. In comparison, the ones on titanium costs 6k. I recently replaced tyres on my Eon and spent 8800 for 4 tyres.

This has been bothering me from day 1 of release of the facelift Ecosport. The 17" tyres are such a bad move. For our roads 17" and 50 profile on a SUV are just stupid to have. Secondly the Ecosport does not have a comfy, pliant suspension. They have tweaked this in the facelift to an extent but undone it all by putting on 17" wheels. I just drove a Titanium Dragon with 16" and a Titanium+ diesel with 17" within a few days gap of each other and can confirm that the 16" has a vastly better ride quality than the 17". The 17" new one feels marginally better than my 4 year old Titanium+ with 16".

And it doesn't even do much for the looks. An SUV is supposed to have big fat tyres not low profile!

[blurust]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

And it doesn't even do much for the looks. An SUV is supposed to have big fat tyres not low profile!

The Facebook group for facelifted Ecosport has many users that have faced tyre issues. This is the only thing I don't like about my car. I'm scared that I could be in the same situation as them any unlucky day, this has made me slow down even on smallest of undulations.

[ravib]

Originally Posted by blurust

The Facebook group for facelifted Ecosport has many users that have faced tyre issues. This is the only thing I don't like about my car. I'm scared that I could be in the same situation as them any unlucky day, this has made me slow down even on smallest of undulations.

Can you share the new facelift group link @blurust?

Thanks
-Ravi

[blurust]

Originally Posted by ravib

Can you share the new facelift group link @blurust?

Thanks
-Ravi

It's a closed group, search for "EcoSquads".

[Samfromindia]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

This has been bothering me from day 1 of release of the facelift Ecosport. The 17" tyres are such a bad move. For our roads 17" and 50 profile on a SUV are just stupid to have. Secondly the Ecosport does not have a comfy, pliant suspension. They have tweaked this in the facelift to an extent but undone it all by putting on 17" wheels. I just drove a Titanium Dragon with 16" and a Titanium+ diesel with 17" within a few days gap of each other and can confirm that the 16" has a vastly better ride quality than the 17". The 17" new one feels marginally better than my 4 year old Titanium+ with 16".

And it doesn't even do much for the looks. An SUV is supposed to have big fat tyres not low profile!

Firstly Ecosport is a hatch and not SUV. The "SUV" tag is a pure marketing term. It can be said a mini crossover at best. An educated "SUV" buyer will never buy a car like Ecosport leaving proper ladder on frame and 4x4 options behind. The main USP of this car is its looks, and many will love the low profile tyres. Good thing is they are giving it only in the top end variant. I personally dont like how they look, i feel the platinum edition 17' looked better by far. This situation is similar to what happened in the previous gen Ecosport. The lower end variants with 15' rims had better comfort than more expensive titanium variants with 16'. Still lot of people are happy with their Titanium's (Including me ) and this will be same here also. You get some and you lose some !

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by Samfromindia

Firstly Ecosport is a hatch and not SUV. The "SUV" tag is a pure marketing term. It can be said a mini crossover at best. An educated "SUV" buyer will never buy a car like Ecosport leaving proper ladder on frame and 4x4 options behind.

Doesn't matter what is your definition of SUV. By that definition the Duster 4x4, XUV AWD and others are also not SUV. But that's an argument for another thread. In the end whether it's marketing term or not it's been sold as an SUV just like others. If the W-RV, Brezza, Creta, Nexon and Jeep compass can be sold as an SUV so can the Ecosport.

Anyways the point being they are targeting these vehicles for our bad road conditions and ability to tackle urban bad roads. The whole purpose of an educated SUV buyer getting the Ecosport is because he wants the car like dynamics but wants the ability to take on poor roads or take the car on a beaten path where you don't need AWD or 4x4 or ladder frame. Well that's the basis I bought the car on cause I surely didn't need a useless 4x4 ladder frame for the city and slight off beat exploration and lose out on the car like dynamics. If anyone bought it for the looks alone then they were not very smart cause the old one looks were polarizing and there were better looking hatches out there.

And if you see our official review of the Ecosport I have mentioned the 16" wheels equates to a stiff ride however it is acceptable because of handling advantage and the 15" looks way too puny. The 16" was just fine and with the improved suspension was basically fixing one of the biggest grouses in the Ecosport.

There's no point of giving it 200mm ground clearance and crippling it with 17" wheels and you need to baby it around whenever the roads are bad.

[rpunwani]

Originally Posted by Mad4bhp

On the tire issue, the dealer gave me an discount of 25%. Which I believe is quite reasonable since Bridgestone declined on the warranty and said its due to external factors.

Each tyres cost a whopping 9k. In comparison, the ones on titanium costs 6k. I recently replaced tyres on my Eon and spent 8800 for 4 tyres.

The damage on the sidewall is clearly an indication that there is no manufacturing defect. I too had the same experience in 2014 when I drove my Passat over a gutter in one Bangalore underpass. Lost two Pirelli tyres (both right tyres) instantly - sidewall damaged. Had to buy new ones

When I took the test drive of the T+ AT, the ride was a bit harsh - did not compare it with other variants.

One of the owners has upgraded his tyres to Pirelli 215/50 R17.

On the other hand, various owners have been experiencing battery draining on their new EcoSports. Some owners have posted their experiences on Facebook

Wonder if Ford has an answer & a solution?

[Samfromindia]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Doesn't matter what is your definition of SUV. By that definition the Duster 4x4, XUV AWD and others are also not SUV. But that's an argument for another thread. In the end whether it's marketing term or not it's been sold as an SUV just like others. If the W-RV, Brezza, Creta, Nexon and Jeep compass can be sold as an SUV so can the Ecosport.

Anyways the point being they are targeting these vehicles for our bad road conditions and ability to tackle urban bad roads. The whole purpose of an educated SUV buyer getting the Ecosport is because he wants the car like dynamics but wants the ability to take on poor roads or take the car on a beaten path where you don't need AWD or 4x4 or ladder frame. Well that's the basis I bought the car on cause I surely didn't need a useless 4x4 ladder frame for the city and slight off beat exploration and lose out on the car like dynamics. If anyone bought it for the looks alone then they were not very smart cause the old one looks were polarizing and there were better looking hatches out there.

And if you see our official review of the Ecosport I have mentioned the 16" wheels equates to a stiff ride however it is acceptable because of handling advantage and the 15" looks way too puny. The 16" was just fine and with the improved suspension was basically fixing one of the biggest grouses in the Ecosport.

There's no point of giving it 200mm ground clearance and crippling it with 17" wheels and you need to baby it around whenever the roads are bad.

True the above mentioned crossovers are also marketed as SUV. Same way that a hatch with more cladding is marketed as "Cross". Well we all want to imagine that we are getting a segment above than what we are buying

Ecosport certainly lost some dynamics of its sedan and hatch counterparts, but what benefit are you getting from this sacrifice. Please mention any trail which Ecosport can take on which other sedans like Etios or even a humble Eon cannot take ? Yes you may need to be more careful with the sedans but they go pretty much anywhere a 2WD will go. Also many people have noticed the terrible low end torque of Ecosport, which is observed over and over again in soft roading sessions we do here.

Coming to the ground clearance, you may check my post:

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/offici...ml#post3892111

It was below 140 for me. I hope the fixed the stupid sump guard in newer model. Even without the guard its below what was advertised as 200mm.

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by Samfromindia

Ecosport certainly lost some dynamics of its sedan and hatch counterparts, but what benefit are you getting from this sacrifice. Please mention any trail which Ecosport can take on which other sedans like Etios or even a humble Eon cannot take ? Yes you may need to be more careful with the sedans but they go pretty much anywhere a 2WD will go. Also many people have noticed the terrible low end torque of Ecosport, which is observed over and over again in soft roading sessions we do here.

I also own a Corolla and the major reason for the Ecosport was because the Corolla would scrape with 2-3 on board. Then there's our brilliant roads drainage during monsoons. I was once lucky with my Figo that even after stalling in deep water there was no damage.

I have taken the Ecosport on trips to resorts where the same resort I had to park my corolla at a different place and take their M&M jeep cause the Corolla couldn't get over the rocks.

In my dad's office the Corolla could not be taken out of basement with 4 on board as the rear exhaust and the central tunnel was getting the car beached. Mind you I have even upgraded the altis tyres to a taller profile to increase the ground clearance.

There's a reason why these Compact SUV's sell and it's not just style. They are the perfect combo for our road conditions and the compromise on driving pleasure is least compromised vs a ladder frame 4x4 SUV which is not for everyone. The on road sacrifices for the ladder frame is too big and that's why this segment is the highest selling these days.

So it makes even less sense that they crippled the Ecosport's biggest USP with 17" wheels.

Coming to the ground clearance, you may check my post:

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/offici...ml#post3892111

It was below 140 for me. I hope the fixed the stupid sump guard in newer model. Even without the guard its below what was advertised as 200mm.

Yes I've seen your post and infact replied to it in 2016 itself. https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/offic...ml#post3892936 (Ford EcoSport : Official Review). The GC measurement standard has nothing to do with the front and rear bumpers as well as the lowest point right next to the wheel. Cause the rear suspension point will travel along with the wheel.

That sump guard is made of soft fibre material so will obviously not protect against a big impact but it has been very useful for me cause you can try to clear an obstacle slowly till you hear the sump guard rub over something. If you drive into a rock or hit something hard then it won't do much and that's not even what good off roaders do. They first recce or check the obstacle before attempting to drive over it.

[Samfromindia]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

I have taken the Ecosport on trips to resorts where the same resort I had to park my corolla at a different place and take their M&M jeep cause the Corolla couldn't get over the rocks.

There's a reason why these Compact SUV's sell and it's not just style. They are the perfect combo for our road conditions and the compromise on driving pleasure is least compromised vs a ladder frame 4x4 SUV which is not for everyone. The on road sacrifices for the ladder frame is too big and that's why this segment is the highest selling these days.


That sump guard is made of soft fibre material so will obviously not protect against a big impact but it has been very useful for me cause you can try to clear an obstacle slowly till you hear the sump guard rub over something. If you drive into a rock or hit something hard then it won't do much and that's not even what good off roaders do. They first recce or check the obstacle before attempting to drive over it.

Well good to know you found a situation where Ecosport's GC and water wading proved its merit. I am yet to experience something similar. Maybe in future perhaps.

I wish Ford provided a proper underbody protection in Ecosport. I had a horror experience in a teambhp meet drive, where my engine guard got detached on the middle of the highway drive while driving in high(top) speed. The guard always droops down and its easy to spot a diesel Ecosport from front by noticing its drooping sump guard. In high speed that must have created a lot of wind resistance and two of its mount points got broken. Fellow Bhpian Uprasenjit have similar experience. He bought the OEM plastic guard for 10k. It got dislodged and lost in the middle of a road trip.

Also Ford prides itself in low cost of service and spares. Yes the ORVM cost 2.5k, front bumpers with paint may be 7.5K. Quite reasonable. I got the shock of my life when i heard the replacement sump guard costs close to 10k That's a big ripoff. I drove without that for quite sometime, but noticed increased cabin noise. So had to buy a new one.

[Syed Monis]

I am new to this thread and looking at the comments so far i feel the main issue with Ecosport is its stiff suspension.It has been the bane since its launch and it still is though they have corrected it to some extent in the facelift.

I am a bit confused between Ecosport and Tata Nexon. I was waiting for the facelift to make a choice between Nexon and Ecosport and i have test driven both the cars so far. The ride quality of both was exceptional but i somewhat felt Nexon was slightly ahead in ride and handling. Plus the turning radius of Nexon seems to be the smallest in the segment so far.

I was really impressed with the new engine of Ecosport though which was way more powerful than Nexon and slightly refined too. The low RPM ride is way better in Ecosport thanks to naturally aspirated petrol engine compared to turbo engine of Nexon. The biggest bummer for me however was its updated interiors. The quality of plastic does look good and improved ergonomics are a welcome sign but the all black dash was a turn off. No dualtone or use of chrome on the interior doesn't give me the feeling of premiumness. That oomph factor is missing to be honest and it would had been a huge plus if Ford would had given some shades of lighter tones to the interiors to give it a more premium feel. Plus the black color makes the cabin look way too small and cramped. You feel suffocated due to the borng all black interiors. To make it worse the rear bench is way too crampy and the long distance drive at the rear seat will be a challenge though the seats have better thigh support compared to that of Nexon. On the other hand Nexon has one of the best suspensions in the segment i feel and the premiumness does look evident in its interiors due to use of multi tone shades of black and grey. It looks roomier because of that and it actually is roomer too due to width being more than that of Ecosport. 3rd occupant fits much more comfortably in Nexon compared to that of Ecosport.

Overall the price difference for petrol is way too much and the value for money proposition point of view is forcing me to go for Nexon. Any takers for my opinion so far here? Would really like some suggestions.