[car_guy1998]

Voted for Slavia.

I've TD'ed one today in 1.0 AT guise and I can say that, it's much better than Kushaq/Taigun twins in terms of drivability and despite Kushaq and Slavia having same engine, the Slavia has much better low-end response IMO, which I felt bit laggy in Taigun 1.0 AT when I had driven one.

And, one more thing I'd like to add is the quality of materials and fit and finish, which I felt better in Slavia than Kushaq and Taigun.

[ron178]

Not that I could buy a car yet, but I'd pick the Slavia. It has a lower price, you can get the top-end variant (with six airbags) without a sunroof, and I love the Slavia's interiors. The Kushaq's interior seems a little too much of 'Škoda-fied' T-Cross to me, the Slavia's is based on the Fabia and looks more cohesive. If the interior panels were not dull grey and were beige like the Taigun, maybe it would be an easier choice. I don't know what it is, I think beige would suit Škoda and grey would suit VW more.

I know it sounds like nonsense to nitpick over a roofliner, but I have an aversion to scruffy roofliners like our 1st-gen Fortuner which is now linting badly and looks disgusting. The Slavia's might not be as nice as some competition but it's similar to the Polo so I don't think I'd notice it.

I like the exteriors of both cars and I'll go so far as to say I think both are the best lookers in their segments, but between the two I like the Slavia more, though it's essentially a Virtus.

In many ways the Slavia seems, to me, like a 'do-over' for the Kushaq. The 'improved' version that's launched a year later based on customer feedback. Maybe it's not Octavia levels of finesse, but it seems 'Škoda' enough to me, and to be honest, the Kushaq didn't (what with the saggy seat covers and warning lights and the whole side airbag saga).

[CEF_Beasts]

Have voted for the Slavia

With SUV-rivalling 179 mm ground clearance I would choose the Slavia over the Kushaq.

With the Slavia being cheaper than the Kushaq variant-to-variant and engine-gearbox wise, the Slavia packs in more bang for the buck and not to forget the larger boot space, better plastic quality and roof liner as well.

Although I’m dead sure once the VW Virtus, is unveiled on 8th March I’ll choose it over the Slavia, reason is the 1.5L TSI will be differentiated properly from the 1L TSI with a GT variant unlike the Slavia

Same was the case with Kushaq vs Taigun, I prefer the looks of both the exterior and interior of the Taigun over the Kushaq.

[Turbohead]

One of this polls I didn't have to think at all. Slavia ANYDAY.

The best part about sedans is that the overall COG is lower resulting in better dynamics which can handle a softer suspension. Most pseudo SUVs end up getting stiffer suspension because it needs to handle the body roll. Thus you get a balance of ride and handling here with the added bonus of lower drag coefficient thanks to lesser frontal area.

Apart from that, the Slavia team would've had 6 months more than the Kushaq team to fix as many issues as possible which would've been found during the Kushaq launch.I'm expecting lower issues for the Slavia in comparison.

All in all, so happy that there is something happening in the sedan segment that is not over 25 lakhs.

[shancz]

Voted Slavia.

Because I still prefer sedans in the "SUV" era.
Slavia looks good, the 1.5 DSG is an enjoyable combo, all the USPs of a sedan and good GC.

But if I was looking, I won't buy either of the two.
Because the cost cutting by Skoda have left a bad taste and IMO they're Skoda unlike a Skoda.

I would wait for at least 2 years for Skoda to sort out the issues and then reconsider.

[Newtown]

My vote was for the Kushaq.

Let me also mention upfront here that I brought home a Taigun about 5 months back. I certainly was aware of the sedans being launched a bit later, but opted for the Compact Cross Over instead.

• Having more cabin room than boot space was a plus as the former is used more often.
  
• I like the fact that the compact cross overs from the VW-Skoda group are not too high up like an actual SUV. There is no body roll to complain about unless you plan to drive like a race driver.
  
• They also have a larger tyre size with a better wall height in addition to a slightly high ground clearance.
  
• In the 4000+ kms driven so far, the ride, composure and road dynamics of this car never ceases to surprise me. It is a brilliant tourer.

[Gurkeerat Singh]

Would vote for the Slavia unequivocally. We’ve been contemplating about a replacement for our Elantra, and the non-negotiable requirement for that purchase would be a manual transmission as grandad is still not very confident around ATs. The 1.5 is a gem of an engine and is in all ways a step up from the Elantra. When it comes to comparing it with the Kushaq, I feel that 9mm of extra GC wouldn’t make much of a difference when driving over your average city potholes plus the driving dynamics of a sedan can’t be paralleled by those of a crossover/suv.

[roby_dk]

Voted for Slavia.
With only marginal difference in ground clearance don't see any other benefit of going with Kushaq.
Being a sedan Slavia has lot to offer be it features, comfort or driving dynamics. Kushaq anyways is not a go anywhere SUV so I would still prefer to have a more comfortable sedan than a CSUV.

[PrasannaDhana]

I love sedans. And being an ardent lover of the Rapid, I find Slavia more appealing than the Kushaq.

Specially with the 1.5 TSI & MT combo, the Slavia with its better aerodynamics and longer wheelbase will be so much fun to do triple digit speeds.

Cabin space is another area the Slavia beats the kushaq. To me, Slavia looks much more elegant in comparison.

[venkyhere]

I think this is the ideal thread for the below pic :

[Rajeevraj]

For a SUV crazy country like India, interesting to see this poll heavily favouring the Slavia. Which means that Skoda have got it right with the Slavia but by doing so they have unintentionally managed to further emphasize the shortcomings of the Kushaq.

I was in a Skoda showroom yesterday with 7-8 customers around and all of them were looking at the Slavia. The Kushaq was standing lonely in one corner.

In the real world, like this poll is showing, a lot of customers who were close to deciding on the Kushaq will switch to the Slavia.

[sachin_cs]

After spending 2 days with Kushaq & Slavia, I would choose the Slavia for following reasons -

• Feels a notch above in interiors
• personal opinion: Looks hot & imposing as it's the largest car in it's segment unlike Kushaq
• Moving from Rapid to Kushaq means compromise in boot space
• the way it drives and handles, it's after a very long time that I fell head over heels for a car
• more features at less price, some variants are 1L cheaper

The place where Kushaq excels is easy ingress & egress.



All pictures were clicked in Goa

[headbanger]

Neither Kushaq nor Slavia. I am in the market for a new car with around 20L budget and both cars are out of my radar.

If I were to shop Sedans, I will end up most likely with City. Although it's true that some bits in Slavia have been improved as compared to Kushaq, the overall interior still doesn't create the impression that City does. Oodles of space and that back seat are a clear winner for me in City. With the pricing out for Slavia, City by no means looks overpriced. Once the hybrid comes in, this package may become more lucrative.

If I were to shop for CSUV, Kushaq doesn't tick for me. Most likely, I will end up with Hyundai Kia combo primarily because they offer a much rounded package overall. I haven't driven 1.5 TSI in VAGs extensively, but the limited experience I have is that 1.4 Turbo in Kia isn't too far behind. 1.5 diesel engine itself is a huge reason for me personally to get in Kia or Hyundai stable. At this point, Kushaq or Taigun don't have GNCAP Crash rating. So even on safety front, it's still an open question. My understanding since the launch of Kushaq is that it is an overpriced car for what it offers.

I was in Skoda showroom yesterday just to get a fresh perspective on these cars before I offer the cheque to Kia. And my view stays intact. Both Skoda cars are available on the shelf with dealer as compared to Kia cars with substantial waiting and in my humble opinion, my use case reflects what the market is thinking. The waiting analogy just offers a signaling reason.

There are two very different Skoda offerings in my view-the one which we relate with and aspire for, like Kodiaq, Karoq, Octavia, the erstwhile Yeti, Laura and then the other ones are Kushaq, Slavia et al. While it's true you get what you pay for, I will love to buy that Skoda with which I relate. Folks may not agree with it, but these new offerings didn't offer that Skoda vibe to me personally.

I personally will opt for a Polo 1.0 TSI auto, if I have a use case. Though older, the car still has its USP for offering engine and gearbox combo in a smaller footprint at a reasonable price.

[Freespirit27]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

This has already been highlighted before but I am going to stress upon this point once again.

1. The Slavia has the same engine and gearbox as the Kushaq
2. The Slavia is better built than the Kushaq atleast from initial impressions which were really bad for Kushaq from people visiting showrooms.
3. The Slavia is considerably bigger in length than Kushaq
4. The Slavia is based on the same platform as Kushaq
5. The Slavia has more features vs Kushaq - virtual dials, electric folding ORVM etc
6. The Slavia has better dynamics both in ride and handling than the Kushaq

The Slavia is 1.1L cheaper for the top end 1.0 TSI AT Style vs the Kushaq Style 1.0 TSI AT.

There is only one thing the Kushaq does better and thats the ground clearance which the Kushaq has 9mm additional over the Slavia.

Remember when going to the showroom that Skoda is charging 12K per mm extra for the Kushaq's ground clearance vs the Slavia.

To me this package seems far more complete and a no brainer even if I wanted a SUV badly. I would change and get the Slavia.

9mm that is less than a centimetre.
Quite often I have seen the the best falling for these marginal difference in dimensions. I mean how much real world difference does a 9mm difference in ground clearance make?
Moreover I feel it's a psychological pressure the automakers create by saying, say pitting 4549mm City as a longer car 4541mm Slavia. I mean isn't it more about how that space is used - to add to the bumper bulk or utilised as interior space. Either ways 8mm or 9mm or a centimetre - really it is more about the inches not millimetres isn't it!

[JishD]

Voted for the Kushaq because ingress/egress matters hugely in our family with ageing seniors. Plus I am very clear about wanting the most compact form factor possible which offers decently usable rear seat space for 2+1.

I would however take Slavia's interior color scheme anyday over the Kushaq's ! God knows how they approved Kushaq's dull grey, evidently they didn't have any focus group sessions in India .