[Viju]

Originally Posted by jeepster_chd

Almost all the negatives about TUV300 like the handling, bounciness, ride quality, etc. are in fact intrinsic qualities of an old school (body on frame), true to its character SUV.

TUV has managed to fit itself in the hatch dimensions, however, at the same time it has also managed to stick to its character.

What according to you, is the TUV300 capable of doing as an "old school, true to its character SUV" that the Ecosport and Brezza cannot, as "hatches on steroids"?

What is it's USP according to you other than having a "body on frame" construction?

[Baddychat]

Originally Posted by jeepster_chd

Almost all the negatives about TUV300 like the handling, bounciness, ride quality, etc. are in fact intrinsic qualities of an old school (body on frame), true to its character SUV. While all the goodness about Brezza and Ecosport being applauded here like the plush interiors, cushy ride quality, etc. are characteristics intrinsic to hatches and sedans. It is like comparing apples and oranges.

I think you are correct about the SUV'ish characteristics of the TUV300 and the absence of the same on the other two. But are we really comparing SUV's here. IMO none of the three being mentioned here are SUV's in the true sense of the word. Compact SUV's aren't expected to go off-roading or provide the torque of the big SUV engines.
The target audiences in general, for the TUV and the other 2 are different. Irrespective of that, if I had to chose since it would be primarily urban use, tmy vote would be for the Ecosport. That is if you can are okay with their below par sales experience.

[roy_libran]

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/offici...ml#post3661834

Here are some old pics of my Ecosport, when I had to cross the Kosi river bed with a full load of adults on board. This was sufficient to meet my expectations from this pseudo-SUV. For anything more, I usually have a dedicated 4WD.

[TaurusAl]

My Vote goes to TUV after owning and driving it for 5000 kms. On paper it may not look impressive, but the feel you get when you drive it is no where compared to these 2 cars. It perfectly suits the Indian road conditions due to its massive road presence and rugged build to last quality.

[VRPAI]

Originally Posted by Viju

What is it's USP according to you other than having a "body on frame" construction?

Use all these three cars on a worksite with usually has no tarred roads or take them on a non tarmac or a lil mushy trail. See how each of them take the abuse and you'll get the answer.

[Viju]

Originally Posted by VRPAI

Use all these three cars on a worksite with usually has no tarred roads or take them on a non tarmac or a lil mushy trail. See how each of them take the abuse and you'll get the answer.

Sorry, can you be a little bit more specific?

What do you think will happen to the Vitara Brezza and the Ecosport if they are taken to a worksite with no tarred roads or a lil mushy trail? Do you think they will break-down while the rugged TUV will go on and on? Do you have any evidence to substantiate such claims?

Just because people think that a body-on-frame construction is what makes an "SUV", it does not. May be it was true ten years ago. Why do you think Mahindra, the quintessential maker of SUVs move on to monocoque construction for its flagship XUV?

Other than 'feel', 'presence', 'rugged nature' which really are not measurable benefits, the only advantage I see for the TUV is the two extra jump seats. I am open to correction.

[sri_tesla]

Originally Posted by shivasi

Though I voted for the Ecosport, not sure why the 1.3 S-Cross is not in your poll?
It is a competent product that can match if not exceed what Ecosport provides.

As the headline says, comparison is between compact SUVs. S-cross 1.3 is comparable in terms of price but its bigger.

[carwatcher]

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/techni...ml#post2970854

This post clears many of the doubts.

The benefits you mentioned are not measurable but are the very reason for the launch of all the cars mentioned in the poll vis-a-vis Hatchbacks.
I would go on to say that they are the most critical factors for majority of the car buyers.
Whatever the tall claims made by the manufacturer but its the customer who 'feels' whether he is getting the same feel or not before taking the decision.

Originally Posted by Viju

Sorry, can you be a little bit more specific?Other than 'feel', 'presence', 'rugged nature' which really are not measurable benefits, the only advantage I see for the TUV is the two extra jump seats. I am open to correction.

[timuseravan]

Originally Posted by Viju

Sorry, can you be a little bit more specific?

What do you think will happen to the Vitara Brezza and the Ecosport if they are taken to a worksite with no tarred roads or a lil mushy trail? Do you think they will break-down while the rugged TUV will go on and on? Do you have any evidence to substantiate such claims?

Just because people think that a body-on-frame construction is what makes an "SUV", it does not. May be it was true ten years ago. Why do you think Mahindra, the quintessential maker of SUVs move on to monocoque construction for its flagship XUV?

Other than 'feel', 'presence', 'rugged nature' which really are not measurable benefits, the only advantage I see for the TUV is the two extra jump seats. I am open to correction.

Sorry if it offends anyone and I am not against it but Viatara Breeze and the Ecosport are just glorified hatchbacks. And I say that not for any "rugged look and feel" but because their interior space and handling is very hatch like.
TUV on the other hand is an actual compact-SUV. Tons of seating space, good driving position and the fantastic low end torque. It does miss out performance vise at higher speeds.
Do take test drives of all three before forming an opinion. I was really pleasantly surprised by the TUV.

[Sheel]

Originally Posted by VRPAI

a lil mushy trail.

In a little mushy trail a FWD car will have an advantage over a RWD one.

[bhansali_hardik]

Originally Posted by timuseravan

Sorry if it offends anyone and I am not against it but Viatara Breeze and the Ecosport are just glorified hatchbacks. And I say that not for any "rugged look and feel" but because their interior space and handling is very hatch like.
TUV on the other hand is an actual compact-SUV. Tons of seating space, good driving position and the fantastic low end torque. It does miss out performance vise at higher speeds.
Do take test drives of all three before forming an opinion. I was really pleasantly surprised by the TUV.

I somehow have never agreed with ppl who tell the compact SUVs are glorified hatch backs or, are hatches on steroids. We've reached a stage where it is a segment and the have the good things of both the worlds. It's time we accept the segment and have them compared to what they claim to be rather than what they could be. i20 active is hatch on steroids yes, so is ethios cross and so on. Most of us including me see compact SUVs as a bigger hatch, which again is not a bad thing for a car. However, it's a segment where we need to treat them as their own!

[jeepster_chd]

Originally Posted by Viju

What according to you, is the TUV300 capable of doing as an "old school, true to its character SUV" that the Ecosport and Brezza cannot, as "hatches on steroids"?

What is it's USP according to you other than having a "body on frame" construction?

Let's not talk about the capability here; go up in Himachal and you will find more Nano cars than anything else. I feel that most of the people buy a SUV for the feel of it (truck like if I may say so) which both Ecosport and Brezza fail to provide. They are car-like and there is no denying it. And instead of buying something car-like, I would rather prefer buying a proper car.

As far as USP is concerned for me there are many - the feel (driving TUV is an experience), VFM, base model features ABS and Airbags and it can sit 5 comfortably, among others.

I respect your choice but somehow excessive gadgetry and fancy-bits aren't for me. I like it simple and to the point.

[carwatcher]

I agree with your post completely except for one word i.e. comfortably.

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/offici...ml#post3835563

Originally Posted by jeepster_chd

As far as USP is concerned for me there are many - the feel (driving TUV is an experience), VFM, base model features ABS and Airbags and it can sit 5 comfortably, among others.

[timuseravan]

Originally Posted by bhansali_hardik

I somehow have never agreed with ppl who tell the compact SUVs are glorified hatch backs or, are hatches on steroids. We've reached a stage where it is a segment and the have the good things of both the worlds. It's time we accept the segment and have them compared to what they claim to be rather than what they could be. i20 active is hatch on steroids yes, so is ethios cross and so on. Most of us including me see compact SUVs as a bigger hatch, which again is not a bad thing for a car. However, it's a segment where we need to treat them as their own!

There is no doubt that the car makers have successfully marketed the term compact-SUV.
But the driving experience of these compact SUVs (including Creta and SCross) do not give the feel that they are in a different class than hatch. An upgrade definitely but not a different type of vehicle.
All except the TUV. After driving other SUVs, TUV certainly feels in the same class of vehicle.

Originally Posted by jeepster_chd

Let's not talk about the capability here; go up in Himachal and you will find more Nano cars than anything else. I feel that most of the people buy a SUV for the feel of it (truck like if I may say so) which both Ecosport and Brezza fail to provide. They are car-like and there is no denying it. And instead of buying something car-like, I would rather prefer buying a proper car.

As far as USP is concerned for me there are many - the feel (driving TUV is an experience), VFM, base model features ABS and Airbags and it can sit 5 comfortably, among others.

Completely agree on all the points.
The noly thing missing in TUV is the mHawk 2.2.

[VRPAI]

Originally Posted by Sheel

In a little mushy trail a FWD car will have an advantage over a RWD one.

True

I work in the construction industry and most of the cars at the large work sites are either boleros, sumos, and now I've started to see a few TUV's as well.The TUV's are very few in comparison to the bolero's though.
All these drivers swear by their cars and through it might be RWD they somehow manage going through the slush clear most the terrain.I am not saying the Ecosport wouldn't go through the patches or anything, it's just that the TUV seems much more suitable for doing such things.

Please pardon me if this whole post is rubbish, just my noob thought

Thanks