THE DASHING WHITE LEXUS 201

THE MERCEDES BENZ C-CLASS

THE LATEST CITROGEN C4 RACER

THE MOST FAMOUS LAMBORGHINI GALLARADO

THE 1960's FAMOUS RACER

Showing posts with label Comparison. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Comparison. Show all posts

Sunday, 13 March 2016

Maruti Vitara Brezza vs TUV300 vs EcoSport: Specifications comparison

Let's take a look at how the Maruti Vitara Brezza fares against rivals on paper.



The Vitara Brezza marks the return of the Vitara name to India following the discontinuation of the Grand Vitara a few years ago. Designed in India, from the grounds up, Maruti has branded its upcoming compact SUV a ‘Create in India’ product with the entire design and engineering aspect executed in  the country. Maruti will launch the Vitara Brezza on March 8, 2016 in Mumbai. 

Featuring styling cues borrowed from its larger European sibling, the Vitara, the compact SUV will use Maruti’s tried and tested 1.3-litre diesel engine in its more powerful DDiS 200 guise, and will be offered in four trim levels.

Amongst its main rivals is the Ford EcoSport, one of the most popular models in the compact SUV segment. The compact SUV from Ford unlike most of its rivals come swiht the option of both petrol and diesel engines and underwent an update last year which saw the diesel model become more powerful along with addition of new features.

Another rival to the Vitara Brezza is the Mahindra TUV300. Launched in late-2015, the TUV300 is the company’s second foray into the segment following the Quanto. Based on an all-new platform, the TUV gets an upright and rugged stance along with boxy styling cues and is currently one of the newest offerings in the segment.

Here is how all three compact SUVs stack-up on paper.

Dimensions

In terms of dimensions, the EcoSport is the longest of the trio at 3,999mm; a mere 1mm short of 4 meters. While the TUV300 and the Brezza share identical figures of 3,995mm. The widest of the three is the TUV300 at 1,835mm while the EcoSport is the narrowest at 1,765mm. The Brezza has a width of 1,790mm. The TUV300 is the tallest of the lot at 1,839mm followed by the EcoSport at 1,708mm and the Brezza at 1,640mm.

The TUV300 leads again in terms of wheelbase with a length of 2,680mm. The EcoSport at 2,520mm comes in second, with the Vitara Brezza trailing its rivals with a wheelbase of 2,500mm. The TUV300 is also the only SUV in this comparison to get jump seats in the boot.

However, it is the EcoSport that sits highest off the ground at 200mm followed by the Brezza at 198mm and lastly the TUV300 at 184mm.

The TUV300 is the heaviest of the trio at 1626kg for the manual and 1654kg for the AMT equipped model. The Brezza is the lightest compact SUV here with a kerb weight of 1195kg while the EcoSport weighs in at 1297kg.

Dimensions
Maruti Vitara BrezzaMahindra TUV300Ford EcoSport
Length3995mm3995mm3999mm
Width1790mm1835mm1765mm
Height1640mm1839mm1708mm
Wheelbase2500mm2690mm2520mm
Ground clearance198mm184mm200mm
Kerb Weight1195kg1626kg/1654kg (AMT)1297kg
Engines

The Vitara Brezza uses the smallest displacement diesel engine amongst its competitors. Powered by the 1.3-litre DDiS 200 engine seen in the larger S-Cross delivering at 88.5bhp of power and 20.4kgm of torque. The EcoSport and TUV300 on the other hand use 1.5-litre units. The EcoSport’s unit leads with power output at 98.6bhp as against the TUV300 manual and AMT's 82.4bhp and 79bhp. The Mahindra’s engine on the other hand develops more torque with output figures at 23.4kgm as against the EcoSport's 20.9kgm. All three compact SUVs use a five-speed manual gearbox as standard, with the TUV300 getting the option of an AMT gearbox as well.

Engine
Maruti Vitara BrezzaMahindra TUV300Ford EcoSport
Displacement1.3-litre1.5-litre1.5-litre
Power88.4bhp82.4bhp/ 79bhp98.6bhp
Torque20.4kgm23.4kgm20.9kgm
Gearbox5-speed manual5-speed manual/ AMT5-speed manual
Furthermore, the EcoSport is the only model in this list to offer a choice of petrol engines in the form of a 110bhp, 1.5-litre naturally aspirated engine and a smaller 123bhp, 1.0-litre EcoBoost turbo-petrol motor paired to a choice of manual or automatic gearboxes.

Features

The Vitara Brezza will be well-equipped model with the top-spec variant getting features such as  Maruti’s SmartPlay infotainment system, climate control, cooled glovebox, cruise control, automatic headlamps and rain sensing wipers to name a few. The compact SUV will also come with driver airbag as standard with the lower models getting the option of dual airbags and ABS.

The top-spec Ford too gets a long feature list that includes dual front, side and curtain airbags, automatic headlamps, rain sensing wipers and Ford’s SYNC infotainment system. However, the base variant misses out on airbags and ABS.

The top-spec TUV300 gets an infotainment system with Mahindra Blue Sense app connectivity, voice messaging system, follow-me-home headlamps, dual airbags and ABS and Micro Hybrid technology. Like the EcoSport, the base TUV also misses out on the airbags though it is available as an add-on option along with ABS.

Monday, 21 December 2015

New Audi Q7 vs new Volvo XC90 comparison

The all-new Audi Q7 and the new Volvo XC90 are both big, luxurious and packed to the gills with the latest tech. But which is the one to go for?



For most carmakers, seven years is about the outer limit they can continue with the same product without bringing out a replacement. Not so for Audi and Volvo. The first-gen Q7 was available for nearly a decade and the XC90 marched on for an incredible thirteen years. However, the reasons were different. With Q7 sales showing no signs of slowing down, Audi was in no real hurry to replace it. The honest-to-goodness XC90 had its own fan following too but Volvo and new owner Geely’s ambitious plans to develop grounds-up new platforms and engines is really what pushed back the launch of a successor.

The SUVs here are the said replacements and both boast greater comfort, luxury and performance than before. In line with the times, there’s also more focus on connectivity and efficiency. But which one offers more of everything is what we’re interested to find out.   

Design & engineering

Last generation to current generation, the Audi Q7 has shrunk 37mm in overall length while the Volvo XC90 has grown a substantial 143mm to a sizeable 4950mm. The 5-metre-plus Q7 is still the longer (and wider) SUV here but see it in isolation and you’d probably think otherwise. You see, where the old Q7’s bloated surfacing made it look larger than it was, the latest Q7’s tight skinning actually has the opposite effect. The new Q7 looks lean and athletic but SUV traditionalists may miss the fuller form of the old Q7. Be in no doubt though, this is an attractive SUV, from the front especially. The beautifully detailed Matrix LED headlights, single-frame grille and flat bonnet give it a modern face, and features like the well-defined wheel arches and distinct belt line add a degree of sharpness to the look. Styling at the rear is attractive too but the rake of the windscreen is more stationwagon than SUV and this does rob the Q7 of some of its road presence.

The relatively upright XC90 has the more traditional SUV look in that sense. It looks solid, has loads of visual mass and features some really interesting details. Elements like the intricately detailed grille and the new headlights with the ‘Thor’s hammer’ daytime-running LEDs ensure you won’t confuse the XC90 for anything else. What also look nice are the Volvo-typical wide hips that end in distinctive inverted question mark-like tail-lamps.


At their very core, both these monocoque SUVs are entirely new and are, in fact, the first models to be built on their parent company’s respective new modular platforms. The Q7’s building block is the Volkswagen Group’s latest MLB 2 platform (for longitudinally-placed engine applications) which is claimed to be significantly lighter than the older Q7’s chassis. The quest for lightness also drove Audi engineers to trim the flab from the Q7’s front and rear axles, engine, exhaust, doors, seats and even smaller parts like the brake pads. True to Audi tradition, aluminium has also been generously used to pare weight – as much as 41 percent of the body structure is made of the metal. The net effect is that the Q7, with the 3.0-litre turbo-diesel engine, weighs in at 2255kg.

At 2,011kg, the XC90 is lighter still. The Volvo’s readout on the scale is all the more impressive when you consider it uses steel in its construction with only few parts made of aluminium. Forming the basis of the XC90 is Volvo’s brand new Scalable Platform Architecture that positions the four-cylinder engines it’s designed to host transversally. Correspondingly, the XC90 uses a front axle-biased Haldex all-wheel-drive system where the Audi’s quattro system is rear axle-biased in normal driving conditions. Both SUVs feature electric power steerings, all independent suspensions and air springs that give the option to adjust ride height. The duo also feature drive modes to alter powertrain, ride and handling characteristics.

Both SUVs get a full complement of airbags but radar-based safety systems have been disabled for India, if not left out completely. Still, there’s a sense of security in knowing both SUVs have been rated with 5 stars in Euro NCAP crash tests.

Interiors

Visualise the difference between the look and feel of a business hotel and a luxury resort and you’ll pretty much understand the difference between the Q7 and XC90’s cabins. The Q7 is all business-like on the inside with a general neat, clean and minimalist look. Without doubt, it’s the Q7’s very luxury sedan-like low-set dashboard that’s the talking point. The sleek dash with its faux vents that extend across its breadth not only looks unique but is brilliantly finished too. Audi clearly hasn’t held back here because everything from the wood, metal and soft-touch plastics on the dash to small bits like the knurled knobs and touch-sensitive toggles for the climate control have a richness to them. The dash is also thoughtfully laid-out with easy access to oft-used features such as the climate control, audio player, navigation and drive modes in addition to a rotary controller for other functions. All functions and settings are displayed on a retractable 7-inch screen that sits atop the dash though drivers can solely rely on their customisable high-res all-digital instruments (Virtual Cockpit in Audi speak) to get any info needed. The superbly done interior lighting only adds a further sense of occasion to the cabin at night. In addition to a horizontal strip of light on the dash and doors, the Q7 also gets feather-touch light switches overhead and door pockets that automatically illuminate as you access them. Excellent outside visibility courtesy the low dash, large windscreen and slim A-pillars is another highlight here. In all, it’s very easy to feel at home in the Q7’s cabin.

Q7’s low-set dashboard is unique among SUVs; frontal visibility is excellent.

The XC90’s cabin, as mentioned, has a very earthy and soothing look to it. It’s largely down to the generous use of very Scandinavian unlacquered wood (similar to what you’d find in a sauna) and the distinct lack of buttons in sight. Save for nine buttons for the very basics such as one for the hazard lights, Volvo has bundled all other functions onto the brilliant nine-inch touchscreen that takes pride of place on the dash. The screen is a fingerprint magnet but the system is quite simply the best such interface on offer in India with the same resolution and usability of a top specification tablet. It’s also quite intuitive to use so new users will get comfortable navigating through the menus pretty quickly. 
Still, a few more physical buttons for simple functions like those offered on the Audi would be welcome. 
And while we’re nitpicking, the Volvo could do with livelier themes for the informative all-digital instruments panel, more detailed cabin lighting and richer plastics low down on the dash. Elsewhere though, the XC90 impresses. There’s no faulting the double stitching on the dash and seats while the crystal finish for the start-stop knob and drive mode selector look particularly exquisite. 

Touchscreen takes pride of place on Volvo dash. Cabin has a soothing air about it.

In terms of comfort, front-most occupants will be equally happy on the Q7’s large seats and the XC90’s decidedly shapely thrones. Again, getting into (and out of) the middle-row seats pose no problem on these SUVs but once inside, you’ll find seat comfort to be good but not great on either. The reclinable backrests are nice but the somewhat short seat squabs compromise middle-row thigh support on both SUVs. Also, hard, uncomfortable backrests and a big centre tunnel will trouble middle-seat passengers. However, the Q7’s noticeably greater interior width makes the middle row more conducive to seating three abreast. Also, while the XC90 offers plenty by way of legroom in its own right, it’s the Q7 that really lets middle-row occupants stretch out. This point also comes into play when there’s a need to slide the individual middle-row seats forward to free up space for third-row passengers; the Q7’s second- and third-row passengers will find it far easier to reach a legroom compromise.

The Q7 also offers better access to the third row. The middle-row seats tumble forward on struts where the XC90’s middle-row seats merely slide forward. Once settled in though, third-row passengers will find themselves more comfortable in the Volvo. The seating position is better (read: less knees-up), the large windows give a greater feeling of space and there’s more headroom too. That said, this is still not a place suited to adults over long journeys.

Spare wheel positioning in boot of the Q7 is simply ridiculous.

Do note, you can only use the Q7 as a seven-seater by ditching the space saver spare tyre that otherwise sits vertically in the boot (the XC’s is positioned under the boot floor) ◊ ∆ and effectively rules out the use of one of the last row seats. The Audi’s ridiculous spare tyre arrangement also severely eats into boot capacity. Even with the Q7’s spare wheel out of the picture, however, it’s the XC90 that offers more luggage room with all seats up. In fact, the Q7’s luggage area has reduced over the previous model, which is a shame. Both SUVs offer the option to fold the last row and middle-row seats to create a large loading bay, should the need arise.

Features

Luxury SUVs as they are, the Q7 and XC90, in top trim, come pretty well loaded. LED headlights, leather seats, electric front seat adjust, fully digital instrument consoles, Bluetooth-ready audio systems, cruise control, panoramic sunroofs, four-zone climate control systems, powered tail gates and park assist that can automatically steer the vehicle into a detected parallel or perpendicular parking slot are among the features you’ll find on both. The XC90 goes one up on the Q7 to offer heads-up display, front seats with ventilation, adjustable side bolstering and adjustable thigh support in addition to dedicated air-con vents for the third-row passengers and a brilliant sounding 1400W, 19-speaker Bowers and Wilkins sound system. However, the XC90 also makes do without paddleshifters and electric adjust for the steering wheel, both of which are offered on the Q7. Top-spec Q7 in Technology trim also feature a touchpad to feed inputs to the multimedia system (it requires practice and dexterity to make full use of), a strong Bose sound system, a useful electric adjust for the third-row backrests and 360-degree parking cameras.

360-degree camera comes very handy when placing the big Audi.

Engine, Gearbox & Performance

Downsizing may be a trend that’s gaining popularity but if there’s one carmaker that’s really committed itself to it, it’s Volvo. Engines from its new Drive-E range are no larger than 2000cc and feature no more than four cylinders. Make no mistake though, because the small engines have been designed to do big things. The diesel engines, as the one on the XC90, feature microcomputers at each of the injectors that individually optimise the quantity and pressure (up to 2500bar) of fuel entering each cylinder. Volvo claims this setup betters the traditional arrangement in which all of the injectors on the common-rail are provided a constant, single pressure. The benefits are in emissions, sound and power. The 2.0-litre D5 version of the engine under the XC90’s hood also features two turbos to force feed air into the combustion chamber. The net result is a healthy 222bhp and 48kgm.

Expectantly, performance is more than just adequate. The XC90 feels quick off the line, responds well to part-throttle inputs and offers genuine thrust in the mid-range. There’s not much of a top-end however and though this is not an issue in town, out on the highway, with seven people on board, you miss the extra power when overtaking. The Aisin-supplied eight-speed torque-converter automatic works well in everyday driving but when you are driving with vigour, you’ll note gearshifts aren’t as quick as they ought to be; there’s no dedicated sport mode to speed things up either. You can use the slightly mechanical gearshift to take manual control but frustratingly, there are no paddle shifters at the steering.

XC90's gearbox not enthusiastic. There are no paddleshifters either.

No such problems on the Q7 whose snappy ZF eight-speed torque converter gearbox helps get the best out of the Audi’s engine. The engine in question is the next-generation 3.0 TDI turbocharged V6 diesel and this state-of-the-art powertrain is another big change over the previous Q7.

Power and torque are now up to 245bhp and 61.2kgm, numbers significantly more than the XC90’s. Bring the similar kerb weight, wider powerband (it pulls to its 4600rpm limiter with ease) and more alert gearbox into the picture and you’ll understand why the Q7 will leave the XC90 well behind in flat-out acceleration runs. 0-100kph on the Q7 takes just 6.95 seconds where an XC90 will need 9.14 seconds to hit the ton. Even through the gears, the Q7 is much faster. The Q7’s paddle shifters also offer an element of control that you enjoy, especially on a hilly road. Just wish the Q7 allowed drivers to hold onto gears in manual mode. Not that the XC90 offers the option either.

Performance aside, what is bound to make you a fan of the Q7’s engine is its high level of refinement. The unit rarely emits more than a cultured hum in average driving and even when you are going for it, the note is sporty rather than noisy. The XC90’s engine, in comparison, tends to sound gruff under load and busy when revved hard.

Both SUVs’ gearboxes are configured to keep the engines running at low rpm where possible but again, it’s the larger-hearted Q7 that makes for the more relaxed cruiser. At 120kph in eighth gear, for instance, the Q7 engine spins at just 1600rpm where the XC90’s motor turns at a higher 1800rpm.  

Ride & handling

As large SUVs go, the Q7 is remarkably easy to drive and place in tight traffic. The steering that requires little effort to twirl and the good all-round visibility help to this end. At lower speeds, the air suspension and chunky 255/55 19-inch tyres also do a reasonably good job of absorbing bumps and potholes. Sure, the Q7 will thud through sharp imperfections common in our cities but for the most part, the suspension works silently and this only adds to the general calm in the cabin. Incredible road and wind noise insulation also allow the Q7 to cruise amazingly quietly at even speeds of over 100kph. Add to this the brilliant straightline stability and you have an SUV that’s well suited for crossing continents in. But it’s not all good news. The weak link is in the form of the somewhat unsettled high-speed ride. There’s an ever present if only mild up and down motion on all but the flattest surfaces and even the firmest Dynamic suspension setting can’t totally arrest the vertical movement. 


On the plus side, with the suspension and steering set to Dynamic, the Q7 feels borderline sporty. Body control is good and there’s a general readiness to change direction that makes the new Q7 feel smaller than its size around bends. Mind you, the Q7 is still no Porsche Cayenne. The steering, for one, always feels artificially weighted at speed and this doesn’t give a great sense of connection with the big Audi.
In comparison, the XC90 has the marginally heavier steering but it also feels more naturally weighted and correspondingly, more feelsome. Body control is largely good here too but the XC90 never seems to shrink around you as a Q7 can. The taller XC90 rolls that little bit more even in Dynamic mode and neither does it take mid-corner bumps in its stride quite as well as the Q7. Nonetheless, the grippy XC90, with a particularly good front-end bite, does feel solid and reassuring around the bends.

In contrast to the Q7, it’s the XC90’s high-speed ride quality that’s its strength. Straightline stability is just as good as the Audi’s but there’s no undue vertical movement here which means the Volvo feels more settled and composed at serious cruising speeds. In town, though, you can’t escape the very European car stiffness to the XC90’s ride. You can feel, or at least hear all imperfections on the road at low speeds and it will crash through larger potholes more frequently than the Q7. The Volvo’s suspension doesn’t seem to have the same travel as the Q7’s nor does it work as silently. Road and wind noise are also not quite as well contained.

In the rough, the SUVs are limited more by their size than their ability. All-wheel drive, hill descent control, hill start assist and dedicated off-road modes are part of the package on both. At full suspension height, it’s the XC90 that offers more ground clearance — 267mm to the Q7’s 245mm. However, the XC90 lacks the Q7’s 360-degree camera (extremely useful in the rough) and readouts for roll and pitch angles and steering lock.

Fuel economy

Both the SUVs here come with auto engine start-stop, efficiency boosting eco modes and coast functions that cease engine braking by decoupling the engine and transmission when a driver lifts off the throttle at steady highway speeds. The duo did quite well in our efficiency tests though the XC90, with its smaller engine, extended each litre of diesel that little bit more. In our city cycle, the XC90 returned 9.1kpl while the Q7 managed 8.3kpl. The gap reduced on the highway – the Volvo gave us 13.1kpl to the Q7’s 12.5kpl. Sedate driving, however, can push the figures up. We managed a true 18kpl from the Q7! Correspondingly, it’s possible to get over 1,000km from their 70-odd-litre fuel tanks.

Verdict

Right from launch, the new XC90 has been rightfully getting a lot of attention the world over. With that chunky shape, beautifully turned-out cabin and agreeable performance, what’s not to like? There’s also enough equipment onboard to let you see some value in the top-spec Inscription trim’s Rs 77.5 lakh (ex-showroom, Delhi) price tag. The sharply styled Audi Q7 in top-spec Technology trim costs an identical Rs 77.5 lakh and has its own set of highlights. Cabin quality is top-class, performance is fantastic and overall refinement is superb. Compromises, as such, are few and centre around the outrageous positioning of the spare wheel in the cabin and to a lesser extent, the average comfort in the third row. Truth is, the XC90 works better as a seven seater.

But enticing as the XC90 is, the nagging feeling is that it could have been better still with a larger, more refined engine and more absorbent suspension. In this respect, the Q7 leaves less to the imagination because it’s as fast, quiet and luxurious as you’d want a luxury SUV to be, and then some. It’s the nicer SUV to drive and also the nicer SUV to be chauffeured around in. In all, the Q7 does space and pace a crucial bit better than the XC90, a fact that demanding luxury SUV buyers are sure to take note of. If you’re not too fussed up about the un-SUV looking rear, the Q7 is quite the new benchmark in the big luxury SUV class. 

Saturday, 15 March 2014

Hyundai Xcent vs Honda Amaze vs Maruti Dzire: Specification comparison

The Dzire and Amaze have ruled the compact sedan segment so far, but the Hyundai Xcent has just entered the fray; here’s how they compare.




The Indian compact sedan segment is all set to have its feathers ruffled again, with a new entrant from Hyundai's stable – the Xcent – which has just gone on sale. It’s derived from the very successful Grand i10, and all of the hatchback’s hallmarks have been carried forth – good legroom in the back, lots of features and a quality interior. But this segment already has two major players – Maruti’s Swift Dzire, for a time the second-best selling car in India, and Honda’s Amaze, which once boasted of being the most fuel efficient car in the country. The new Hyundai's Xcent will have these two to answer to, so how does it square up ? Let’s find out.

The Hyundai Xcent gets the same 1.2-litre petrol and 1.1-litre diesel engines as the Grand i10, which is important, as both the Maruti and the Honda have capable petrol and diesel powerplants. The petrols first – all three displace 1.2 litres, all have four cylinders, all are equipped with variable valve timing, and all can be had with the option of an automatic gearbox, apart from the standard five-speed manual. Hyundai’s punchy 1.2-litre Kappa2 engine makes 82bhp and 11.6kgm of torque, which is a shade shy of the Dzire’s K12 engine, which produces 86bhp and the same amount of torque. Honda’s 1.2 i-VTEC engine makes more power at 88bhp, but marginally less torque at 11.11kgm. Additionally, while the Xcent and Dzire use four-speed automatic gearboxes, the Amaze uses a five-speed automatic.

The diesel engines are where things get a bit different, although all are mated to five-speed manual gearboxes. The Xcent uses a 1.1-litre, three-cylinder CRDi engine, the Dzire the Fiat-sourced 1.3-litre four-cylinder DDiS engine, and the Amaze Honda’s developed-for-India 1.5-litre, four-cylinder i-DTEC engine. The differences in displacement reflect in their outputs as well, the Hyundai producing 71bhp and 18.4kgm (1bhp and 2.1kgm more than the Grand i10), the Maruti 74bhp and 19.4kgm and the Amaze a solid 98.6bhp and 20.4kgm of torque. However, each engine has its quirks, and the figures don’t tell the whole story. The Amaze engine, though very linear, lacks that torquey punch and is very loud. The Dzire suffers from a bit of lag, and – at least in the Grand i10 – Hyundai’s new small diesel engine, though a tad underpowered, is very responsive in the city.

All three cars are adapted from existing hatchbacks, and we feel that Honda did a better job than Maruti at adding a boot to its two-box car. This is largely because Honda’s starting point – the Brio, was much shorter than Maruti’s – the Swift, and so the designers had a lot more room to work with before hitting the four-metre cut-off length. The Grand i10’s length is in between the Swift and the Brio’s, so Hyundai’s designers had quite a bit of space left to work with when penning the Xcent. Still, the two Hyundais are identical up to the rear doors and share the same wheelbase. The boot has been well integrated, however, and its 407-litre volume is best in class, beating the Dzire’s 316 litres and the Amaze’s 400 litres.

As Hyundais are often known to do, the Xcent really wins things back on the equipment front, when comparing top-of-the-line variants at least. It takes the Grand i10’s already substantial kit count and adds to it features like a rear-view camera, automatic climate control and a rear seat armrest with cupholders. It also gets segment-first features like keyless entry, push-button start, a rear AC vent and 1GB of onboard storage for its audio system. Then there are rear parking sensors, CD, USB, Aux and Bluetooth-enabled audio system and electric folding mirrors, among others.

Comparatively, the top-end Amaze does get electric folding mirrors and a USB and Aux-enabled audio system, but there’s no CD player or Bluetooth. It also misses out on climate control, which the top Dzire also gets, and though the Maruti gets a CD player, Aux-in and USB, it misses out on Bluetooth. It also has to be said that the design and layout of the Amaze’s cabin feels a bit Spartan compared to the plush and premium looking interiors of the Xcent and the Dzire. Top variants of the Honda and Maruti come with two airbags and ABS, but these are available only as paid options on the top Xcent SX. What's more, although you can have ABS on the middle Xcent S trim as a paid option, airbags are not even optional on either of the two lower trims. 

It’s not going to be easy for Hyundai to tackle one of the hottest segments in the country, as Maruti and Honda have entrenched themselves firmly with quality products and attractive prices. But as we’ve seen before, Hyundai’s trademark combination of good styling and lots of equipment seems to work well with Indian buyers, and with an attractive introductory price range of Rs 4.66-7.38 lakh (ex-showroom, Delhi), we could have a serious battle on our hands very soon.

Hyundai Xcent petrol manual vs Amaze vs Dzire
Hyundai Xcent petrolHonda AmazeMaruti Swift Dzire petrol
Base - Rs 4.66 lakhE - Rs 5.04 lakhLXI - Rs 4.85 lakh
S - Rs 5.32 lakhEX - Rs 5.34 lakhVXI - Rs 5.44 lakh
S (O) - Rs 5.57 lakhS - Rs 5.73 lakhZXI - Rs 6.31 lakh
SX - Rs 6.22 lakhSX - Rs 6.08 lakh-
SX (O) - Rs 6.47 lakhVX -Rs 6.68 lakh-

Hyundai Xcent DieselHonda AmazeMaruti Swift Dzire
Base - Rs 5.56 lakhE - Rs 6.02 lakhLDI - Rs 5.78 lakh
S - Rs 6.23 lakhEX - Rs 6.29 lakhVDI - Rs 6.51 lakh
S (O) - Rs 6.48 lakhS - Rs 6.59 lakhZDI - Rs 7.32 lakh
SX - Rs 7.13 lakhSX - Rs 6.94 lakh-
SX - (O) Rs 7.38 lakhVX - Rs 7.54 lakh-

Hyundai Xcent Petrol automatic vs Amaze vs Dzire
Hyundai Xcent automaticHonda AmazeMaruti Swift Dzire automatic
S (O)- Rs 6.28 lakhS - Rs 6.74 lakhVXI - Rs 6.60 lakh
SX (O) - Rs 7.19 lakhVX - Rs 7.59 lakh

Sunday, 17 November 2013

New Volkswagen Polo GT TDI vs Hyundai i20 CRDi

The new Polo GT TDI takes on the popular Hyundai i20. But does it have what it takes to tip the market in its favour?


New Volkswagen Polo GT TDI vs Hyundai i20 CRDi

With Volkswagen launching a diesel version of the Polo GT, a new challenger has risen to take on the reigning segment king, the Hyundai i20. The Hyundai has been a favourite in the market owing to its class-leading interior space and long equipment list. So, does Volkswagen's new product have enough on offer to win over customers? 

Performance

The  new Polo GT TDI is powered by the 1.6-litre, four-cylinder diesel engine from the Vento, rather than the usual 1.2-litre, three-cylinder diesel. It makes a strong 103.5bhp. Refinement levels are good and the engine is pretty quiet as well. Power delivery is strong and performance is punchy and smooth. It’s equipped with a five-speed manual gearbox and reaches the 100kph mark from standstill in 10.51 seconds.

The i20, on the other hand, is powered by a 1.4-litre, four-cylinder diesel engine that produces 88.7bhp and 22.4kgm of pulling power, both slightly less than the Polo GT. The motor is smooth for the most part and flexible enough for both spirited driving or a relaxed cruise. It has a lighter clutch than the Polo and feels effortless to drive, especially in the city. It’s equipped with a six-speed manual gearbox and reaches the 100kph mark in 12.88 seconds. It does not feel as fast as the VW.

Ride and handling

The Polo impresses in this department and is definitely the sportier of the two here. The suspension does a good job of suppressing undulations on the road, and the ride is generally pliant at low speeds and a lot more composed at higher speeds. The front tyres afford abundant grip, and the Polo inspires a lot of confidence. The brakes are only average and a little grip from the rear tyres would have been good.

This is where the i20 doesn’t impress as much as the Polo. Its soft suspension is comfortable at city speeds, but the exceedingly light steering makes it a little difficult over rough surfaces. There is some body roll too, you will not want to turn corners too enthusiastically either. It feels pretty stable when driving in a straight line however, but it isn’t anywhere close to the Polo as far as handling is concerned.
Interiors

The GT TDI’s interiors are pretty simple and a bit boring in comparison to the i20’s, but the quality of materials used and the fit and finish are much better than the Hyundai’s. It’s easy to find a comfortable driving position thanks to seat height adjustment and a steering that is adjustable for reach and rake, although the Polo’s high dashboard may hamper visibility for shorter drivers. The dials are easy to read and super functionality of the switches is very impressive too.

The i20’s interiors are typical Hyundai and have been put together well. The cabin design looks more exciting than the Polo’s, with two-tone interiors, a brushed silver central console and an information screen on the dash top. The big dials are clear, the chunky controls are effortless to use, and all the controls fall to hand easily. The quality of plastics is also good, especially on the dashboard and the door pads, but not quite up there with the VW.
Space and practicality

The VW does fall a bit short here – its rear seat is down on headroom and legroom, especially if you are on the taller side. The front seats, however, have decent space and there are plenty of cubby holes for storing stuff. This makes it best for owners who drive themselves around. The door pockets also offer generous space to store big bottles. What it lacks in rear seat space, the Polo makes up for with its 294-litre boot, which is usefully big and is well shaped too.

In terms of absolute space, the i20 does better than the Polo. The front seats are well contoured and comfortable, but the cushioning is a tad hard. The rear seats are comfortable too and space in the back is much more. Three adults can sit comfortably in the back seat. Its 295-litre boot is fairly large and can accommodate generous amount of luggage. The i20 is the one to choose if you travel with a full complement of passengers.

Equipment

The Polo GT TDI is available only in one high-spec variant, similar to the standard car’s Highline trim. It gets 15-inch alloy wheels, aluminium pedals, leather-wrapped gear lever, steering wheel and handbrake, ABS, two airbags automatic climate control, steering-mounted controls, rear parking sensors, fog lamps, electric mirrors, height adjustable driver’s seat, a two-DIN music system with USB, aux and Bluetooth, and a tilt and telescopic steering wheel.

Like all Hyundais, the i20 is very well equipped, and this top-end Asta trim has just about everything the Polo GT gets, and then some more. It has ABS, rear parking sensors and camera, two airbags, front and rear fog lamps, LED daytime-running lights, 14-inch alloy wheels, a six-speaker audio system with USB, aux and Bluetooth, automatic climate control, a cooled glovebox, electric folding mirrors and a height adjustable driver's seat.
Verdict

While the Hyundai does trump the Volkswagen in terms of space and equipment, it simply doesn't feel as well put together and fun to drive as its German competitor. The Polo GT TDI is fast, efficient and fun to drive, and if you drive yourself, this should definitely be your choice of premium hatchback.

 

New 2013 Toyota Innova vs Tata Aria

The Innova's ruled its segment for a while now, but there isn't much separating the updated version's new Z trim and a top-end Aria. Which is better?


New 2013 Toyota Innova vs Tata Aria

What’s new?

The Toyota Innova SUV has been in the Indian market for quite some time. It was first launched here in 2005 and this is its third facelift. Customers, however, are still lapping it up and Toyota sells an average of 4,800 Innovas a month. But with fresher competition having hit our market over the past few years, the Innova’s sales have seen a slight decline, which explains why Toyota has tried to keep things fresh and introduced this facelift. The most noticeable change is the massive three-slat chrome grille and the fog lamp surrounds, also layered with chrome. There’s a big chrome strip on the new SUV that runs along the sides, but the rear is pretty much unchanged, save for some chrome garnish on the boot.

The very capable Tata Aria is an SUV we really like, and it’s a real shame that Tata’s MPV got off to such a poor start. It is one of the most comfortable cars in its class (more so on long drives), it’s bigger than the Innova and this translates to acres of room inside, it’s got a powerful yet frugal 2.2-litre diesel engine, and it’s built to be tough. With the Innova’s prices headed skyward, the top-of-the-line Z trim that we’re driving is only Rs 3,000 cheaper than the fully-loaded Tata Aria 4x4 Pride, which is priced at Rs 15.10 lakh. The question is, does the Tata Aria SUV deserve a second look at this price, or is the Innova still good enough?

What are they like to drive?

The Innova is the nicer to drive of the two, especially in the city. The clutch and steering are light and easy to use. In fact, it feels almost like a mid-size saloon to drive, despite its size. The Toyota’s larger engine coupled with its lighter body means that it’s quicker to respond to your right foot, which is useful, especially in traffic; it’s easy to slot the SUV into gaps between cars. At high speeds, it’s stable and quite comfortable too and the suspension does a good job of absorbing the rough stuff. However, with a full load, the Innova does tend to bob a bit on the highway. The Toyota Innova’s engine is also the more vocal of the two, and the noise and lack of power are something you’ll definitely notice when you’re driving fast. Another grouse we had is with the long-throw gear lever; though nice to slot, it looks and feels a bit tacky in a car like this.


Start the Tata Aria up and you’ll notice that the engine feels quite refined – it’s much quieter than the Innova’s 2.5-litre unit, and the SUV is also the quieter of the two on the move. The one we’re driving is the 4x4 variant, but there’s a small button that changes it to 4x2 mode, and this sends power only to the rear wheels, which improves fuel efficiency. In 4x4 mode, whenever the car is short on grip, the engine can send up to 45 percent of its power to the front wheels, but you will rarely find need to use this mode in everyday driving situations. The Aria is 200mm longer than the Innova, so naturally, parking it in the city is a task on its own. And although the Aria is quite nice to drive, the gearbox, clutch and steering aren’t of the same quality or as light to use as the Innova’s. 

Ride and Handling

Both these cars are huge MPVs, so they’re going to handle like big MPVs. The Aria has more body roll when you take it round a corner quickly, while the Innova feels a bit more composed and points into corners well. Once you get used to the roll on the Aria, however, it drives really well too, giving the driver plenty of confidence from the hydraulic power assisted steering wheel.


The Aria even drives well when fully loaded; the suspension soaks up bumps well and little of it can be felt in the cabin. And despite having a smaller engine, the Aria is quicker to 100kph than the Innova by 1.84 seconds. The Toyota’s engine produces less overall power and as a result can’t hold on to high speeds for prolonged periods.

What are they like inside?

The Toyota’s cabin holds on to its airy feel, and to justify the premium, there’s a new faux wood finish on the armrests and gear knob and hints of chrome on the dash, which lift the ambience of the cabin. The steering wheel is the same as the one on the Corolla and the fit and finish and overall feel of the buttons and wheel are solid. In fact, the entire dashboard feels solidly built.

This top-spec Z version of the Innova is a new trim in the range and it comes only with individual ‘captain’ seats for the middle row. However, the lower variants have the option of a conventional bench instead. The seats are very comfortable, especially on long drives, but the third row is a little lacking in thigh support and is best suited for children. The middle row is adjustable and can be moved forward to liberate more room for the third-row passengers. Legroom for the middle row is good, but the Aria is more spacious thanks to its longer wheelbase and overall length.

The Innova comes equipped with a very useful rear-view camera that uses the touchscreen infotainment system as a display, but the lack of parking sensors means that you can’t afford to take your eyes off the screen.


Step into the Aria and the cabin, though airy, doesn’t feel as premium as the Toyota’s. There are nice bits though, like the air-con vents that are neatly integrated into the dash within the faux wood panels. However, the entire dash doesn’t feel as solid as the Innova’s. The Aria’s steering-mounted controls feel flimsy and you often end up pressing them when you’re turning the wheel. The Aria is huge, so it’s a good thing it has parking sensors, which are quite effective, and since our test car is the now-discontinued 4x4 ‘Pleasure’ variant, it doesn’t come with a reversing camera. The top 4x4 Pride variant, however, does get a camera. The air-con unit, though effective on the whole, doesn’t do as good a job cooling the front two seats as the Innova’s unit, so if you’re driving on a hot summer’s day, you’re going to feel a little uncomfortable in the Aria.


The Aria comes with a second row bench and not captain seats. You sit higher in the Innova than in the Aria, but thigh support in the Tata is better, and its third row seats are comfier, especially on long drives. The Aria has lots of useful roof-mounted storage areas, more than you could have asked for in fact.

Overall, where the Innova trumps the Aria is clearly quality. The Tata just doesn’t feel as well put together as the Toyota, which is possibly what puts some quality-conscious buyers off.

 Buying and owning

The facelifted Toyota Innova is available in three trims – G, V and Z – and two configurations, a seven-seater and eight-seater (the Z is only a seven-seater). All of these versions are available only as diesels, but if you really want the petrol, it can be built to order. The base GX seven-seater costs Rs 12.45 lakh, and it’s Rs 5,000 more for the eight-seater. The VX costs Rs 14.53 lakh and the newly introduced Z trim – the one we’ve tested – retails for Rs 15.06 lakh.

The Tata Aria is available in three configurations – 4x2 Pure, 4x2 Pleasure and 4x4 Pride. The 4x2 Pure costs Rs 10.17 lakh, while the 4x2 Pleasure costs Rs 12.32 lakh and the 4x4 costs Rs 15.10 lakh (Although our test car is the 4x4 Pleasure, it’s a variant Tata doesn’t offer anymore; you can only order the 4x4 in fully-specced Pride trim).

Bear in mind that Tata is trying hard to sell more Arias, so there are usually very tempting discounts on offer. Currently, the Aria is available for a discount ranging from Rs 1.5 – 2 lakh.

The Innova returns 10.3kpl in the city and 13.8kpl on the highway, while the Aria manages 9.8kpl in town and 13.8kpl out on the highway. So both cars are almost on par as far as efficiency is concerned.

Equipment and safety

The Innova comes with a decent amount of features. It’s got a colour touchscreen with Bluetooth, aux and USB connectivity that doubles up as the reversing camera monitor. Other features include keyless entry, steering-mounted audio controls, driver’s seat height adjustment and two airbags.

The Aria 4x4 is actually even better equipped. There’s satellite navigation, cruise control, electrically adjustable wing mirrors, driver’s seat height adjustment, rain-sensing wipers, a cooled glovebox and a total of six airbags. It’s also got ABS and disc brakes for all four wheels; the Innova uses drum brakes at the rear.

Verdict

The Tata Aria has a lot going for it. It’s a very capable and spacious MPV, it comes loaded with features and looks imposing on the road. It’s a comfortable highway cruiser and is decently fuel efficient for its size. And with Tata offering tempting discounts on the car, it becomes even more of a value proposition. It’s clear that this is one severely underrated car. However, what lets it down is quality; the cabin just doesn’t feel as well made as the Innova’s and you get the feeling that the car is not built to last. The facelift has added to the Innova’s appeal, but what really keeps it ahead is that it gets the basics right.

Robustly engineered and beautifully built, the Innova feels like it will last you a really long time, and that makes the high asking price seem worth it. It’s a car you know you can drive for over 1,00,000km without it feeling worse for wear. So although the Tata comes quite close, it’s still the Innova that’s the MPV king.

Skoda Octavia vs Volkswagen Jetta

Video Comparison



The new Skoda Octavia has been making waves since its launch in India but how does it fare head to head against its cousin the Volkswagen Jetta.



Monday, 24 June 2013

Ford EcoSport vs Renault Duster

Is the Ford EcoSport ready to end Renault Duster's dominance of the compact SUV segment? 

Ford EcoSport vs Renault Duster

Performance
Renault’s Duster is powered by the familiar 1.5 dCi engine we’ve seen in the Logan, Fluence, Scala and Pulse, as well as a number of Nissans, and in the top-of-the-line variant we are testing, it produces 108bhp. The Duster takes a bit longer than the EcoSport to spool up its turbo, so when you cross the 2000rpm mark, there’s surge in power that can be a bit irritating in stop-and-go traffic. However, if you keep your foot down on the throttle pedal, it is the Duster that is the more rewarding car to drive. The engine builds revs quickly and the Duster does the 0-100kph sprint quicker (11.88sec versus the Ford’s 13.72sec). It’s on an open road that you can enjoy the Renault the most and it is a very good cruiser too. But in the city, the combination of an unprogressive, heavy clutch and turbo lag spoils the fun.
On the contrary, the EcoSport’s 89bhp, 1.5-litre turbo-diesel engine is at its best in traffic. This has a lot to do with this motor’s ready responses and instant delivery of power at low to medium engine speeds. The Ford is happy to amble around in third gear, even at speeds as low as 30-40kph, and tap the accelerator and it picks up the pace quite rapidly. This is in contrast to the Duster, which needs you to execute almost twice as many downshifts. It’s also got the lighter clutch of the two and its gearbox has a nice mechanical feel to it.
However, the EcoSport tends to run out of breath on the highway, particularly when you have to execute a high-speed overtaking move.
The Ford is by far the more refined car, but this is down to the sound insulation rather than the engine. Where the Duster’s motor has a sharp clatter at idle and feels gruff when worked hard, the EcoSport’s motor feels composed. It only gets noisy closer to the redline, and for the most part, it sounds and feels almost petrol-like on the move.
Ride and handling
Both cars really impress in this department. Despite their tall stance with high ground clearance, they are as easy to drive as your average hatchback. The Duster’s suspension feels very absorbent over potholes and large speed breakers alike. The thick tyres also do their bit to cushion you from surface blemishes. What’s also nice is that the Duster maintains its poise over big bumps, which can catch the EcoSport out. Straight-line stability is also really good, but then the Ford doesn’t disappoint on this count either.
The EcoSport delivers a somewhat pliant ride too, but it does ‘thunk’ over big bumps and there is a constant pitter-patter over broken roads. The Ford doesn’t iron out surface imperfections quite as well as the Duster. However, the EcoSport is more fun to drive. The stiff suspension setup lends it a certain agility, it’s got the better-weighted steering and, thanks to its good body control, it’s really entertaining to drive on twisting roads.
By contrast, the Duster’s soft suspension makes it roll quite a bit in corners, but it always feels in control and you get good feedback (sometimes too much) from the steering. Still, for day-to-day city driving, you’ll like the lightness of the EcoSport’s steering, while the Duster requires more effort to steer.
Interiors
Cabin ambience is where you’ll find a stark difference between these two. The Duster’s dashboard was updated for India to feature a fresh design, two-tone colour scheme and slightly better ergonomics, but it still falls short on quality, and this is one of the car’s weakest points. The plastics all over the cabin feel hard and cheap, controls like those for the air-con are fiddly to use, and the ergonomics are still pretty woeful (the electric mirror adjuster is under the handbrake, for example). Moreover, the overall design and layout looks a bit plain and not special enough.
The EcoSport’s interior is in another league; it is very similar to the Fiesta saloon, and that’s no bad thing. The dash has a modern, angular design, dominated by the V-shaped centre console. However, there are a lot of buttons here, and the dashboard’s sharp angle means they can be hard to read on the move. The advantage of this raked dashboard, which stretches far ahead to meet the windscreen, is that it gives a better sense of space than the Duster, which has a more upright dash. The downside is it makes it hard to judge where the front of the EcoSport ends.
The Ford’s front seats offer a lot of leg and head room, and are very snug and supportive. The Duster’s front seats are larger, and although they are quite flat and unsupportive, they are very comfortable.
Move to the back and the Duster wins some more points. The interior is wider, so sitting three abreast here is comfier than in the narrow EcoSport. However, the chunky AC unit between the front seats does eat into the middle passenger’s legroom. On overall rear legroom, the two are pretty evenly matched, with neither being exceptional. But the Ford makes better use of vertical space, and in addition, your thighs are better supported. These being tall SUVs, both have plenty of head room in the back. The EcoSport’s 3999mm length comes back to bite it in the boot however, where its 362-litre space is trounced by the Duster’s 475 litres.
Equipment & safety
The Ford EcoSport comes in four trims – Ambiente, Trend, Titanium and Titanium Optional. In terms of equipment, the base Ambiente trim comes with tilt and telescopic steering, a music player with Aux-in, USB and Bluetooth, electric wing mirrors, remote locking, a multi-function display, front power windows and 15-inch alloy wheels. The top-spec Titanium Optional trim gets 16-inch alloy wheels, climate control, a cooled glovebox, front fog lamps, keyless entry and reverse parking sensors. It also gets push-button start, which doesn’t feature on any of the Renault Duster’s four trims. The Duster RxZ gets a lot of the goodies the EcoSport has, including electric mirrors, a fully connected audio system, steering-column mounted audio controls (steering wheel-mounted on the EcoSport), driver’s seat height adjustment and front fog lights. It even gets a rear air-con unit, which the EcoSport misses out on. The Duster also has an available option pack on the RxZ trim that replaces the integrated audio system with a touchscreen sat-nav system. There’s no climate control, though.
In terms of safety, the EcoSport gets dual airbags and ABS with EBD on the Titanium trim. Titanium Optional adds Emergency Assist side and curtain airbags, which brings the total count to six. The Duster, on the other hand, only gets dual front airbags, even on the top-spec RxZ trim that comes with ABS with EBD and brake assist.
VERDICT
The Duster’s SUV looks and car-like driving manners are rather strong points. As a result, its few misgivings like the rough-around-the-edges build and basic interiors seemed like a small price to pay. However, the EcoSport does everything the Duster does, but in a more sophisticated, up-to-date and desirable manner. Sure, the Duster feels the more powerful of the two and even rides better, but at the end of the day, it’s the Ford that comes out on top, especially considering the price advantage the car is likely to have when launched.