Suzuki Grand Vitara - Driven !!!

mclaren1885 · 15th July 2007, 12:44

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rudra Sen

I'm not for a moment questioning it stopping power. Frankly, I don't have any issue with my Optra also. But I should expect certain things as given. Especially when one pays that kind of price.

. If I am not wrong, there has been no cost cutting from MUL's end in this. I guess its the same specs on versions abroad as well. Can'f fathom how they allowed drums at the rear.

moralfibre · 15th July 2007, 12:51

I believe the CR-V's always came with rear disc brakes. If they are placing the Vitara against the CR-V then Honda sales staff have a point to make. Wonder why Suzuki added drum brakes on the rear to a car that costs 10 lakhs++

razor4077 · 15th July 2007, 13:32

Ok... my take on the GV.
Exteriors - very good... it has this mean, purposeful look to it. Fairly compact for an SUV - good for Indian cities. I still think the rims were 15 inchers and not 16. I remember thinking that my Lancer has similar sized rims and feeling good about it ..lol! The Yokos looked good, but I don't know where they stand in comparison to the Duellers and the Wranglers of the world. The lights were particularly attractive - both rear and front. Wasn't impressed by the drum brakes at the back. I think MUL can give us discs at a 14L+ price tag.

Interiors - again, very well put together. I liked the black finish with matt silver trim. Steering wheel was very nice, both to look at and to grip. Rest of the stuff was standard for a vehicle of its price.
Seating was good, but the rear seat is not that spacious - I was not too comfy sitting in the middle of the back seat. But then again, I am 6'1"... others may not feel that way! Front seats were good, though I didn't get a chance to fiddle with the driver seat controls.

Power - this was an AT, but I was still very impressed by the delivery. One of the few AT setups that let u redline repeatedly

I think the manual will be extremely driveable, but a heavy foot would no doubt lead to some abyssmal FE figures (though I guess this is a given, for most petrol SUV's).

Ride, handling - excellent. Couldn't feel the bumps, and I made it a point to go over a few ugly potholes. Like shuvd said...thunk, thunk... that's it. Steering was vey responsive, and I felt like I was driving a car, not a heavy SUV. Weaving in and out of traffic was not a chore, and you tend to forget the size of the vehicle you are driving (not always a good thing!!).

Overall impression - was very impressed with the GV. But I think it's overpriced by around a lakh or two.

GV vs CRV
Hmmm... this is not really a fair comparison, because the CRV is in a higher bracket, costing 3+ Lacs more than the GV.
The GV is defintely better VFM, providing almost everything the CRV has to offer. Almost...!
The one thing that I liked better about the GV was its ease of maneuverability in city traffic. The Honda feels decidedly bigger and bulkier in comparison - parking can be a problem, and short drivers have trouble seeing the front left corner of the car. If you are intending to use the SUV as a daily driver in the city, and you are not employing a chaffeur, I would tip the scales in favour of the GV. The seating position is better in the CRV though... you have this "king of the road" sorta feeling!

Raja · 15th July 2007, 13:49

Just checked the Maruti GV Brochure and it states tyres as 225/70 R16. That means the alloys must be 16in.

CrAzY dRiVeR · 15th July 2007, 15:12

Quote:

Originally Posted by razor4077

GV vs CRV
Hmmm... this is not really a fair comparison, because the CRV is in a higher bracket, costing 3+ Lacs more than the GV.
The GV is defintely better VFM, providing almost everything the CRV has to offer. Almost...!
The one thing that I liked better about the GV was its ease of maneuverability in city traffic. The Honda feels decidedly bigger and bulkier in comparison - parking can be a problem, and short drivers have trouble seeing the front left corner of the car. If you are intending to use the SUV as a daily driver in the city, and you are not employing a chaffeur, I would tip the scales in favour of the GV. The seating position is better in the CRV though... you have this "king of the road" sorta feeling!

Considering GV costs 3L less than the CRV, which SUV would you recommend over the other?

razor4077 · 15th July 2007, 15:51

@crazy driver: i would like to td the GV manual first and then comment. truth be told, i am not a fan of auto transmissions.
but one thing is certain... the GV is easier to drive in heavy traffic, and this would be a big point in its favour.
I repeat from my previous post:
If you are intending to use the SUV as a daily driver in the city, and you are not employing a chaffeur, I would tip the scales in favour of the GV.
The CRV is like business-class travel... amazing interiors, very comfortable, individual climate controls for driver and passenger, reclining rear seats etc etc. Add to that a 2.4L iVTEC engine and car-like handling, and it's hard not to love!

Would suggest you take a td of both and decide which one you prefer yourself

lastmanstanding · 15th July 2007, 17:12

Took A TD of manual GV in delhi @ marketing times, yesterday.

Well was impressed by the looks so already had booked a white colour manual GV.

Well was disappointed with the suspension...the thak-thak on small holes was irritating...even the dicor is better off in that area.

Gears are hard and not a pleasurable thing to use.

Control is good, smoothness is wonderful.

GV seriously lacks in power. We were four people sitting (well you can say 5 as one of my friend who accompanied me weighs 140 lol....and two showroom guys....AC was on and the car just never picked itself up in even 2nd gear....like you should be expecting an SUV to do the job alright.

Finally I took my booking amount back...duhhh (CRV is anytime better off the two)

Shan2nu · 15th July 2007, 19:24

A 120ps, 170nm, 2ltr Grand Vitara? I think i'l stick to our 136ps, 182nm, 2ltr Innova for the time being.

Shan2nu

GeekSrik · 15th July 2007, 19:50

cool report guys!! so its as i thought VFM no doubt. i m now waiting for someone to start off a long term report on this one!

Vid6639 · 15th July 2007, 19:51

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

A 120ps, 170nm, 2ltr Grand Vitara? I think i'l stick to our 136ps, 182nm, 2ltr Innova for the time being.

Shan2nu

How much is the weight of both the cars?

CrAzY dRiVeR · 15th July 2007, 19:53

Seems the GV automatic is better off than the manual, from what you guys have said!

Steeroid · 15th July 2007, 19:56

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

A 120ps, 170nm, 2ltr Grand Vitara? I think i'l stick to our 136ps, 182nm, 2ltr Innova for the time being.
Shan2nu

I should now say:

Or 127PS and 198 nm Petrol Safari at slightly more than half the price. Guzzles slightly (very slightly) less fuel too. Very underrated (and under/un driven) vehicle.

v1p3r · 15th July 2007, 19:58

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steeroid

I should now say:

Or 127PS and 198 nm Petrol Safari at slightly more than half the price. Guzzles slightly (very slightly) less fuel too. Very underrated (and under/un driven) vehicle.

You forgot: looks so much better, and goes offroad.

dadu · 15th July 2007, 20:17

Just saw a comparison in one of the channels between CRV and GV, GV seemed more interesting and compact with lots of features and looks good too.

Shan2nu · 15th July 2007, 20:21

Quote:

How much is the weight of both the cars?

GV 2.0 - 1954kgs (61.41bhp/ton)
Innova 2.0 - 1645kgs (82.67bhp/ton)
CR-V 2.4 - 1565kgs (102.23bhp/ton)

Shan2nu

15th July 2007, 12:51	#17
moralfibre Team-BHP Support Join Date: Dec 2004 Location: MH-12 Posts: 8,564 Thanked: 14,473 Times	I believe the CR-V's always came with rear disc brakes. If they are placing the Vitara against the CR-V then Honda sales staff have a point to make. Wonder why Suzuki added drum brakes on the rear to a car that costs 10 lakhs++
	() Thanks

15th July 2007, 13:32	#18
razor4077 Senior - BHPian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Mumbai Posts: 1,881 Thanked: 300 Times View My Garage	Ok... my take on the GV. Exteriors - very good... it has this mean, purposeful look to it. Fairly compact for an SUV - good for Indian cities. I still think the rims were 15 inchers and not 16. I remember thinking that my Lancer has similar sized rims and feeling good about it ..lol! The Yokos looked good, but I don't know where they stand in comparison to the Duellers and the Wranglers of the world. The lights were particularly attractive - both rear and front. Wasn't impressed by the drum brakes at the back. I think MUL can give us discs at a 14L+ price tag. Interiors - again, very well put together. I liked the black finish with matt silver trim. Steering wheel was very nice, both to look at and to grip. Rest of the stuff was standard for a vehicle of its price. Seating was good, but the rear seat is not that spacious - I was not too comfy sitting in the middle of the back seat. But then again, I am 6'1"... others may not feel that way! Front seats were good, though I didn't get a chance to fiddle with the driver seat controls. Power - this was an AT, but I was still very impressed by the delivery. One of the few AT setups that let u redline repeatedly I think the manual will be extremely driveable, but a heavy foot would no doubt lead to some abyssmal FE figures (though I guess this is a given, for most petrol SUV's). Ride, handling - excellent. Couldn't feel the bumps, and I made it a point to go over a few ugly potholes. Like shuvd said...thunk, thunk... that's it. Steering was vey responsive, and I felt like I was driving a car, not a heavy SUV. Weaving in and out of traffic was not a chore, and you tend to forget the size of the vehicle you are driving (not always a good thing!!). Overall impression - was very impressed with the GV. But I think it's overpriced by around a lakh or two. GV vs CRV Hmmm... this is not really a fair comparison, because the CRV is in a higher bracket, costing 3+ Lacs more than the GV. The GV is defintely better VFM, providing almost everything the CRV has to offer. Almost...! The one thing that I liked better about the GV was its ease of maneuverability in city traffic. The Honda feels decidedly bigger and bulkier in comparison - parking can be a problem, and short drivers have trouble seeing the front left corner of the car. If you are intending to use the SUV as a daily driver in the city, and you are not employing a chaffeur, I would tip the scales in favour of the GV. The seating position is better in the CRV though... you have this "king of the road" sorta feeling! Last edited by razor4077 : 15th July 2007 at 13:34.
	() Thanks

15th July 2007, 13:49	#19
Raja BHPian Join Date: Apr 2007 Location: Pune Posts: 419 Thanked: 70 Times	Just checked the Maruti GV Brochure and it states tyres as 225/70 R16. That means the alloys must be 16in.
	() Thanks

15th July 2007, 15:51	#21
razor4077 Senior - BHPian Join Date: Sep 2006 Location: Mumbai Posts: 1,881 Thanked: 300 Times View My Garage	@crazy driver: i would like to td the GV manual first and then comment. truth be told, i am not a fan of auto transmissions. but one thing is certain... the GV is easier to drive in heavy traffic, and this would be a big point in its favour. I repeat from my previous post: If you are intending to use the SUV as a daily driver in the city, and you are not employing a chaffeur, I would tip the scales in favour of the GV. The CRV is like business-class travel... amazing interiors, very comfortable, individual climate controls for driver and passenger, reclining rear seats etc etc. Add to that a 2.4L iVTEC engine and car-like handling, and it's hard not to love! Would suggest you take a td of both and decide which one you prefer yourself
	() Thanks

15th July 2007, 17:12	#22
lastmanstanding BHPian Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Delhi Posts: 30 Thanked: 2 Times	Took A TD of manual GV in delhi @ marketing times, yesterday. Well was impressed by the looks so already had booked a white colour manual GV. Well was disappointed with the suspension...the thak-thak on small holes was irritating...even the dicor is better off in that area. Gears are hard and not a pleasurable thing to use. Control is good, smoothness is wonderful. GV seriously lacks in power. We were four people sitting (well you can say 5 as one of my friend who accompanied me weighs 140 lol....and two showroom guys....AC was on and the car just never picked itself up in even 2nd gear....like you should be expecting an SUV to do the job alright. Finally I took my booking amount back...duhhh (CRV is anytime better off the two)
	() Thanks

15th July 2007, 19:24	#23
Shan2nu Senior - BHPian Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Hubli - Karnata Posts: 5,533 Thanked: 127 Times View My Garage	A 120ps, 170nm, 2ltr Grand Vitara? I think i'l stick to our 136ps, 182nm, 2ltr Innova for the time being. Shan2nu Last edited by Shan2nu : 15th July 2007 at 19:26.
	() Thanks

15th July 2007, 19:50	#24
GeekSrik Senior - BHPian Join Date: Apr 2006 Location: Bangalore Posts: 1,281 Thanked: 22 Times View My Garage	cool report guys!! so its as i thought VFM no doubt. i m now waiting for someone to start off a long term report on this one!
	() Thanks

15th July 2007, 19:53	#26
CrAzY dRiVeR Team-BHP Support Join Date: Jun 2006 Location: Bangalore / TVM Posts: 18,018 Thanked: 78,939 Times View My Garage	Seems the GV automatic is better off than the manual, from what you guys have said!
	() Thanks

15th July 2007, 20:17	#29
dadu Senior - BHPian Join Date: May 2007 Location: Bangalore Posts: 3,800 Thanked: 463 Times View My Garage	Just saw a comparison in one of the channels between CRV and GV, GV seemed more interesting and compact with lots of features and looks good too.
	() Thanks