I had even shortlisted the new Nexon facelift DCA, but went ahead with the sedan.

BHPian chaitanyakrish recently shared this with other enthusiasts.

Hello BHPians,

I use an i20 IMT and it's been a good experience for the last 3 years.

As most of my drives are on highways/hills, I would like to add a sedan or a compact SUV with a good safety rating and will keep the i20 for city rides only. I had shortlisted Slavia 1.0 AT and New Nexon Creative + 1.2 DCA. I did the test drive of Slavia and it's an amazing car, however, I had some doubts about the GC on hills/bad roads. Keeping that in mind, I am looking for a test drive of the new Nexon.

Please suggest, which of them would be a better pick considering the highway comfort and GC on bad roads/hills.

Update: Just to give an update, I went with my heart and booked Slavia.

I felt Nexon was a little cramped in space, I don't know if any changes were made compared to the previous Nexon.

Here's what BHPian bijims had to say on the matter:

The Skoda Slavia has a GC of 179 mm, which is pretty much the highest GC in the sedan segment and just falls 29 mm short of the Nexon, which has one of the highest ground clearance in the Compact sub 4m SUV space, for instance, the Compact sub 4m SUV with the lowest ground clearance, the Mahindra XUV300 has just 180 mm.

So, The Slavia should be just fine on most roads.

Now, comparing the Slavia 1.0 AT with the Nexon 1.2 DCA, the Slavia gets a 1.0 Turbo petrol-producing 114 bhp and 178 nm of torque mated to a TC AT gearbox, whereas the Nexon gets a 1.2 Turbo Petrol producing 118 bhp and 170 nm of torque.

The Slavia is a much bigger car, with much more length and better wheelbase, the boot is also much larger owing to the sedan body style, the car is much more sporty and handles much better than the Nexon.

So, if performance, space, and comfort are your priorities, the Slavia is the way to go, else, do try out the Nexon and if you are happy with the test drive, you can definitely go for it.

Here's what BHPian On4Wheels had to say on the matter:

Good that you picked Skoda Slavia. It is far superior and more spacious than Nexon and you will never regret about it.

Hugh Ground Clearance! You will never scrape on the road because this concern will be there in your head always despite the reality:

Here's what BHPian Game_of_Roads had to say on the matter:

The GC numbers on paper only tell half the story. Suspension setup, front and rear overhang and approach angle, all contribute to the likelihood of scraping the bottom. IMO we all get hung up on the GC numbers (self-included) but some skill and awareness can make a car manageable.

The Slavia/Virtus are as good as they can get with sedans in India right now. 179mm + stiff-ish suspension and car decent approach angles make it easy to live with. I own a 1yr old Slavia 1.0 AT and coming from a 165mm Grand i10 it has been amazing. Scraped a bump only once so far, that too very lightly when I was a bit too fast with a fully loaded car and boot.

Another less obvious trick I have learnt more recently is to not go over a speed breaker or bump with the brake depressed, rather slow down a few metres earlier and let the car roll over the bump. Under braking the suspension is compressed further and will have lesser travel compared to a free-rolling car. This is a significant difference in scraping vs not scraping especially in a sedan. It's a bit more difficult on an AT car due to the way creep is designed but so far I've been able to manage quite easily.

The 1.5 engine is an absolute beast and if budget isn't a problem (inducing a 2L DSG insurance deposit fund) that's the preferred option.

However as an owner of the 1.0 AT I can report that this is a cracker of an engine and is super fun in its own right, especially if you are coming from a smaller NA-engined car. It's a tiny little rocket that loves to rev hard, sounds good revving, is quick in Sports mode, and can easily hold 120+kmph without breaking a sweat. The only things you will have to live with is slightly more NVH (still great for a 3-cylinder engine) and mediocre mileage when driven hard (and also in bumper-to-bumper traffic with the TC AT). Otherwise, the 1.0 engine is a really fun pocket rocket, and you can put the 2L+ savings into your trips

Check out BHPian comments for more insights and information.

I almost finalised on the GLA SUV, but the 3 Series continues to be very tempting.

BHPian Peregrine recently shared this with other enthusiasts.

I've seriously been considering the 330i M Sport, but the only thing I am concerned about is the ground clearance. I absolutely hate it if my car scrapes, and having experienced this in the OG Jazz, I am not really keen to go through that again. That was the only reason I checked out GLA and almost finalized it. But the 330i is tugging at the heartstrings and I am so torn between the 2.

What's the real-world experience of folks? I live in Bangalore with its unpredictable humps, random dug up roads, miscellaneous dirt roads in the middle of the city.

Here's what BHPian itwasntme had to say on the matter:

In my experience, it does not easily scrape even with a full load. The chassis and suspension are stiff, and there is minimal sag. Further, the 'rough road' is almost end-to-end and ensures all crucial bits and pieces are covered.

The only thing is to ensure you 'crab' across the tall speed breakers, even if others find it comical.

But there is only one way to find it, and that is to drive it on your usual roads with a full complement of passengers.

Here's what BHPian FamilyTraveller had to say on the matter:

I agree. Though the GC is less it has never scraped even with 2 adults and 2 full-sized teens. The key is not to brake at the point of the hump and just crawl over it slowly.

Here's what BHPian PrideRed had to say on the matter:

Mine is the longer version of 3 and is expected to scrape more than the regular 3. However, to my surprise car hasn't scrapped belly or bumpers yet. The regular 3 should be better at this, thanks to the shorter wheelbase. Drive a bit carefully and the car should be fine.

Here's what BHPian anandpadhye had to say on the matter:

I own the previous-gen 330i (F30 LCI), car does not scrape any speed breakers as such though any tall hump or a deep pothole - I navigate diagonally. The bigger headache for me has been the tyres. The low profile and run-flats - a combination that seems fragile... Have lost 5 tyres in the last 3 years/22000km to potholes. And tyres are expensive, especially the 18" ones that mine came with.

See if you can get a version with 17" or even 16" tyres. They won't look as beautiful as the 18" but will survive better, keep you safe on a long trip away from home and save a lot of money.

Check out BHPian comments for more insights and information.

I'm clear on the 'hit' on handling/cornering. I do not use this car for fast driving / cornering. It's a cruiser to those remote resorts and I do not want to worry about ground clearance. I'm well aware that the CR-V is no off-roader, and we are talking soft-roading here.

BHPian noufal.ps recently shared this with other enthusiasts.

Hi folks,

Background:

I recently acquired a pre-worshipped (a real one) 2014 Honda CR-V AWD. Everything is good with the car starting from the revs to ride comfort. However, I do have one specific concern where I'm seeking recommendations.

I'm evaluating upsizing the CR-V (2014 AWD) tyres to bump up some ground clearance (GC). Anyone has tried this in the past?

I'm clear on the 'hit' on handling/cornering. I do not use this car for fast driving / cornering. It's a cruiser to those remote resorts, and I do not want to worry about ground clearance. I'm well aware that the CR-V is no off-roader, and we are talking soft-roading here.

• Current wheel: 225/65/R17.
• Minor upgrade: 235/65/R17 - This gives 6mm uptake on GC, making it 176mm.
• Major upgrade: 255/65/R17 - 22mm uptake, and pretty good GC.

I have restricted wheel sizes to what is available in Bangalore.

My questions are around a major upgrade. Can the CR-V manage the height increase without suspension change? Can we accommodate 255 width?

Here's what BHPian IshaanIan had to say on the matter:

Coming from personal experience: Do not mess with tyre upsizing. When you say your car is pre "worshipped" is it simply clean? If it has logged many miles without a suspension overhaul, it might be what you need to ensure your car doesn't sag too much. Your car's suspension is designed assuming a certain mass, size and rolling characteristics of unsprung weight. If you alter this, your rebound and damping characteristics will go for a toss, unnecessary load might end up having to be borne by the chassis (the mounts and then the front aprons) and your car's "tight" feeling will slowly but surely evaporate. The better thing to do would be to change your suspension itself and look into aftermarket suspension kits for your car.

It is very simple when it comes to these things; don't cheap out. If you want to go over rough terrain, spend the time to fabricate skid plates, and buy yourself proper adjustable suspension.

Here's what BHPian Jaggu had to say on the matter:

I would say stick to stock or 235, 255 chance of fouling especially at rear are there, plus the amount of transmission bog with 5.6% increase in diameter and 12% increase in width is going to be substantial, and then the hit in fuel efficiency.

Thumb rule of upsize is stick to 3% variance in diameter, 235 65 17 is 1.8%. Use a tyre size comparison tool from here to figure out the changes.

Check out BHPian comments for more insights and information.

I wanted to take a particularly scenic route. But locals advised me against it, as the surface was bad in places and my car is too low-slung.

BHPian vox_alienus recently shared this with other enthusiasts.

I have had a Polo for the last four years and am generally loving it. But the low ground clearance is a major problem. A few days ago, I was driving around in the Dalma hills of Jharkhand, through adivasi hamlets and forests, and wanted to take a particularly scenic route. But locals advised me against it, as the surface was bad in places and my car is too low-slung. I am, therefore, thinking of "lifting" the car. Is this advisable? If so, are lift kits of good quality available in India? Searching the web, I see these are available in the UK and Australia, but don't see anything in India.

Here's what BHPian VKumar had to say on the matter:

I had the same problem, due to my work profile and my habit of not engaging the reverse until the situation turns threatening - I frequently end up getting into the places where a Polo is not supposed to be (my farms, ice, dreaded Kaza-Manali route via Kunzum Pass, covered nearly entire Himanchal, under construction sites with no roads etc). My reason is simple, I love the way this car drives in the hills, has enough power, awesome dynamics, small enough to drive like an Alto and still strong enough to make me feel safe. So, I too had to find a solution.

And the solution that worked for me was:

• 195/60 R15 tyres
• Underbody protection shield

I did this on both of my cars, and I tell you. The mud flaps of both of my cars are broken due to bad roads itself. In fact, the running board of the petrol one has a decent dent too. But since the day I moved to 195/60 R15, underbody hitting is more or less a thing of the past. I have 5 sets of mud flaps at home, as the VW ones are quite large and low, hence they frequently keep on getting cracked/broken; so, I simply do DIY replacement now when one breaks.

Still, if it's a Jeep trail, then a Jeep is needed. Else if it's a route that can be covered in an S-Presso, a Polo with upsized tyres will cover it - if driven carefully.

This is how it started:

Let the wet tyres and wet running board tell the story:

Look at the front and rear mud flaps, that's all the damage I have been facing since the day I shifted to 195s'. What's hardly 1 cm of GC increase, it has made a difference of two worlds to my car:

What I would suggest is, just upsize the tyres slightly, and get the underbody shield installed (It's really useful, I have faced some hits). No suspension issues, no warranty issues, and the car becomes far more usable.

Check out BHPian comments for more insights and information.

The Automotive Research Association of India (ARAI) has updated the ground clearance measurement standards in the country.

According to the new standard, the ground clearance of any vehicle needs to be measured with the laden weight. As a result, the ground clearance of a vehicle in India is now defined as the distance between the road surface and the lowest point on the vehicle's underside, when the vehicle is loaded with 4 average adults and a minimum of 90% fuel in the tank.

Previously, the ground clearance was measured in the unladen state. The suspension tends to compress in the laden state due to the extra added weight. As a result, the new rule has reduced the officially mentioned ground clearance of many vehicles. For example, the new Toyota Fortuner's official laden ground clearance is 184 mm. However, as per the older rule, the unladen rating is 225 mm.