[JediKnight]

Originally Posted by libranof1987

............
The EcoSport wins here, considering significantly better build quality of Ford

..........

Don't agree. Tactile feel of the car is no measure of the safety of the car. In Latin NCAP Honda City got 5 stars where as Ecorsport got 4 stars. In fact for ASEAN NCAP City got the highest score ever recoded. So as far as safety goes City is better.

[GTO]

A very interesting conundrum.

Originally Posted by vsjha18

1. economical to run. My daily drive ranges between 24-35KM.
2. descent space for a family of 3.
3. fun to drive.
4. decently comfortable. (fun to drive can be slightly traded here)
5. High priority to safety.
6. Social factors, yeah human after all :-|
7. Strict on road budget 12L or less.

The Honda City's top advantages over the EcoSport:

1. Far, far better petrol engine (EcoSport has a better diesel engine)

2. Superior Petrol + AT combination (not applicable to you though)

3. Space

4. Bigger boot

5. Superior low speed ride quality (you'll always feel bumps in the EcoSport)

It's an all-rounder.

The EcoSport, on the other hand, has a more solid build, a superior diesel engine, more ground clearance etc.

Go for the City if you need the space or a petrol. While the EcoSport's new petrol is good for a triple-cylinder, it can't match the City's sweet revv-happy 1.5L petrol that is pretty much the benchmark for naturally-aspirated petrols.

On the other hand, if you're looking for a fun-to-drive diesel and are okay compromising on space (including 5th passenger capability), boot capacity & ride quality, go for the EcoSport.

What I would do:

I see from your profile that you own a Santro. If I was a Santro owner with monthly running of 700 - 1000 km, I'd go for the City. It's a huuuuuuuge step up from your current car in every way.

Originally Posted by roy_libran

Lot of people I know have moved to Ecosport/Duster/Creta from City/Verna over the past 4-5 years.

I personally wouldn't consider any of these crossovers to be a 'step up' from the City / Verna. At best, a lateral swap.

Originally Posted by PetrolRider

As resale won’t matter much after 8 years of ownership, I would suggest you to follow your heart than mind here

Says who? I got 2.5 lakhs for my Civic and it took a long time. If my previous car was a Corolla, it would've sold for 4 lakhs and much faster too. 1.5 lakhs is quite a difference! It's like 5 - 7 years of free maintenance on your next Rs 15 - 20 lakh car.

[roy_libran]

Originally Posted by GTO

I personally wouldn't consider any of these crossovers to be a 'step up' from the City / Verna. At best, a lateral swap.

I didn't imply any step up or down, just that the preferences of a lot of conventional sedan owners in my extended circles seem to have shifted towards crossovers, because of the latter's compact dimensions, interior flexibility, better bad road ability and to follow the dominant trend.

• Dimensions - Sub 4 metre means a breeze to park and manoeuvre. Easy to navigate narrow gullies and turn in relatively tight spaces.
• Interior & flexibility - For example, I carried an LG Front Load 6.5 kg washing machine inside my Ecosport; in how many sedans would you be able to do that? By the way, for 4 passengers, over a long drive, my rear passengers have always said that they were more comfortable in the EcoSport than in the City. Mostly they say that the seat contour is great and the relatively firm cushioning helps prevent lower backache. That and the firm suspension that doesn't feel boat-like.
• Ground clearance - Lesser chances of hitting obstacles and relatively better approach and departure angles than any sedan. Also much lesser chances of fouling with kerbs, footpaths, roadside obstacles when parking. I find this to be a royal P.I.T.A with sedans.
• Trend - Can't be explained better than 'bhedh-chaal'

[The Brutailer]

In petrol, City all the way. In Diesel, better go for Ecosport.

Also do note, if you’re not a ‘pedal to the metal guy’ (means you don’t redline often), it’s better to go for Ecosport (as City is weak in terms of torque at lower rpm; you gotta work the gears)...but if you do love revving, there’s not better car than City in the segment.

I’d personally go for City as it has better handling (it’s a low GC sedan!) and a sweet petrol motor but Ecosport is a smart choice too. You wouldn’t regret it a bit.

So in a nutshell, like revving? City it is. Like SUV position and torque (read drivability..not shifting to first gear often) then Ecosport is a good choice.

Both cars are equally equipped (Ford is more I believe). You can’t really go wrong with both cars. Only a long test drive can help you choose.

[murthy_p]

One of my cousin drives previous generation Honda City
60 kms a day in Bangalore traffic. He wanted a petrol sedan which can easily accommodate 5 persons and is happy with his choice. He says lower GC is manageable, the car is best suited for driving on wider roads (main roads) in Bangalore and it's a nightmare to drive on narrow lanes.

Most of the technical points have already been discussed by the experts here. I would request you keep in mind the quality of Bangalore roads post the completion of state elections while finalizing your purchase.

[RJ2285]

Originally Posted by GTO

I personally wouldn't consider any of these crossovers to be a 'step up' from the City / Verna. At best, a lateral swap.



.

GTO,

I drive a Honda city V MT i-vtec 2016 model. I had been to mangalore last week and lived with a Zoomcar Creta for 5 days.The build quality of the car was impressive. The way it handled at high speeds, potholes etc. felt way better than the city. I felt it is a great package with SUVish looks and was debating with my wife that it is definitely an upgrade to the City, however my wife stuck to her opinion that the City feels more premium and that shift to the Creta is definitely not an upgrade. I could read something similar in your statement above. Your thoughts!

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by roy_libran

Lot of people I know have moved to Ecosport/Duster/Creta from City/Verna over the past 4-5 years.

Same here. I see a lot of people migrating. Sales popularity of Brezza / Creta / Compass all prove this and most people I know are moving from equivalent priced sedans.

Right now itself - three of my friends are in the process of such a swap. One from a Mahindra Verito to a Vitara Brezza, and the other from a Nissan Sunny to Creta/Hexa and the third from Hyundai i20 to (most probably) Honda WRV.

[shamanth]

I own both the Cars Honda City 2009 AT and EcoSport Diesel, so can give my perspective.

Honda City
1. Great I-vtech petrol engine, AT with paddle shift is a bliss to drive.
2. Servicing super smooth, excellent customer service. Quick service, you will get the car within few hours or same day, even if you have to replace parts, etc.
3. Reliability is unbeatable, Not a single part has failed from 9 years, apart from regular wear and tear.
4. Sporty driving seats, comfortable backrow seats, Big boot.
4. Ground clearance is an issue especially in Bangalore and Karnataka state/national highways, Hits lots of humps if you are not careful. This is one area you will feel bad about City. Would not have mattered much in other cities like Hyderabad, where you rarely see humps. It really slows you down on highways because of humps, as you have to almost come to standstill for city to negotiate humps, where as you can jump on humps in ecosport in considerable speed without hitting the bottom.

Ecosport
1. Good Diesel engine, Not as refined as Petrol City.
2. Ground Clearance is great, can make your car jump on any humps in Bangalore without being afraid of hitting at bottom. Though clearing small humps with some speed is not as smooth as Innova or XUV, as suspension is stiff.
3. Servicing is big area of concern. For any small part replacement they would not have stock, it will take few days to get it from Chennai. Most likely would not get car back same day if you have any complaint of vehicle other than oil change.
4. Reliability is not as good as City(Japanese), Parts do fail, just like other American or European cars.
5. Comfortable in front seats, not as comfortable like City bucket seat, not so comfortable in back seats.
6. Boot is smaller, but suppose want to carry huge luggage, back seats can be folded (60-40 Split) and able to carry almost anything. But in City you have to depend on boot only.

[shamanth]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Mahindra Verito to a Vitara Brezza, Nissan Sunny to Creta/Hexa

These two cars are upgrades, seeing the brand and category.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by RJ2285

I drive a Honda city V MT i-vtec 2016 model. I had been to mangalore last week and lived with a Zoomcar Creta for 5 days.

Hyundai's quality is better than Honda, buddy. For an apples-to-apples comparison, drive the Verna & Creta side by side.

Originally Posted by murthy_p

He says lower GC is manageable

Absolutely agreed! I take my low slung sedans on all kinds of city roads, highways & rural roads. As long as the necessary precautions are taken, there is no fear of ground clearance and the City's is adequate. Yes, it will require you to be more cautious, but it is certainly not a deal breaker.

I'd rather have comfortable ride quality & scrape the underbelly once in 3 - 6 months, rather than get a stiffer ride and breeze over speed bumps. Speed bumps form <0.1% of the driving range of anyone; I prefer to focus on the other 99.9%.

[Altocumulus]

Originally Posted by shamanth

4. Ground clearance is an issue especially in Bangalore and Karnataka state/national highways, Hits lots of humps if you are not careful. This is one area you will feel bad about City. Would not have mattered much in other cities like Hyderabad, where you rarely see humps. It really slows you down on highways because of humps, as you have to almost come to standstill for city to negotiate humps, where as you can jump on humps in ecosport in considerable speed without hitting the bottom.

I had a 2010 Honda city and that used to scrape every single speedbreaker. However, I don't think this is an issue post 2012 since Honda increased the ground clearance to 165mm. Maximum cars in India are around this range. The new swift is 163mm.

[vsjha18]

Though most of the aspects from safety to drivability and mechanicals have been discussed between these two cars, there are few feature differences too between City V MT and Ecosport Titanium. (models compared in original post)

1. City has rear parking camera and no sensors whereas Ecosport has only sensors and no camera.
2. City has cruise control and Ecosport misses on it. (Ecosport has it on T+)
3. Ecosport surprisingly misses on speed sensing door locks on all variants. City has it though.
4. Ecosport's AVN has no maps but supports Apple Car Play, being iPhone user I will have no access to maps.
5. City's AVN doesn't have Apple Car Play support but has in built maps. I know this is no answer to smart Google Maps, but still has something to offer.
6. Don't know to what extent you would agree but I felt sound quality of City's audio system to be slightly better than Ecosport's.
7. Responsiveness of Ecosport's AVN is way way better that City or any other car in the segment.

Regarding headlights of City, has there been any improvement in 2017 facelift? Ecosport's headlights have improved significantly in 2017 facelift.

The points listed above should be given any weightage in the buying decision ?? Or they are just marketing distractions?

Also don't you think that Ecosport loses some advantage of being sub 4m because of rear mounted spare tyres, because it almost takes same space as City to park. Yes while driving on the road certainly it enjoys benefits of being sub 4m.

[libranof1987]

Originally Posted by vsjha18

Though most of the aspects from safety to drivability and mechanicals have been discussed between these two cars, there are few feature differences too between City V MT and Ecosport Titanium. (models compared in original post)

1. City has rear parking camera and no sensors whereas Ecosport has only sensors and no camera.

Easy retrofit. Costs 12k.

2. City has cruise control and Ecosport misses on it. (Ecosport has it on T+)

Utterly useless in India. I wouldn't use it even if my car had it. Apart from the Pune-Mumbai Expressway under very ideal conditions, I can't imagine our roads allowing the use of cruise control.

3. Ecosport surprisingly misses on speed sensing door locks on all variants. City has it though.

Horrible miss from Ford. Isn't there talk of this being activated via a software update.

4. Ecosport's AVN has no maps but supports Apple Car Play, being iPhone user I will have no access to maps.
5. City's AVN doesn't have Apple Car Play support but has in built maps. I know this is no answer to smart Google Maps, but still has something to offer.

How often would you use maps?

[Prathiiik]

Originally Posted by vsjha18

.

Regarding headlights of City, has there been any improvement in 2017 facelift? Ecosport's headlights have improved significantly in 2017 facelift.

The headlamps of the 2017 City have significantly improved over the previous one. The 2017 City gets LED headlamps which are excellent in terms of brightness and illumination. The headlamp throw for the low beam can be improved though.

[Altocumulus]

Originally Posted by libranof1987

Utterly useless in India. I wouldn't use it even if my car had it. Apart from the Pune-Mumbai Expressway under very ideal conditions, I can't imagine our roads allowing the use of cruise control.

I regularly use on my highway trips. Most of the highways here in the south do offer that convenience.

What I realized after buying the city is that there were a lot of features I thought was useless earlier, but after using them, I understand the convenience it offers. They have actually spoiled me so much I have difficulty/miss them when I drive the Ritz. Features like cruise control, Keyless Entry & start stop button, rear camera, auto folding of mirrors when you lock the car, etc.

Originally Posted by libranof1987

How often would you use maps?

On highway trips every single time. The other advantage is you can download google maps on the system. However would have anyday preferred Android Auto and Apple car play to be there as well.

Originally Posted by Prathiiik

The headlamps of the 2017 City have significantly improved over the previous one. The 2017 City gets LED headlamps which are excellent in terms of brightness and illumination. The headlamp throw for the low beam can be improved though.

I can vouch for the V variant, though I have upgraded the bulbs to NBUs on the day of delivery. I am very happy. Fogs are useless though. This generation, I mean post 2014, I believe the headlights are double barrel which does offer better illumination.