Delhi

Every helpful action can earn a badge.

•5w

I'm considering buying the Hyundai i20 N Line N8 MT. I've driven other cars, including the new Venue DCT and XUV300 MT, but this will be my first car. Is the i20 N Line a good choice for me? My annual running will be low, and I'll mostly be driving on highways. Also, should I consider going for the DCT instead of the manual?

•5w

The Hyundai i20 N Line N8 MT is actually a very good choice for your requirements. Since this is your first car, you want something that is easy to drive, reliable and confidence-inspiring, and the i20 N Line fits that brief well. The turbo petrol engine is punchy and refined, and the manual gearbox is smooth and easy to operate, which makes it a great car for both city driving and highway runs. The N Line also adds a bit of sportiness and character without compromising on everyday usability.

Given your low running and predominantly highway usage, the manual makes more sense than the DCT. The Hyundai Venue DCT is a good car, but the i20 N Line feels more special to drive.

Explore cars mentioned

Hyundai

i20

from ₹6.51 Lakh

Hyundai

Venue

from ₹8.92 Lakh

Was this helpful? Ask a follow-up

More posts on similar cars

•3d

Hi Autocar Team, I am confused between the Hyundai Venue HX5 Turbo MT and the Mahindra XUV 3XO AX5 TCMPFi. I am getting a good offer on the Venue. We have owned a Hyundai Grand i10 Nios for the last seven years without any issues. I like the XUV 3XO for its engine and the additional features it offers over the Venue. However, I also like the Venue because I am familiar with its driving experience and refinement. I plan to keep the new car for at least seven years, so I am looking for trouble-free ownership and a good service centre experience. My spouse prefers the rear-seat comfort of the 3XO, especially its under-thigh support and legroom, but dislikes its boot space. We also expect our family to grow in the coming years, so practicality is important. In terms of performance, I am not expecting a race car at this budget. I want a car with decent power that does not feel sluggish or make highway overtaking difficult. It should also offer reasonable mileage in city traffic and a comfortable ride for both front and rear passengers on city roads and highways. My usage will be around 60% city driving, along with a long drive of approximately 500 km every month. We have already considered other cars, and these two are our final choices. Could you please compare them in terms of ownership costs, maintenance, performance, comfort and reliability? It would also help if you could highlight any notable issues I might face with either car that could affect the driving experience or passenger comfort.

•2d

It seems like you're leaning towards the Mahindra XUV 3XO for its stronger engine performance, better feature set, and a nicer back seat experience. It is a genuinely well-rounded car, and its ride comfort and drive experience make it feel like a much larger, more expensive car. Also, between the two, the XUV 3XO is the much better car for the highway. As you've rightly pointed out, its boot space is lower on paper; however, the actual usable space is quite similar to the Venue's. So, if you like the XUV 3XO, go for it; it is a good buy.The Hyundai Venue HX5 Turbo MT might seem a bit more user-friendly with lighter controls, which make it easier to drive in the city. Moreover, you already have a positive ownership experience with Hyundai, and the Venue continues that formula with a refined turbo petrol engine and a well-built, more modern interior. It has enough performance for confident overtakes on the highway and remains reasonably efficient in city traffic. Between the two, though, the XUV 3XO gives you a big car feel, while the Venue is easier to drive in the city. For similar money, we'd pick the XUV 3XO; however, if you're getting the Venue at a substantially lower discounted price, it is a car you can't go wrong with.

Mahindra XUV 3XO

Hyundai Venue

•3d

I am planning to buy a Maruti Suzuki Brezza, and my budget is Rs. 10-12 lakh. I am confused between a turbocharged and a naturally aspirated (NA) engine. I plan to keep the car for 8-10 years. My driving will mainly be in Gurugram, with a trip to Himachal Pradesh once every two months. Kindly suggest the best variant for my needs.

•2d

It largely boils down to the transmission you are opting for. If you are getting a manual, the turbo petrol is a better choice. It is smooth and tractable for city use and offers good performance for the uphill sections on your trips to Himachal. The manual is also slick, with a light clutch, so it is easy to drive in the city. However, an automatic will still make life a lot easier, and if that is what you want, then the NA petrol is your only option. As such, the 1.5-litre NA has decent performance for the hills, but it won't be as effortless as the turbo petrol. The NA will, however, be a bit more efficient in the city. Both engines are reliable, and Maruti service is generally very good.Overall, if you are regularly driving in heavy traffic, the Maruti Suzuki Brezza automatic is the obvious choice. However, if you are picking the manual, you might as well get the turbo petrol unless fuel efficiency is your top priority.

Maruti Suzuki Brezza

•1w

I’ve almost finalised the Hyundai Venue based on its interiors, space, features, and overall looks. However, I’m confused between the 1.0 Turbo MT and 1.2 NA MT. I live in a town where bumper-to-bumper traffic is very rare. We might encounter traffic occasionally when travelling to bigger cities, but we only go on long trips a few times a year. Considering my usage, which engine would be the better choice? 1. What is the real-world mileage difference between the 1.0 Turbo and 1.2 NA? 2. Is the turbo engine significantly more expensive to maintain in the long run? 3. Is the 1.2 NA engine sufficient for a family on highways, especially during overtaking and when driving with a full load? 4. Considering long-term reliability, running costs, and occasional highway trips, is it worth choosing the turbo, or would the 1.2 NA be a more sensible option? I’m really confused between these two variants. Please share your real-world mileage and long-term ownership experience. Your suggestions would really help me make a final decision. Thanks in advance!

•6d

Go for the Hyundai Venue 1.0 Turbo MT. Your usage pattern - mostly open roads with only occasional traffic and a few long trips a year - actually plays to the turbo’s strengths. The 1.0 turbo is a genuinely punchy engine with strong mid-range performance, which makes overtaking on highways far easier and more confidence-inspiring, especially with a full load. The 1.2 naturally aspirated engine is smooth and reliable, but it can feel underpowered on highways, particularly when overtaking or climbing with passengers and luggage.In terms of real-world mileage, the difference is not huge. In mixed conditions, you can expect a mileage of 12.80kpl with the 1.2 NA, whereas the 1.0 turbo could deliver around 12.50kpl in similar conditions, so overall fuel costs are broadly similar. Similarly, the difference in their maintenance costs will be marginal, with the turbo being only slightly higher.Long-term reliability is not a concern with either engine. The 1.2 NA is the simpler option, but the 1.0 turbo is a proven unit and well suited to your usage. Given your driving pattern and the occasional highway trips, the 1.0 turbo is the more sensible and enjoyable choice.

Hyundai Venue

View all Posts

Expert reviews worth reading

Popular discussions right now

•1w

I want a foreign-made SUV. I currently own an Elevate and now, I want another one. Can you guide me whether I should go with Skoda Kushaq, Hyundai Creta or Volkswagen Taigun?

•1w

Since you already own a Honda Elevate and are looking for a foreign-made SUV, the decision really comes down to what you want from your second car. The Skoda Kushaq and Volkswagen Taigun are essentially the same car underneath, so the choice between them is more about brand preference and dealership experience. Both are excellent to drive, with strong turbo petrol engines and a more engaging driving experience than the Creta. The Kushaq tends to offer slightly better value for money, while the Taigun has a marginally more premium interior feel.The Hyundai Creta, on the other hand, is the safer, more rounded choice. It is more comfortable, has a wider service network and is generally easier to live with over the long term. It may not be as engaging to drive as the Skoda or Volkswagen, but it is the more sensible ownership proposition.If you are looking for a car that feels different from your Elevate and enjoy driving, go for the Skoda Kushaq. If you want a hassle-free ownership experience, the Hyundai Creta is the better choice.

Please advise which car would be the best choice for long-term ownership: the Mahindra Scorpio, Tata Safari, Tata Harrier, Jeep Compass, Volkswagen SUV, or any other suitable option. My priority is reliability, long-term durability, and hassle-free ownership over the next 10 years or more. I would appreciate suggestions based on real-world ownership experience, maintenance costs, spare parts availability, and after-sales support.

•3d

For long-term ownership, the Mahindra Scorpio N is the safest recommendation from your shortlist. It has a proven track record, robust mechanicals and a strong service network, making it a dependable choice for 5-10 years of ownership. The Tata Harrier and Tata Safari have improved significantly, but the Scorpio N still has the edge on long-term reliability and ownership confidence. The Jeep Compass is a good product, but it is now an ageing model and does not offer the same value proposition as the Scorpio N. If you are open to alternatives, the Mahindra XUV 7XO is worth considering. It is a more modern product with a better balance of comfort, features and refinement, and it is a strong long-term ownership proposition as well. The Volkswagen Taigun and Skoda Kushaq are excellent driver's cars, but they are smaller and do not offer the same level of space or road presence as the Scorpio N or XUV 7XO.

Hi Autocar Team, I am planning to buy a seven-seater car. I have test-driven the Renault Triber Turbo and Citroen Aircross X and was impressed by what both offer at their price points. However, the Aircross put a wide smile on my face. As a current Maruti Suzuki user, I did not consider the Ertiga because it feels similar to our Swift. I liked the Aircross X but am sceptical about Citroen's service network and spare parts availability. However, there are three Citroen showrooms within 45 km of my place. Please suggest which car I should choose. My budget: Rs. 15 lakh Current vehicle: Second-generation Maruti Suzuki Swift petrol (2017) Annual usage: Around 10,000 km, with a 50:30:20 split between town, highway and city driving Requirement: A seven-seater car

•6d

The Citroen's interiors feel more special, its engine is more powerful, and its ride-handling balance is outstanding; however, for seven adults, it won't be as comfortable as the Triber.In fact, the Triber's superb packaging makes it genuinely comfortable for passengers in all three rows, despite its compact sub-4-meter dimensions. The new turbo-petrol engine makes it an effortless performer, and its ride quality feels very mature too. Moreover, the Triber Turbo is also much more affordable in comparison, making it outstanding value for money. Yes, the Aircross X will appeal to your heart, but given Citroen's limited service network and cramped third row, the Triber Turbo is the more sensible choice.

Renault Triber

Citroen Aircross

View all Posts

Upcoming launch buzz

Community discussions on upcoming launches