[sathya_g_m]

Read in NDTV that Maruti is planning 100 NEXA dealership by End of this year with 30 immediately. Just wondering if S-Cross will have limited Service Station.

[Gannu_1]

Originally Posted by deetjohn

I have been trying hard to catch a glimpse of the rear disc brakes and those stupid alloys are not letting me.

Rear wheels do have disc brakes. The brake caliper is located at the top.

[sourabhzen]

Originally Posted by headbanger

I understand the point you are making. But save for the Swift, which other car from Maruti has looks which can be attributed as its strength. Majority of their cars are sedate and understated and Maruti normally pastes stickers or chrome here and there all the time. They tried their hand with quirks and produced Ritz which has failed only due to its looks. The car is otherwise a very good VFM package.

Having said that, despite all these shortcomings, they have managed to hit a home run on most occasions. This would again boil down to the pricing in my opinion. As I mentioned in another thread, there is no doubt that its advantage Creta at the moment. But I will hold my horses back until the pricing gets out to predict S-cross as a failure. You are right, Maruti has to put aggressive pricing as differentiator!!!

Completely agree with you here. I hated Swift's looks when I got it in 2008 (began to like it later though and I think that the newer models are much better to look at). However, in most of the cases MSIL was pioneer in introducing a car in a particular segment and with added advantage of MASS backing, they sold well. In case of S-Cross, they will be competing will already established players or better looking and equipped Creta. This will definitely make things difficult for them.

To add to the bland looks they added ugly Alloy wheels and made it worse. The prospective customer of S-Cross will buy it only if he will take decision from head instead of heart. It will be an excellent practical vehicle, if pricing is aggressive.

[d3mon]

I don't care much for the way it looks right now, but it's what's under the skin that counts.

The 320NM of torque makes it the torque king of the country.
I doubt if any car under 50L can match or beat the torque to weight ratio of the 1.6MJD!

Think about this - the Jetta has 320NM, but weighs 1440kg, giving it a torque/weight ratio of 222NM/ton.
Cruze? It's 233NM/ton.
Octavia? 231NM/ton
Rapid? 204NM?ton
328i? 221NM/ton
320D, you ask? 240NM/ton

And the S-cross?
256NM/ton

The story doesn't end there. 150BHP & 380NM are just a remap away.
At which point, the resultant figure of 304NM/ton for the remapped s-cross is within spitting distance of a 530D, which stands at 318NM/ton.

A simple grill job makes the S-cross look much more palatable. Agressive even, dare I say it?
Here's a 5 minute hack-job.

[sourabhzen]

Originally Posted by d3mon

A simple grill job makes the S-cross look much more palatable. Agressive even, dare I say it?
Here's a 5 minute hack-job.

This data must be used by Maruti in marketing this car.

However, no offense but I think you made it even uglier with unbearable chrome. I guess I would want the grill like one of these cars that are in TBHP's "tastefully modified" thread.

[Arindam_Nayek]

Keeping my fingers crossed for the pricing.
Went to Bimal Motors in Bannerghatta Road they too are not sure of the NEXA dealership. They are willing to take booking for SCross but when I asked for a written copy on full refund they hesitated. Feel the dealerships too are in a dilemma whether they would be able to sell SCross from their showrooms.

[hiren959]

Here is another one

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cS9XJ2QURUE

[Torquedo]

Originally Posted by d3mon

I don't care much for the way it looks right now, but it's what's under the skin that counts.

You took it out from my mouth.

Heck, 320 Nm is hell loads for 1200 Kilograms, the 4Runner belts out 380 odd.
The problem in the Indian market is we are too bent upon on the looks, this 1.6 is pure performance.

This thing is no Honda Element either.

I cannot think of any machine close to the price point that this shall be launched at that offers such numbers, lest I say they make a Yeti out of it.

The metros that we stay in, require the cars to provide in gear acceleration not a 0-100 machine and that is what this thing should offer.

Slam a Bass Tube and you have a HOT HATCH, don't treat it as a crossover.

My driving style, I adore spiky delivery that pushes you back, the only thing that I am hoping is, the power delivery should NOT be linear.

Cheers.

[d3mon]

Originally Posted by Torquedo

You took it out from my mouth.

My driving style, I adore spiky delivery that pushes you back, the only thing that I am hoping is, the power delivery should NOT be linear.

Rest assured, the power delivery isn't linear. I've read every bit of digital ink spilled from the first drive reviews on the interwebs - and they all say that there is some initial turbo lag, followed by a lot of violence.

As I drive the first gen swift diesel, I'm a big fan of the spiky power delivery too. This feels like the perfect upgrade for me. As long as they price the base 1.6 (Delta) under 10L, they will get my money.

[volkman10]

Review of a different kind - comparison starts- Now Duster(AWD) Vs S Cross.

The S-Cross is a unique proposition from Maruti Suzuki. It's a crossover aimed at the likes who bend more towards SUVs, both in terms of design and appeal than crossovers. Therefore it tries to find a unique position between sub-4 metre offerings like the Ford EcoSport and SUVs like the Renault Duster.

S Cross it appears as nothing more than a raised hatch on stilts. It is the urban crossover versus a more utilitarian urban SUV .

DESIGN
Duster manages to tick most boxes by getting its basics correct. There's little to find offensive with the Duster's overall appearance, though it isn't the freshest looking here.

The S Cross profile is more palatable, even though the front-end still does appear a bit out of order. It's the rear that seems most balanced and well thought out, though it does appear like a large hatch.

INSIDE

The Duster is more utiliatarian in approach and it shows on the inside too. Basic vents with a clean centre console and manual AC controls, clean dials and a reasonably informative multi-info display system is what's on offer.
S-Cross feels more premium. There is soft-touch plastic, nicely designed air-vents, a wider touch screen than the one on the Duster with a higher-resolution, reversing camera, a multi-information display and more. Seat comfort is better on the S-Cross than the Duster. The seats provide better support, both back and underthigh and there is also more kneeroom, legroom and headroom at the rear. The boots are both of a decent size, the one on the Duster tends to hold more and with the rear seat(s) flipped forward, the Duster tends to hold more than the S-Cross.
It's a proper battle of utility (where the Duster scores higher) than luxury and comfort (where the S-Cross has the edge)

Drive
Both motors have European roots. The 1.5-litre dCi in the Duster produces 108.5 bhp@4000 rpm and 24.8 kgm of peak torque from 1750 rpm. In comparison, the 1.6-litre Multijet diesel, a new engine for a Maruti produces 118 bhp@3750 rpm and 32.4 kgm of peak torque from 1750 rpm. Not only does the S-Cross have an advantage in terms of power and torque, the lighter kerb weight by anywhere between 33 and 58 kg for the two-wheel drive and even more when compared to the AWD version makes the Maruti, the strongest performing of its kind .

Neither car boasts of good bottom-end performance, the Duster even more so than the S-Cross. However, cross the 1400-1500 rpm mark and the S-Cross picks up pace quicker. In a straight-line drag, the S-Cross pretty much leaves the Duster a good two to three car lengths behind in little time. The way the S-Cross gets on the boil closer to the 2000 rpm mark is simply stunning for vehicle in its class and size. Not only does the lighter kerb weight and more power and torque help, the lower co-efficient of drag does help too. The gear throws are strong and positive and the clutch action is light.

DYNAMICS

There is no doubt that the S-Cross' handling balance is pretty good. Riding lower and generally a bit stiffer, the S-Cross feels more adept around corners. Where the Duster requires some heft and shove, plus having to deal with body-roll, the S-Cross tends to corner better. The weak link in the S-Cross is tyre grip. Sure, the 23.65 kpl and 22.7 kpl figures fo the 1.3 and 1.6 Multijet respectively are pretty good, but they have also come the cost of rolling resistance. The ride is better sorted on the Duster, both in the all-wheel drive and front-wheel drive versions.


VERDICT
There is no doubt that the Duster fulfills some very different needs than the S-Cross. Indeed they tend to chase the same set of customers, but in the end, if you need an urban, high-stance vehicle that is more sorted dynamically, has punchy engines and is better equipped and finished, then the S-Cross is the pick of the two.

http://www.motoringworld.net/cars/co...uster/page/0/5

[anish5225]

Originally Posted by d3mon

I don't care much for the way it looks right now, but it's what's under the skin that counts.

The 320NM of torque makes it the torque king of the country.
I doubt if any car under 50L can match or beat the torque to weight ratio of the 1.6MJD!

Think about this - the Jetta has 320NM, but weighs 1440kg, giving it a torque/weight ratio of 222NM/ton.
Cruze? It's 233NM/ton.
Octavia? 231NM/ton
Rapid? 204NM?ton
328i? 221NM/ton
320D, you ask? 240NM/ton

And the S-cross?
256NM/ton

.

But as per the available performance figures, these impressive numbers donot translate to real world performance. Acceleration figures (0-100, 11+ seconds) are comparable to a swift and none of the cars mentioned above. I wish that a proper road test will give better figures...

[IshaanIan]

Extremely satisfied with what I can read Really can't wait to drive the car myself.

European feel in terms of build is a welcome change from the usual locally manufactured Suzukis, that stonker of Diesel is enough reason for a hardcore petrol-head like me to start drooling, room in the rear bench looks impressive, boot while not class-leading is definitely laid out extremely well, all round disc brakes are a good thing, not too softly sprung "for india" suspension is great to hear, styling according to me is actually really nice; I am not saying it will turn heads but it reminds me of a Subaru which doesn't pretend to be something it isn't and stays subtle about its intents with just a tasteful amount of aggressive added to the nose (If I bought one though I'd still get a custom nickel coated or black wire mesh grille and push for some better alloys).

I get that a lot of our Indian folk love the SUVish styling but don't understand it when embers say it doesn't look the part what part? That of a fake SUV? Cause it definitely looks the part of a Crossover that can take on bad roads, and cruise the highways at highspeeds due to its aerodynamic and relatively low stance (While other more SUV stanced cars can do the same, I am never confident cruising at high speeds in them because a simple emergency lane change maneuver would be too demanding). I have never been a fan of SUVs simply because of their high center of gravity so for me, this is the best compromise between a slick sedan and an SUV; it offers the practicality, easier ingress/egress (no having to climb up or down), while at the same time not compromising unnecessarily on the dynamic ability that I expect a car I drive on tarmac to have

[d3mon]

This table shows what 320NM of torque in a car that weighs 1250kg really means.

The Ecosport/Duster/Yeti/i20/XUV/Fortuner etc aren't even on the same planet. The S-cross truly lives in the land of the big, fast Germans, at least when it comes to torque.

[.anshuman]

Originally Posted by d3mon

This table shows what 320NM of torque in a car that weighs 1250kg really means.

I agree this is the Torque monster here , atleast on the paper. But more than the peak torque figure, it's the spread of torque across the revs that matters more.

118 Bhp for 320nm car means, the top end is not that strong. Typically 320nm Diesels with VGT these days are tuned for around 140-150hp. Weak Low end + Relatively weaker Top end= Narrow Power Band.

The Torque/Weight comparison to 320d might sound great on paper but 320d's real world performance with ZF8 transmission is in a different world altogether. S-Cross won't even be good for sub 10s, 0-100kph.

What i've said here is pure speculation derived from paper figures, let's not jump to conclusions before driving the car.

[Grr7]

Originally Posted by nik_kapur

I really don't get what the S Cross stands for ! Its neither here nor there and i don't India is ready for a lifestyle vehicle.
The GLA from Mercedes is a car that comes to mind when i see the S Cross.

Quoting an excerpt from the SX4 wikipedia page:
"Designed by Giorgetto Giugiaro's Italdesign studio, the SX4 (an abbreviation of 'Sports X-over 4 all seasons')"

Unlike confusing weird names like Creta, S-Cross is what its name stands for.

Its a crossover of Suzuki's SX4 which was designed in the same manner(with 4x4 in offer for tough terrains like Russian area with snows).
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Suzuki_SX4

Another line explaining the utility:
'SX4 competed in the 2007 and 2008 seasons of the World Rally Championship'

Yes, I became a fan of SX4 since the time it took us to Leh and beyond (the SUV territory).
For many avid travelers like me (travelling triennially) who would barely need SPOA, LSD and other fancies of hardcore offroaders, all we need is a comfortable cruiser with high ground clearance, a deliciously powerful engine and may be a 4x4 for when the wannabe offroader in me wants to take that one off plunge into the unforeseen territory!

And no, the SX4 did not got struck. The Scorpio doing this before us did and needed pushing.