Tata Storme vs Mahindra XUV5OO - Which One To Choose?

[kinshuk.arya]

wow!!! this is one good debate going on. and some of the views as I felt are based on online reviews, a couple of TD in borrowed vehicles or company TD vehicles

why dont all the owners of XUV and Storme put their views in brief as to why they bought the specific vehicle and the variant they are using as it would be unfair to compare a 4x2 with a 4x4 or an AWD.

Let me start:

Bought an XUV W8 FWD last Feb have close to 15k kms on it now, including one 6000 km trip to Manali. the rest of the 9k km managed on Pune-Mumbai runs and b2b traffic of Pune.

reasons to buy: Storme VXp seemed too costly to pay considering the features and I am surely one of the VFM buyers obsessed with safety features in a vehicle, and someone who doesnt go by the marketing gimmicks. didnt want a 4x4 as was pretty sure would not be able to use it. and if I wanted an off road vehicle I would have gone for Thar or the Gypsy instead of storme 4x4 way too high COG.

Pros and cons of XUV in the 10 month ownership: (not talking about the engine as both the contenders offer similar specs)

Pros:
1. Ample space for 9 adults plus 2 children.
2. Ample space for moving a house.
3. Ride is amazing and so is handling. Able to do 60-70 on some ghats.
4. Feels much more luxurious than a certain 25+ lakhs SUV.
5. Average over 15k kms close to 15kmpl. search for Optimus on fuelly.com for complete data
6. can easily take on rough roads, no roads, beaches all in all slight off road capabilities even in 4x2 avatar
7. a mile long list of features. nifty ones but they do come in handy.
8. Amazing ASS.
9. Steering precision.

Cons:
1. no luggage capacity with 3rd row upright. however you can still put some bags under the dashboard and in between 1st and 2nd row seats because of more than needed leg room for shorter journeys of 500km.
2. a bit bouncy on high speeds and sligh undulations of roads.
3. crashes into potholes.
4. front quarter panels cant be repaired as they are fibre (i think)
5. headlamp changes are difficult as the engine bay is very cramped.
6. brakes can be a bit better. waiting for some aftermarket rotors and pads.

that pretty much sums up the important things as I can think of them now. I will check if any of my Storme friends will give their reviews here.

 

[Raja]

Just one line that says it all:
RANGE ROVER IS A MONOCOQUE...
Going by these words, te world's most capable(maybe amongst most capable SUVs) is not an SUV, it is fragile and Storme is better that it in terms of off road use.

Yes range rover can do off-roading and is a monoqoue , but there is amazing amount of tech involved in it to support .

In Dubai desert safari , hardly anyone uses it not even the Sheiks it's the discovery and land cruiser which does the job and the reason more durable and less expensive to maintain . This is someone who told me who owns a desert safari business in Dubai .
Even in England most off-roading is done by defender and discovery .

Here is what the head of jeep says for the 2016 wrangler ->

The global head of Jeep has given the strongest indication yet that the brand’s iconic Wrangler off-roader will continue to use a body-on frame construction.

Speaking with TMR, Jeep CEO Mike Manley said that off-road capability was paramount for the Wrangler, the ruggedness of a ladder-frame chassis remaining integral to the Wrangler’s mountain-climbing prowess.



“To maintain the capability of that vehicle is fundamental, and as you know it'd be very difficult to create that level of capability if you departed too much from body-on frame,” Manley told TMR.

“The Wrangler has to be the extreme capable vehicle in our brand, so I think body-on-frame is the way to go with Wrangler. Certainly for the next generation.

2016 Jeep Wrangler Will Keep Ladder Frame, Drop Weight | Reviews | Prices | Australian specifications

And then this is what land rover says too

“At the moment it [aluminium] is a long way from being the economic choice. It’s the premium choice but not the mainstream economic choice.

“What we haven’t studied is the difference between optimising in steel versus optimising aluminium for that type of extreme use.

“We’ve done the job in aluminium. We know what that looks like. We haven’t tried doing that in steel so far. We learned a lot from doing Evoque and Freelander, but they’re not engineered to the same level of off-road performance we get out of the Discovery or Range Rover.”

First of all,

The Storme 4x2 and the XUV are not off roaders. So why should I live with a bulky, heavy and less safe LOF chassis over a monocoque construction? If I wanted a perfect off roader, I would go for a Gurkha, MM jeeps or Gypsy, not a Storme. Atleast the mono constructions offers better safety and handing.

Who says storme is a less safe LOF SUV ?

 

[MrRanger]

Who says storme is a less safe LOF SUV ?

LOF!, for given money Safari is perfect combo, it has ability no doubts about it.
and very strongly built body.
Safari 2.2 4x4 Offroad climb at OTR by Team BHP and NIOC. - YouTube

Tata Safari off road - YouTube


this much ability is more than enough

 

[swift&furious]

LOF!, for given money Safari is perfect combo, it has ability no doubts about it.
and very strongly built body.
Safari 2.2 4x4 Offroad climb at OTR by Team BHP and NIOC. - YouTube

Tata Safari off road - YouTube


this much ability is more than enough

I doubt if any XUV user would take their XUV through the same place in the video, by the way there are other Mahindra vehicles which can take this with ease but XUV its a crossover

 

[MrRanger]

I doubt if any XUV user would take their XUV through the same place in the video, by the way there are other Mahindra vehicles which can take this with ease but XUV its a crossover

yes agreed, BOF is always better and safari has advantage when it comes to off-road ability over XUV,
other off-road vehicles which are brought into the discussion here are never going to provide good comfort while cruising long distance highways.

For 10-15lac Safari is a perfect life-style vehicle which can handle rough roads and smooth highways in style.

 

[kinshuk.arya]

The advantage of Safari when it comes to off-road ability over XUV is due to the 4x4 system not because of it being BOF.

and I am yet to find any owner who says that he/she has bought XUV for its off road capability.

bringing off road capability in this discussion is point less.

IMO I think if a person wants a 4x4 he will barely look at the XUV even in the AWD trim let alone buy it.

XUV is for someone who doesnt like body roll, wants a fresher looking vehicle, a list of issues, a mild off roading like some beaches, some rough roads etc it is DEFINITELY NOT for someone who is looking for an off road experience.

 

[Raja]

The advantage of Safari when it comes to off-road ability over XUV is due to the 4x4 system not because of it being BOF.

and I am yet to find any owner who says that he/she has bought XUV for its off road capability.

bringing off road capability in this discussion is point less.

IMO I think if a person wants a 4x4 he will barely look at the XUV even in the AWD trim let alone buy it.

I agree with your points , and I just don't understand why bringing the off roading capability in this discussion is pointless ?

If one of the cars in question has some added functionality over the other why not bring that in discussion ?

Don't we bring cornering / handling into discussion ? Saying that xuv will be better ? Are we saying bringing cornering / handling advantage is pointless because I have yet to find he/she who has bought storme for high speed cornering ?

It is a advantage to xuv so it is it can't be denied and is mentioned , Same way off-roading storme will be better and it can't be denied . It is perfectly inline with the discussion IMHO

XUV is for someone who doesnt like body roll, wants a fresher looking vehicle, a list of issues, a mild off roading like some beaches, some rough roads etc it is DEFINITELY NOT for someone who is looking for an off road experience.

Similarly storme is for someone who dosent like harsh ride quality and enjoys a wonderful ride quality over bad roads , who wants a classic and timeless looking vehicle , which can do proper not compromised off-roading and it is DEFINITELY NOT For some one who is looking for high speed cornering , features and gizmos .
.

 

[MrRanger]

The advantage of Safari when it comes to off-road ability over XUV is due to the 4x4 system not because of it being BOF.

and I am yet to find any owner who says that he/she has bought XUV for its off road capability.

you mean we should only discuss about STORME 4X2 VS XUV 5oo FWD?

we were talking about BOF vs monocoque too so Safari is and SUV not a crossover,

bringing off road capability in this discussion is point less.

may be for you, I'm sorry for me its a point, if you want us to stop discussing about strome 4x4 then I ask you to discuss about XUV w4 only so we can minus 4x4 system of storme and electronics of XUV in this discussion.

IMO I think if a person wants a 4x4 he will barely look at the XUV even in the AWD trim let alone buy it.

+100 AWD of XUV is useless and waste of money.

XUV is for someone who doesnt like body roll, wants a fresher looking vehicle, a list of issues, a mild off roading like some beaches, some rough roads etc it is DEFINITELY NOT for someone who is looking for an off road experience.

looks are subjective, for me STORME looks fresh and I dont think anybody can agree with that.
other thing you mentioned "list of issues" yes I'm afraid about that,

 

[TSIVipul]

Yes range rover can do off-roading and is a monoqoue , but there is amazing amount of tech involved in it to support .

Dear, if one pays 1 crore and still don't get the technology then why to buy a rangie?
Secondly, the name is called on the point that "monocoque can also go off road and in fact can go farther too". Rangie is a prime example, if you have got anything which proves that a monocoque can't do off roading then bring it up, not these words like amazing tech etc.

Secondly: Storme has also got LSD at rear, some shift on fly 4X4 and some more such stuff, isn't that the tech involved in this car?

In Dubai desert safari , hardly anyone uses it not even the Sheiks it's the discovery and land cruiser which does the job and the reason more durable and less expensive to maintain . This is someone who told me who owns a desert safari business in Dubai .
Even in England most off-roading is done by defender and discovery .

"Durable and less expensive to maintain" is the key line. They haven't said 'more' durable.

Here is what the head of jeep says for the 2016 wrangler ->


2016 Jeep Wrangler Will Keep Ladder Frame, Drop Weight | Reviews | Prices | Australian specifications

Buddy cost is the point but none of these prove that BOF are better off road. Like or hate, you can't debate but there is no written proof or numbers which can prove that BOF are 'always' better than monocoque off the road.

For 10-15lac Safari is a perfect life-style vehicle which can handle rough roads and smooth highways in style.

+100, agreed.

and I am yet to find any owner who says that he/she has bought XUV for its off road capability.

XUV AWD is also a soft roader.

bringing off road capability in this discussion is point less.

As mentioned by Raja, if the cars are being compared then everything should be compared.

XUV is for someone who doesnt like body roll, wants a fresher looking vehicle, a list of issues, a mild off roading like some beaches, some rough roads etc it is DEFINITELY NOT for someone who is looking for an off road experience.

Even Storme(Stock condition) also isn't for someone looking for a hardcore off road experience. It is also meant for some minor water crossings, slight hill climbs and some more such off road stuff, definitely something XUV can't do to the level of Storme.

 

[raj_5004]

Yes range rover can do off-roading and is a monoqoue , but there is amazing amount of tech involved in it to support .

Kind of disagree.

The amount of electronics would be of no use if the basic frame (chassis) itself is weak. The comparison here was between the stiffness and strength of monocoque constructions as someone said unibody cars cant be used for off roading.

Okay, RR does have a lot of tech to help it, but if the monocoque chassis fails, it wont go any further!

In Dubai desert safari , hardly anyone uses it not even the Sheiks it's the discovery and land cruiser which does the job and the reason more durable and less expensive to maintain . This is someone who told me who owns a desert safari business in Dubai .
Even in England most off-roading is done by defender and discovery .

+10. For hardcore off roading, LOF is more suited.

Who says storme is a less safe LOF SUV ?

Nobody. Point here is not to say Storme is an unsafe car.

Since the discussion was to compare monocoque and LOF chassis, my point is - for a 2WD car or a AWD car like the XUV which is a crossover and is not designed for extreme off roading, why opt for a less safer and heavy LOF construction. Less safer and heavy in comparison to a unibody chassis.

For the Storme, a LOF chassis maybe required but the XUV does not need it. Infact, unibody chassis is ideal for its intended usage.

I agree with your points , and I just don't understand why bringing the off roading capability in this discussion is pointless ?

If one of the cars in question has some added functionality over the other why not bring that in discussion ?

Don't we bring cornering / handling into discussion ? Saying that xuv will be better ? Are we saying bringing cornering / handling advantage is pointless because I have yet to find he/she who has bought storme for high speed cornering ?

I again disagree.

Off roading capability is not a inherent required characteristic of a car like ride and handling. In other words, good ride and safe handling (note I am not saying "best") is required by every customer, but off roading is not. So off roading capability cannot be compared with handling and ride.

For example, I use my car for my daily office commute like most other people, I do care about ride and handling. But I dont give a damn about my car's off roading capability. If I need an off roader, maybe I would buy a Storme 4x4, no doubts on that.

Point here is - XUV is not meant and designed to be an off roader and hence cannot be compared evenly to the Storme. Because the simple answer would be - if you need off roading ability, pick the Storme 4x4. XUV is out of question.

Similarly storme is for someone who dosent like harsh ride quality and enjoys a wonderful ride quality over bad roads , who wants a classic and timeless looking vehicle , which can do proper not compromised off-roading and it is DEFINITELY NOT For some one who is looking for high speed cornering , features and gizmos .

+100.

 

[Raja]

LOF!, for given money Safari is perfect combo, it has ability no doubts about it.
and very strongly built body.

Infact iam saying it is safe vehicle too , and not unsafe which members are advocating .

Dear, if one pays 1 crore and still don't get the technology then why to buy a rangie?
Secondly, the name is called on the point that "monocoque can also go off road and in fact can go farther too". Rangie is a prime example, if you have got anything which proves that a monocoque can't do off roading then bring it up, not these words like amazing tech etc.

Dear you need to understand that range rover is 1 crore plus car and is supported with sofisticated technology to make its monoqoue construction capable . Even land rover themselves say that it's a super premium option only and not mass market one which they have not figured out themselves on how to make it possible main stream .

Can you show me a average mass market monoqoue constructed car which is a capable off roader when * relatively *compared to a body on ladder in the same price segment ? Asking because I don't know and want you to explain and point me towards one .

Even land rover agrees that there free lander and evoque can't handle extreme off roading .

And Why are you comparing the range rover with storme ? Why don't you compare it with the Mercedes G wagen which comes in it's price range and segment ? There is clash of opinions in off-roaders that the range rover is now in latest avatar panzy in comparison to the g wagen which is still BOL.

"Durable and less expensive to maintain" is the key line. They haven't said 'more' durable.

It is for sure more durable , and that is the reason even premium coustmers either get a hummer or a LC. No range rover is used in desert safari . Go there experience it discuss this topic with the drivers and owners of desert safari and then report here . I have done that and reporting what I was told .

It is here ->
http://www.theautomotiveindia.com/forums/voyage-junction/10221-dubai-vacation-2012-fun.html

And for your kind information " amazing tech " words were used for the range rover only to keep it short and not elaborate the tech involved in a range rover on safari storme and xuv thread for sanity purpose .

Buddy cost is the point but none of these prove that BOF are better off road. Like or hate, you can't debate but there is no written proof or numbers which can prove that BOF are 'always' better than monocoque off the road.

Cost is ofcourse the point , how can you neglect that ? If money is spent like crazy a BOL can also be made to handle better then a monoqoue who knows ?

Show me a monocoque SUV which is as capable or better as wrangler in the same price range in off-roading or something which the off-roaders prefer .

Or a car in price range of the storme which is better in off-roading and comfort and space and is a monoqoue .

And about written rule or not wether monoqoue are better or not then BOL Iam sorry but I prefer/ choose to believe CEO of Jeep more then you at this moment he says this when asked will the 2016 jeep wrangler will be a monoqoue ? posting again ->

Speaking with TMR, Jeep CEO Mike Manley said that off-road capability was paramount for the Wrangler, the ruggedness of a ladder-frame chassis remaining integral to the Wrangler’s mountain-climbing prowess.

“To maintain the capability of that vehicle is fundamental, and as you know it'd be very difficult to create that level of capability if you departed too much from body-on frame,” Manley told TMR.

“The Wrangler has to be the extreme capable vehicle in our brand, so I think body-on-frame is the way to go with Wrangler. Certainly for the next generation.

As mentioned by Raja, if the cars are being compared then everything should be compared

.
+1

Even Storme(Stock condition) also isn't for someone looking for a hardcore off road experience. It is also meant for some minor water crossings, slight hill climbs and some more such off road stuff, definitely something XUV can't do to the level of Storme.

again why is storme better then xuv in the above mentioned scenario ?

 

[Raja]

Kind of disagree.

The amount of electronics would be of no use if the basic frame (chassis) itself is weak. The comparison here was between the stiffness and strength of monocoque constructions as someone said unibody cars cant be used for off roading.

Okay, RR does have a lot of tech to help it, but if the monocoque chassis fails, it wont go any further!

I agree , but kindly understand that range rover is not a mass market product , it's a super premium product for niche segment and it's a 1.85 crore car .

And how many cars you know other then range rover that uses all aluminum construction in a mass market segment ?

Land rover themselves have said they haven't figured out yet how to bring that on steel constructions and on mass market products .

Do you know any mass market SUV which is a unibody which can outclass a BOL in off roading in same segment and price category ? Take a range from 15-80 lakhs ( world wide comparisons also ok ) to conclude that unibody are better then BOL ?

IMHO

Unibody extreme off roader -> technically possible and made possible -yes .

Is it practical for all at the moment for mass market production > unfortunately no .

+10. For hardcore off roading, LOF is more suited.

If so then what is the disagreement ?

Nobody. Point here is not to say Storme is an unsafe car.

Since the discussion was to compare monocoque and LOF chassis, my point is - for a 2WD car or a AWD car like the XUV which is a crossover and is not designed for extreme off roading, why opt for a less safer and heavy LOF construction. Less safer and heavy in comparison to a unibody chassis.

Head of UV department of tata motors Ashish Daar says this ->

Will you be exporting the Safari Storme? Even for LHD markets?

It will be exported. For that matter, any of our products can be exported. Even LHD’s can be done. When we’re designing products, we’re doing it for the world market. The Safari Storme even complies to the European crash safety norms.

http://indianautosblog.com/2013/01/tata-safari-storme-new-features-export-markets-60818

Since it complies to European safety crash norms we can easily conclude that it's a safe car construction wise .

I again disagree.

Off roading capability is not a inherent required characteristic of a car like ride and handling. In other words, good ride and safe handling (note I am not saying "best") is required by every customer, but off roading is not. So off roading capability cannot be compared with handling and ride.

Whether it is a inherent required character or not is totally subjective want , you can't generalize it . Similarly I can also argue that high speed cornering ability is not a inherent characteristic required in a SUV . Majority maybe not require off roading it , I can understand .

For example, I use my car for my daily office commute like most other people, I do care about ride and handling. But I dont give a damn about my car's off roading capability. If I need an off roader, maybe I would buy a Storme 4x4, no doubts on that.

This is what iam saying we can't generalize inherent qualities required , because they are user based .

Point here is - XUV is not meant and designed to be an off roader and hence cannot be compared evenly to the Storme. Because the simple answer would be - if you need off roading ability, pick the Storme 4x4. XUV is out of question.

But discussing the same is important for readers to know the capabilities of both the cars. How is it pointless to discuss that ?

 

[raj_5004]

I agree , but kindly understand that range rover is not a mass market product , it's a super premium product for niche segment and it's a 1.85 crore car .

And how many cars you know other then range rover that uses all aluminum construction in a mass market segment ?

Sadly, cheaper UVs dont come with unibodies, XUV is an exception. And it is because XUV is not designed to off road, hence the company had the leverage to offer monocoque construction.

Do you know any mass market SUV which is a unibody which can outclass a BOL in off roading in same segment and price category ? Take a range from 15-80 lakhs ( world wide comparisons also ok ) to conclude that unibody are better then BOL ?

Where am I saying unibody vehicles will outclass the LOF ones in off road? I have repeatedly stated two things -

1) LOF is more suited for off roading
2) XUV is not an off roader

If so then what is the disagreement ?

The disagreement is because someone said cars with monocoque construction are fragile and unsafe, whereas unibodies are stiffer and safer!

See, LOF chassis is rugged. Agreed. That does not mean unibodies are fragile. Infact, they are said to be stiffer.

LOF can take abuse and is more suited for SUVs. Agreed. But, XUV is not an SUV and is not designed to off road, hence it has a unibody.

Head of UV department of tata motors Ashish Daar says this ->

Tata Safari Storme to get added features, sail overseas

Since it complies to European safety crash norms we can easily conclude that it's a safe car construction wise .

You did not understand my point -

I am not implying that the Storme is an unsafe car. This discussion came into picture because a member claimed monocoque construction is fragile. On the contrary, monocoque construction by design and quality is much more stiffer and safer than LOF chassis.

Storme complies to European safety crash norms, alright... XUV has a 4 star crash test rating. What is Storme's rating?

Whether it is a inherent required character or not is totally subjective want , you can't generalize it . Similarly I can also argue that high speed cornering ability is not a inherent characteristic required in a SUV . Majority maybe not require off roading it , I can understand .

Again, someone who needs an off roader will obviously buy the Storme 4x4 or Fortuner 4x4. Does he even need to look at the XUV?

But discussing the same is important for readers to know the capabilities of both the cars. How is it pointless to discuss that ?

Where am I saying its pointless? I am repeatedly saying off roaders should not look at the XUV.

 

[Raja]

Sadly, cheaper UVs dont come with unibodies, XUV is an exception. And it is because XUV is not designed to off road, hence the company had the leverage to offer monocoque construction.

Exactly then why bring the range rover in discussion here ? We can discuss the range rover vs G wagen in a new thread .
Not saying you got the RR here in discussion. My statement is in general .

Here we must only discuss the capabilities concerned with storme vs xuv only and
Xuv is not a exception duster , terrano , yeti are all unibody crossovers and many more will be coming too .

Where am I saying unibody vehicles will outclass the LOF ones in off road? I have repeatedly stated two things -

1) LOF is more suited for off roading
2) XUV is not an off roader

I never said you said so. I just asked incase you know any unibody which outclasses a LOF just this .

The disagreement is because someone said cars with monocoque construction are fragile and unsafe, whereas unibodies are stiffer and safer!

Safety has many aspect related to it and not just construction .

See, LOF chassis is rugged. Agreed. That does not mean unibodies are fragile. Infact, they are said to be stiffer.

I agree but in off-roading context the unibody SUVs are relatively fragile ( mass market SUVs only ) for example wrangler vs Honda crv . In general purpose no .

LOF can take abuse and is more suited for SUVs. Agreed. But, XUV is not an SUV and is not designed to off road, hence it has a unibody

.
This is what mr ranger and swift and furious, stormer are saying just this .

Storme complies to European safety crash norms, alright... XUV has a 4 star crash test rating. What is Storme's rating?

We came to know safety ratings of xuv only after it got released in Europe right ? Let storme get released there we will come to know .

Again, someone who needs an off roader will obviously buy the Storme 4x4 or Fortuner 4x4. Does he even need to look at the XUV?

Many people are not able to differentiate between crossover or off-roader so the discussion is ok .

Where am I saying its pointless? I am repeatedly saying off roaders should not look at the XUV.

Not you some felt it so my response was general and specially directed to you .

 

[manojodungat]

Neither XUV is a Rangie nor Storme a Land Cruiser and none of the cars mentioned in the "thread title" go for the the Desert Safari Dubai,I guess.
There is no one disagreeing here to the fact that a Storme 4x4 is best suited for offroad adventures.

So going by the title of the thread,

• If one is looking for an SUV with a main 4x2 mode for an everyday onroad use and at times a little beyond pavements especially in tricky conditions mostly during emergencies, you may choose XUV 5OO AWD [on demand]

-Not recommended for off-road beyond graded dirt roads or a snowstorm

• If one is looking for an SUV with a main 4x2 mode for an everyday onroad use and at times beyond pavements especially in tricky conditions in emergencies and some offroad fun , you may choose Safari Storme VX 4x4 [Part time 4WD]

-The 4WD not reccommended for normal dry pavement.

If you are looking for a 4x2 SUV, the decision is rather straight forward I guess.
Edit: If you are looking for a real hard-core off roader, look elsewhere.