[ostreichwein]

Originally Posted by driven646

I'm in the market for a new car in this segment and awaiting the Taigun launch - I just prefer the VW design language over Skoda.

Since the Kushaq is basically what the Taigun will be - anyone has feedback over the engine/gearbox combo? Is the 1.0 liter engine with the TC automatic better than the 1.5 liter engine with the DSG as some reviewers are suggesting?
Wouldn't a DSG always be better than a Torque Converter?

I already own two VW automatics - a 2011 Passat with a 6 speed DSG and a 2017 Tiguan with a 7 speed DSG and am highly satisfied with both. Also my use is for the hills, where quick acceleration without lag, rubber band effect is needed.

Any advice is appreciated.

The new Aisin torque converters that VAG has been using are, personally, some of the best TC boxes I've come across. I absolutely enjoy it in my 2020 Polo with 1.0 TSI, and I can vouch for no CVT-like rubberband effect for sure.

Yes, the DSGs are faster, but these TCs aren't far behind, and I'd rather lose out on a few milliseconds of gear shift timings than live with a fast, but unreliable system.

[Carz77]

Originally Posted by ostreichwein

The new Aisin torque converters that VAG has been using are, personally, some of the best TC boxes I've come across. I absolutely enjoy it in my 2020 Polo with 1.0 TSI, and I can vouch for no CVT-like rubberband effect for sure.
Yes, the DSGs are faster, but these TCs aren't far behind, and I'd rather lose out on a few milliseconds of gear shift timings than live with a fast, but unreliable system.

I did a test drive on Rapid last year and this TC AT is fun to drive. I agree.
Off topic, yet related to Kushaq - Knowing DSG reliability issues in the past and Kushaq being a mass market product, why didn't Skoda chose a TC even for 1.5L variant ? Doesn't VAG has any TC which is suitable to 1.5L ? This would have been a killer combination of powerful peppy engine and peace of mind on AT. Any experts advise please.

[sunikkat]

Originally Posted by Behemoth

So finally I got a chance to go and see the Kushaq in flesh today and also had a test drive of the car for around 10 min of the 1.0 TSI AT Style Variant. I also also saw the Ambition variant parked in the showroom.
:

How was your drive experience? Review incomplete without that

[Behemoth]

So finally I got a chance to go and see the Kushaq in flesh today and also had a test drive of the car for around 10 min of the 1.0 TSI AT Style Variant. I also saw the Ambition variant parked in the showroom.

So here is a quick summary of my observations:
1) The car is well designed in terms of exterior appearances and looks quite proportionate and imposing. Fit and Finish is top class and paint quality is also very good.



2) Sheet metal Body work done is thin and does flex a little when pressed - definitely thinner than the Laura I have and the Yeti I had. The Bonnet is also light and without any liner, looks quite Crude from Inside - The Bonnet of the Kushaq is lighter than the bonnet of the Sonet (which I found heavier than even Seltos's bonnet)



3) Exterior design wise, Skoda have been able to deliver a nice Modest design with subtle elegance which will be liked by many people. I specially liked the carbon Steel Colour and it looks quite elegant in this colour

4) Coming to interiors , this is where Skoda has gone on whole hog cost cutting mode and there are many areas where the cost cutting is extremely evident and makes the interiors look tacky and Cheap:
a) Seats of both the Ambition Variant (Cloth ones) are absolutely pathetic and fabric is already wrinkled and looks like it will tear very soon (on a new car)



For the Style Variant, it is poorly fitted cheap quality fake leather and it totally does not feel like it belongs on the inside of a Skoda. Even the Rapids in the showroom had 10 times better seats which looked rich and well fitted and the material was much more Durable. Skoda kind of expects everyone to buy their overpriced Seat Covers once they are available so that they can make some extra side money.

b) The AC vents in the front are really tacky and plasticky like others have also noticed

c) The Dash of the Style variant looks fine in design, but the glossy part is overbearing and kind of looks too eager to please and in your face - again not suiting the classic feel of Skoda's and VWs that existing owners are used to. In the Ambition variant it is a very dull silvery finish which is also not at all appealing.



d) The Interior plastics are nothing great and in fact in many areas are more flimsy and lower in quality than the Rapid



e) The Sunroof in the style variant has exposed mechanisms which simply look EEKY..!

f) The Interiors overall may look ok in a sub 4m Segment car like a Brezza, but have no business in a 4+m SUV from Skoda - they are very un-Skoda Like and being an existing Skoda owner, they feel like a significant step down from the current interiors I have in my Laura as well as my Gen 1 Jeep Compass. In the Compass the Design may be very basic, but the plastic quality and fit finish are top notch. In the Kushaq, the design might be modern, but fit finish and plastic quality is definitely lacking.



Now coming to the drive, I test drove the Kushaq 1.0 TSI AT for 10 min in mild traffic and also on the highway and accelerated to around 100kmph (did not go beyond that due to speed limits). The Kushaq feels ok in the 0-100 sprint, but my guess is it took over 13 sec even in sports mode and felt quite slow (maybe I am used to the torquey diesel engine of the Laura which feels very lively and has excellent in gear acceleration in 3rd gear) But to me the kushaq with 1.0 TSI AT version felt very lazy and slow. Even at low speeds, there is significant turbo spooling delay and the response time to accelerator inputs is quite slow and in many cases 2-2.5 secs!

During my around 10 km drive, I found the mileage hovering in the range of 5-7kmpl and people who buy this car should be prepared for single digit mileage in city driving around 6-8 kmpl. Only if you have good highway driving at speeds of 70-80, will you get better numbers of around 12-14kmpl. Overall depending on your mix of city:highway driving, be prepared for an overall mileage of 10kmpl if you have 50:50.

One big observation was on the AC - it was was 42 Degree Celsius in Gurgaon and even though the car was running continuously, the AC was not at all effective and it was not cooling the cabin enough - seems Skoda has again given the Kushaq an underpowered Compressor and coupled with a large Greenhouse, the AC will have a tough time chilling the car - this has been Skoda's continuous challenge - I had faced in our Yeti and still face it in our Laura - the AC is just not strong enough for Indian conditions and with the Kushaq they have done it again. Coupled with a small engine and a small capacity compressor, the AC system will not be able to cool the car effectively. Also, the AC vents size is pretty small and the air flow is very noisy and turbulent.
I really feel that the AC will struggle to cool in places like Delhi/ Gurgaon. I don't know how the AC of the 1.5 TSI version is , but the AC of the 1.0 TSI version is definitely underpowered.

Coming to the suspension, it is well tuned as expected and ride quality is pliant and comfortable. With the Ambition variant getting 16 Inch tyres, it should even be better than the Style variant. The steering is also light and well tuned, but in nature is unlike other SKoda's and VWs which have a direct feel - in the Kushaq it is too light and unengaging.

Coming to the Boot space, I did the actual Measurements and here they are:



As per my calculations, the boot space comes to around 336L + 8L niche on Left = 344L, which is decent and definitely larger than that of the Creta.

So based on my Test drive and overall impression of the car, I have decided to stick with my Sonet booking for now - but if in the 4 months till delivery I still get a better option in the 15-25Lac price range with Diesel Auto, I will certainly consider it, but the Kushaq is just not the car for me, considering my daily running of 105 kms and also the lack of fit and finesse of interiors of the car. I will be waiting for some other options to be launched this year like the XUV 700 too. If Kia launches their 7 seater MPV based on Sonet with diesel Auto, I would be open for that too.

[TJ02]

"The new Aisin torque converters that VAG has been using are, personally, some of the best TC boxes I've come across. I absolutely enjoy it in my 2020 Polo with 1.0 TSI, and I can vouch for no CVT-like rubberband effect for sure.

Yes, the DSGs are faster, but these TCs aren't far behind, and I'd rather lose out on a few milliseconds of gear shift timings than live with a fast, but unreliable system."

I have a 1.2 Polo DSG but having driven 1.0 TSI TC the difference is hardly noticeable. The 1.0 TSI in Vento/Rapid is equally good and fast. Hopefully Kushaq 1.0 AT should also be good.

[prajwalmr62]

Originally Posted by Behemoth

e) The Sunroof in the style variant has exposed mechanisms which simply look EEKY..!

This might be the most commonly raised complaint, but I don't see it? Looks like the same unit in Venue/Sonet/Seltos to me. What am I missing?

[steadfast]

Saw and drove the Kushaq today.
Apart from the requirement of seating 3 adults on second seat regularly for long drives, I do not find a reason that someone should not choose Kushaq.
Typical VW/Skoda quality.

Request forum members to visit the showroom drive it and then take a decision. Photos do not do justice to Kushaq. Real car is something to fall in love for.

[YakubKC]

Originally Posted by adi_sun

Since I own a VW Vento HL+ 1.0 TSI AT I can comment on the fuel efficiency in real world. Trust me this 1 L engine if driven the way it should be will NOT give more than 7-8kmpl

If driven like a saint the max you can expect is 12-14kmpl a turbo petrol with a TC means that the average rpm is high expect the 1.5 TSI to have better economy figures. Even the older engine - 1.2 TSI DSG returns much better efficiency than this baby shark.

These numbers seem quite low. Not sure if it's the AT that's causing such a difference but I'm consistently getting around 12kmpl in my Vento HL+ 1.0 TSI MT with a mix of driving within city and outskirts. Highest was 19.5kmpl during a 500km trip to Bangalore but yes, this was a very relaxed (and conscious) drive.

[maverickNerd]

Originally Posted by steadfast

I do not find a reason that someone should not choose Kushaq.
Typical VW/Skoda quality.

Request forum members to visit the showroom drive it and then take a decision. Photos do not do justice to Kushaq. Real car is something to fall in love for.

Exactly, this is my impression also, kushaq feels much better than current competitors in the segment and there is no comparison with below segment, it is much superior than them.

But if someone has high running then it doesn't fit ofcourse.

[maverickNerd]

Originally Posted by YakubKC

These numbers seem quite low. Not sure if it's the AT that's causing such a difference but I'm consistently getting around 12kmpl in my Vento HL+ 1.0 TSI MT with a mix of driving within city and outskirts. Highest was 19.5kmpl during a 500km trip to Bangalore but yes, this was a very relaxed (and conscious) drive.

1 L AT variant Mileage Test Video, tank to tank came as 15.1, 70% highway:

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

[Latheesh]

Originally Posted by Behemoth

4) Coming to interiors , this is where Skoda has gone on whole hog cost cutting mode and there are many areas where the cost cutting is extremely evident and makes the interiors look tacky and Cheap:
a) Seats of both the Ambition Variant (Cloth ones) are absolutely pathetic and fabric is already wrinkled and looks like it will tear very soon (on a new car)

If upper middle class Ambition interior is like this how it is going to be in lower middle class Active variant? That seat fabric looks very cheap. Can a decent aftermarket seat cover solve this issue in Ambition?
No wonder Active variant is nowhere to be seen.

[maverickNerd]

Originally Posted by Latheesh

If upper middle class Ambition interior is like this how it is going to be in lower middle class Active variant? That seat fabric looks very cheap. Can a decent aftermarket seat cover solve this issue in Ambition?
No wonder Active variant is nowhere to be seen.

I think quality of seats in ambition and active is same, just the dual color is not there as per this pic from brochure. As per Zac, Active will be available by this weekend to dealers.


I think seat covers(since 2 airbags we can do that) from outside will solve the issue, as side bolstering is same across variants.

[theguardian]

Originally Posted by Behemoth

But to me the kushaq with 1.0 TSI AT version felt very lazy and slow. Even at low speeds, there is significant turbo spooling delay and the response time to accelerator inputs is quite slow and in many cases 2-2.5 secs!

Thank you for sharing detailed feedback. I concur with most of your observations. However, I am a bit surprised about AC's effectiveness, this should be not there. Furthermore, you found Kushaq to be a bit lazy, well the reason maybe, you have/had cars like Yeti, Laura in your garage so it's quite logical. But for me, it was a rocket as I am coming from humble Kicks (1.5 Litre, NA petrol - with a Kerb weight of 1295 Kg), a relative experience.

I could have gone for it but rear seat width was a deal-breaker for me. Thank you again.

[Behemoth]

Originally Posted by theguardian

Thank you for sharing detailed feedback. I concur with most of your observations. However, I am a bit surprised about AC's effectiveness, this should be not there. Furthermore, you found Kushaq to be a bit lazy, well the reason maybe, you have/had cars like Yeti, Laura in your garage so it's quite logical. But for me, it was a rocket as I am coming from humble Kicks (1.5 Litre, NA petrol - with a Kerb weight of 1295 Kg), a relative experience.

I could have gone for it but rear seat width was a deal-breaker for me. Thank you again.

True, it depends a lot on the current car you drive and if you move from an NA engine to a small Turbo Petrol, you might still feel it as a jump up. But with me even the Laura has 250Nm torque right from 1700rpm and the in gear acceleration is just amazing. In 3rd gear it can go from 20kmph to almost 100kmph and in a way that very few cars can match. The engine -gearbox pairing (manual gearbox) is perfect.
In the Kushaq first the turbo petrol has only 175Nm torque and then combined with a TC AT box, it felt quite laid back to me! In the Kushaq what I have heard is that the TSI 1.5 Manual is a hoot to drive and may be a good car for enthusiasts. That may be a good choice for many people willing to go for manual variants as that also has 6 airbags in the Style variant.

[RPM1706]

Originally Posted by Behemoth

True, it depends a lot on the current car you drive and if you move from an NA engine to a small Turbo Petrol, you might still feel it as a jump up.

In the Kushaq first the turbo petrol has only 175Nm torque and then combined with a TC AT box, it felt quite laid back to me! In the Kushaq what I have heard is that the TSI 1.5 Manual is a hoot to drive and may be a good car for enthusiasts. That may be a good choice for many people willing to go for manual variants as that also has 6 airbags in the Style variant.

Yes, understand where you are coming from. Sure is a bit unfair on the 1.0 to be judged against larger, more powerful engines . The smaller TSI has a purpose which, I assume, it would be ideal for. Haven't driven the 1.0 on the Rapid or the Polo, much less the Kushaq.

Am coming from a diesel Punto and wouldn't have considered a petrol (even a turbo) but for the Kushaq. My Punto, with its 1.3 MJD, is not a stonker on performance but I simply love the ride & handling package and the FE it gives me out on the highway.

So, am curious to understand and would appreciate some thoughts here:

a) Would the Manual 1.0 be enough of a leg-up over the AT in terms of access to power? The thing is, my first preference is the 1.0 MT not so much to save on the premium on the AT as for my love for manuals. My requirement, once we have the pandemic days behind us, is to use the vehicle mostly for longer road trips and hometown runs of about 500 Kms one way maybe 5-6 times annually. Driving within the city will mostly be limited.

b) I would like to avoid spending the extra for the 1.5 MT, thought it may be better and more ideal for highway duty. Also, would like to understand the fuel efficiency figures for the MTs (both the 1.0 and the 1.5). There is the ACT in the 1.5 but doubt if it will help return better mileage against the 1.0.

Anyone with a similar dilemma or can throw some light on the choice between these two manuals for a requirement which could be 70-30 in favour of highway driving? Driving style is not outright spirited but would, at least, like to get the kinda fun the Punto offers.