[anubshar]

Originally Posted by Karthik Chandra

The Brezza is powered by DDiS 200 which produces 89 BHP and not 66 BHP

Thanks for the information but the brochure I was provided by dealership listed Brezza at 66bhp. Dont know how can Maruti goof up on this.

[DieselAddikt]

Originally Posted by anubshar

Thanks for the information but the brochure I was provided by dealership listed Brezza at 66bhp. Dont know how can Maruti goof up on this.

I am taking a wild guess that Maruti did not "goof up" on this, but YOU did. The UOM would have been kW and not PS or BHP. Roughly 66kW translates to somewhere around 90BHP.

[AutoIndian]

First of all, many thanks Tushar for starting this wonderful thread. Instead of people arguing in the respective official review threads, this is the best place to compare all the three compact SUVs and debate, argue, agree, disagree etc.

It is quite interesting to go through the comments of fellow BHPIans and understand their logical reasoning behind voting for a particular car. Most of the members voted for the Ecosport for its solid built, good safety features, very tractable engine etc. Some voted for the Brezza because it is a Maruti (wide service network, easy availability of spares, fuss-free ownership experiences etc). The remaining voted for the TUV because of its abuse friendly nature, ladder on frame construction, rear wheel drive configuration etc.

Each one has his own priorities, requirements, budget etc and he tries to zero in on that car, which satisfies most of his needs within his budgetary constraints. I was so much zapped by the Ecosport that for several months a red colored Ecosport had adorned the wallpaper of home's desktop. Each day I would vary the car's color and drool over it, compare which one looked better. But then I had my priorities listed out. Being a joint family of 6 (me, wife, aging parents and 2 kids) I was more inclined towards a MUV. Ecosport, which was suitable for 4 adults or max 4 adults + 1 kid was ruled out. I went in for a pre-worshipped Innova. The car served me well for a year and then I had to dispose it off. I had almost zeroed on the Ertiga, but then the endless wait for the launch of Ertiga Hybrid got better off me and I started looking elsewhere.

As most of you have already pointed out the negatives of the TUV, I had built exactly the same opinion like yours, the dated boxy/crude looks, 3-cylinder engine, low power on paper etc. Hence the TUV was never in contention. However one fine day I had an accidental brush-up with the TUV3OO. I went to showroom of M&M to check out the XUV W4. Since the TUV was displayed besides it, I just thought of checking the TUV as well. I liked its stance, the interiors, space on offer. Asked for a test drive and immediately got one of the AMT. The pull, low end torque just blew me away. The 1.5, 3 potter was quite capable of pulling this 1.6 tonner and It dismissed the pot holes like they never existed. The steering felt precise and quite chunky to hold. I took my family on the test drive and all were impressed. Result I voted for the TUV with my wallet

The positives & the negatives of the TUV are well documented in the official review. What I would like to highlight here are the key differentiators, which made me vote for the TUV3OO:

Value Proposiion:

The TUV indeed offered tremendous value proposition. It had the same hydroformed chassis that is used in the new Scorpio (both have the same wheelbase of 2680mm). The top end TUV-T8 is 4.5 lakhs cheaper than the Scorpio-S10 (2WD). The Scorpio offers additional space in the jump seats and has a bigger engine, good top end. However the interiors of the TUV are far better and welcoming than the Scorpio. Obviously the lower excise duty helps TUVs case, but even then Mahindra has left a lot of value on the table and not priced this SUV exorbitantly high like the competition.

Skepticism about TUV's capabilities:

I was made aware of the limitations of the TUV. The TUV had a very flat or rather lower than mediocre performance around 100 KMPH and gets worse above that. TUV did not have so good top end, but had enough grunt at low end. It had excellent driveability and tractability. I took three extensive test drives (two with family) before committing to the TUV3OO. I agreed TUV will struggle to go beyond 100 kmph. This may become cumbersome for long interstate trips. To be honest I may venture on trips like these only once in a while, whereas my regular (read week end trips) would most likely be in nearby remote areas, hills etc, not to mention that 80% of the driving will be within city (for home to office commutes). For such type of requirements, I needed a rugged vehicle, with very good low end torque, most importantly a rear wheel drive, would not buckle under load. The TUV3OO was meeting most of my above requirements.

RWD (Rear Wheel Drive): Biggest advantage over other compact SUVs

There is no real advantage of RWD for regular city use (rather the mileage will be on lower side). But yes if the car is fully loaded and you have to stop on an incline, a FWD car will struggle to move forward as the complete load is on rear wheels and have good traction, front wheels might slip if they don't get enough grip. You may have to slip the clutch generously to move forward. For RWD cars, you can just release the clutch pedal and get going. You will know the real advantage of RWD cars while climbing ghats. Twice I was in a situation in my Indica when I had to ask my passengers to get down the car, so that car could climb the incline, once at Bhimashankar and other timein Konkan (of course that was a non-turbo Indica, with poor low end torque). The current generation of CRDi cars would anyday fare better.

I wanted a "go anywhere" car, which won't burn a big hole in my pocket, both while purchasing and while running. In other compact SUVs/MUVs, you will have to drive carefully when it is fully loaded, not so with the TUV. Roads or not roads, you can drive it anywhere. I wanted a "Go anywhere" kind of vehicle, same like a tank. A tank can run on road (albiet slow), climb mountains, wade through water etc

How compact SUV suits for a family of 6?

I have 4 adults and 2 kids in my family. The two decently built people, myself and Dad occupy the driver and co-driver seat. Mom is medium built, wife is lean and daughter too very thin, son is small (2.5 years). So all of them can fit in the 2nd row seat of the TUV. If one or two more people join us, and we want more space, kids can jump into the 3rd row seat. In the 3 out of 4 trips that we have recently made we were 8 people in the TUV, 5 adults, 2 grown up kids and one small kid. I wonder if that would have been possible in any of the other compact SUVs.

NVH levels of the 3-potter:

Mahindra seems to have put in great efforts to dampen all those vibrations and noises inherent to a 3 cylinder engine. I had vouched that in my entire life I will never drive a 3 cylinder engine, leave aside buying one, come what may. But just one test drive of the TUV was enough to shatter my perception.

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

I won't vote here. But none of these vehicles are really so very massively superior or inferior to each other.

Originally Posted by Karthik Chandra

I like all 3 SUVs, they stand apart in their own way with only the length in common

I really liked the balanced views put forth by you. We all should learn from you, how to appreciate a car for what it offers rather than looking down upon a car for what lacks in it.

[shankar.balan]

Originally Posted by AutoIndian

The TUV indeed offered tremendous value proposition. It had the same hydroformed chassis that is used in the new Scorpio (both have the same wheelbase of 2680mm). The top end TUV-T8 is 4.5 lakhs cheaper than the Scorpio-S10 (2WD). The Scorpio offers additional space in the jump seats and has a bigger engine, good top end. However the interiors of the TUV are far better and welcoming than the Scorpio. Obviously the lower excise duty helps TUVs case, but even then Mahindra has left a lot of value on the table and not priced this SUV exorbitantly high like the competition.

I wanted a "go anywhere" car, which won't burn a big hole in my pocket, both while purchasing and while running. In other compact SUVs/MUVs, you will have to drive carefully when it is fully loaded, not so with the TUV. Roads or not roads, you can drive it anywhere. I wanted a "Go anywhere" kind of vehicle, same like a tank. A tank can run on road (albiet slow), climb mountains, wade through water etc

I really liked the balanced views put forth by you. We all should learn from you, how to appreciate a car for what it offers rather than looking down upon a car for what lacks in it.

For the kind of usage patterns that you evidently have, yes, for sure the TUV seems to tick most of the boxes.
I bought myself a Bolero 11 years ago basis a very similar need state as yours. I wanted a tough diesel beast which would go pretty much anywhere and would be achievable within a certain budget.
I also wanted the power of the service network and the space offered by a multi utility vehicle.
The Bolero was great for all that. One irritant I found was the lack of the folding rear seat and lack of 60:40 split. Plus of course, it used to generate only 65BHP and some reasonable amount of torque. All in all, it was a good vehicle overall though.
I then changed it for a Scorpio three years later, because it simply ticked more of my boxes than the Bolero did. Again a very good choice for the value conscious person at the time.

With changing needs and priorities (not the least of which is managing the crowded roads and parking and the need for safety kit etc), I subsequently upgraded a few years later to a better vehicle though a smaller one.

Today the modernised version of the Bolero is the TUV and Im glad that such a vehicle still ticks a lot of boxes for a value conscious buyer who needs space and go anywhere ability. The concessions to modernity like AMT, Airbags, ABS and so on in the the TUV make for an admirable value proposition overall and I m glad it works well for some.

Like I said, each of these vehicles in the poll, tick some or other boxes for different use cases, so that there will always be a bit of an overlap, when choosing one. Ultimately, no ONE SIZE fits ALL! Individual choices are always going to be different and the one great thing right now in the Indian auto market is that there seems to be something for everyone, with the amount of choice available!

End of the day, it is all about what meets your need/ want state at any given point in time and a lot depends on the pocket as well! There is absolutely NO Right and No Wrong in this, your own choice is what matters!

[shreyak_ss]

I voted for the Ecosport.
Last year sometime in June, we were on the lookout for a second car, one which could take care of most of our city driving and those nearby highway stints 2 times a week where we couldn't take the Octavia. So we were basically looking for a premium hatchback like an i20 to cater our needs. At that time, we had 2 sedans and 2 hatchbacks in our garage and the new vehicle was being bought to replace the aging Santro. Now, since, this was going to be the second car, we had just few priorities, it should be frugal, have city friendly dimensions, should have reasonable space and should be safe.
It is then when Ecosport caught our eye. The car was compact and appropriate for city, had decent fuel economy, adequate space (for our family with no one above 5'10"), an excellent sound system and the top of the line safety kit and build quality.
Since this was our secondary car, we were not looking for a feature rich cabin but a functional one and one that justified its price. This was the pre 100bhp version so we managed to get a good discount from the dealer and the price was nearly the same as it is today.
At that time, there wasn't much in the CSUV segment. Just the duster and the Ecosport. Duster was ruled out for the size. Creta and S-cross were just around the corner. But I was well aware that the size and budget would be in excess of what we wanted. So didn't wait for them and my guess was right, they were pricey and larger than the Ecosport.
Simply putting it forward, Ecosport justified the need for "MY FAMILY'S" second car. Had it been a primary car, I would've looked at something more powerful and more spacious like the Honda city or the S-cross.
Even today, if I was in the market, I would have sticked to my decison. No car in this comparison can be called a bad product. Everyone has it's usps and they are all equally conpetent. It all comes down to what one is looking for in these cars.
The Brezza offends no one as everybody in the forum has rightly stated. It's a good product backed by Maruti's excellent after sales support. It can be a perfect car for those moving up from a A/B segment Maruti hatchback, prefers the SUV styling over a sedan or Crossover (like S-cross), and is a Maruti fanboy or want a fuss free ownership without taking any chances with Ford/ Mahindra even if he thinks they are improving.
The TUV is for those who want that utilitarian car, a proper butch SUV look, space for large families and doesn't care about the performance of the engine. Autoindian has put forward a very good explanation for why he chose this over others.
Ecosport is for someone like me, I give safety the topmost priority, a sucker for good build quality and for other reasons that I have stated above.

[MDED]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Ford guys called back once again, after a gap of almost once year - asking if we had inquired about Ecosport.

I second what you have expressed. I had visited the Ford Showroom at Anna Salai in Chennai on a weekend and the response what I got was nowhere professional. There were no SA and I had to look at Ecosport on my own. I also saw a Figo at the display and when I asked for the TD, one guy sitting in their showroom evinced no interest whatsoever.
Ultimately bought a Honda and few months later on received calls from Ford personnel three times, whether I had inquired for Ford Cars

Honda was more professional in dealing and handling with customers and in turn i referred three of my colleagues to the dealership. A happy customer is worth millions of dollars of advertisement.

As far as the poll is considered, my vote would still be Ford Ecosport for the build quality and safety features it has to offer.

[windiesel]

Originally Posted by AutoIndian

I voted for the TUV with my wallet

Value Proposiion:


RWD (Rear Wheel Drive): Biggest advantage over other compact SUVs


NVH levels of the 3-potter:

We're on the same page, it seems Autoindian! We can add Ladder Frame to your rather comprehensive list! Another issue I wish to point out out is that in a monocoque design when the vehicle is fully loaded up, the entire vehicle sags down, thereby compromising the Ground clearance, which incidentally, is measured in an unladen car. In a ladder frame vehicle this is not so much pronounced. Observe a fully laden truck vis a vis an empty one; its axle (the lowest point mostly of a RWD veh) is the same height off the ground, laden or unladen.

[F150]

Originally Posted by humyum

I Vote for the Brezza, firstly because I think the drive of a Brezza is superior to a Ecosport when it comes to the 'Fun to Drive' factor. Also I am the most familiar with Maruti's design theme, have owned Maruti's all my life and I would not want to move away from that.

Secondly, I am the most comfortable with Maruti's after sales service, parts prices are cheap, service stations are super friendly, down time is really less and warranty replacements are fuss free. That is why they are where they are.

I too voted for Brezza for the above reasons. Had owned Swift and it was a hassle free experience. I own a Skoda Rapid now, had Brezza been launched back in 2015, I would have gone for it eyes closed.

[Skyline_GT]

Voted for the TUV 300. I know it's not the most popular one here and also chances are Zilch i would ever buy these wannabe SUV's (If i cannot afford an SUV I would rather go for a premium hatchback or a sedan) but if i had to it would be the Mahindra.

Suzuki Vitarra Brezza-
Looked very impressive on paper with it's dual color tones and everything but when i happened to see one on road it looked anything but impressive.
Happened to see one in grey and looked too dull! Only the dual color tones on top end variants looked better.
Also from the reviews i read the interiors are almost similar to the Swift i own so wouldn't be an ideal upgrade.

Ford Ecosport-
Never really liked it since it launched years ago. I know people have really taken a liking for it's looks but i find it a bit too odd. Looks more like those RC toy cars!

TUV 300-
Simple and rugged! Just how i like it. If it's an SUV or a wannabe SUV it has to look "Brute" and not "Cute"!
And TUV looks pretty butch. No fancy colors no unnecessary elctronic gadgets/creature comforts inside. Just rugged and easy to maintain!

[AutoIndian]

Originally Posted by shankar.balan

Ultimately, no ONE SIZE fits ALL!. End of the day, it is all about what meets your need/ want state at any given point in time and a lot depends on the pocket as well! There is absolutely NO Right and No Wrong in this, your own choice is what matters!

The above statement sums it very aptly.

Originally Posted by shreyak_ss

The TUV is for those who want that utilitarian car, a proper butch SUV look, space for large families and doesn't care about the performance of the engine. Autoindian has put forward a very good explanation for why he chose this over others.

Very true. As Shankar has mentioned above, it was the TUV, which ticked most of the boxes for me. No other compact car provides such a huge cabin space within the restrictions of 4 metres. The boxy design, which is not to the taste of many actually helps liberate more cabin space. I am one of those persons, who give more preference to utility over design, function over form.

Originally Posted by windiesel

We're on the same page, it seems Autoindian! We can add Ladder Frame to your rather comprehensive list! Another issue I wish to point out out is that in a monocoque design when the vehicle is fully loaded up, the entire vehicle sags down, thereby compromising the Ground clearance, which incidentally, is measured in an unladen car. In a ladder frame vehicle this is not so much pronounced. Observe a fully laden truck vis a vis an empty one; its axle (the lowest point mostly of a RWD veh) is the same height off the ground, laden or unladen.

Yes, how did I miss that, the Ladder on Frame build. That is the biggest USP of this compact SUV. The more loaded the vehicle the better it runs on highways. Although on paper the TUV may be having the least ground clearance amongst the three, it is measured from the lowest point on the rear differential unlike the front wheel drives, where it is perhaps measure from the oil sump guard. The sharper approach and departure angles helps the TUV's case of making it a more offroading capable vehicle compared the other two. I like to venture on off-beat roads or go in no man's land and the TUV gives me the much needed confidence to do so.

[vb-saan]

My vote goes to the Ecosport. Even though a sub-4m car, for its build and safety features I feel its more at home in company of the likes of Creta and S-Cross.

The Brezza look decent in those dual tone colors, but very plain otherwise; almost like a Wagon R in the small crossover space, a blockbuster nevertheless.

[King_pin09]

My vote goes to the Ford Beauty.

It is the only sub 4 metre vehicle that appeals to me. Be it in terms of safety, build quality, performance, reliability, features, appearance, it never disappoints. In fact it gives other full-fledged sedans a run for their money, and in certain aspects even beats them down. For instance the Ecosport is more stable and much tight handler than the Ciaz on an open highway.

This does not however mean that the others are bad. But in certain aspects, such as appearance, the Mahindra cub (TUV 300) does not impress me to the same extent. The Breeza on the other hand, despite being loaded with features, does not have the much desired butch stance of the ford. It even falls short of the ford by 10 horses in the rated power, which is quite substantial.

For some reason, I always love the rear mounted spare wheel design of the Ford and the recent price cut makes it a mouthwatering deal. No wonder the Ecosport continues to be the hot babe, even after being in the market for above 3 years.

[mi2n]

For a multi role fighter, the Ecosport is the default choice. However, for someone like myself who already owns hatchbacks for city puttering and highway cruising, the TUV makes the strongest case for itself. I have always craved for a rugged rear wheel drive vehicle every time I have hit the hills. So, I choose the TUV 300.

[DeepeshKarnik]

Ford Ecosport anyday !! Better Engine options, Better Safety Features and an absolutely future ready design. I am sure a majority of us would agree on the fact that the design of the car is a LITTLE important than how it performs.

Maruti Brezza looks like a "half done replica" of the RR Evoque to me. Plus, after test driving it, I found it nowhere close to what I was expecting it to be. TUV300 does not even qualify to be here. Aventura can be a good competitor.

[Ricky_63]

Voted for the Ecosport which incidentally I purchased last month.

I drove the Brezza. Liked the way it drove till about 80-90 kmpl. After which it seemed very "iffy" Well priced product with average feel. Premium? Not at all.

Ecosport does all that is expected of it in an impressive fashion. Incomparable ride. Solid as can. Inspires confidence. Great handling & road manners.
Makes it a superb choice post price cut. I paid 9.67 for a diesel trend+ in my opinion the most VFM version.

I would not compare the TUV 300 with either of the 2. I personally just don't like the crude looks. No offence to those who have it or like it !