Any one test driven this? What you think?
TURBO-CHARGED 1.2L ENGINE
Powerful and efficient turbo-charged engine
6.5L/100KM# FUEL CONSUMPTION
Adventure with Ease
APPLE CARPLAY® AND ANDROID AUTO
Comfort and Convenience
LEVEL 2 ADAS
Level 2 Advanced Driver Assistance Systems.
ADVANCED TECHNOLOGY
Harman/Kardon Premium Sound System, Wireless Charging, Ultra-fast 65w USB Charging
These are pretty comon in south east Asian countries, where small engines supposedly to consume less fuel but then again, agreed, it would struggle!
100% depends on how you drive. If you race off every light, this will easily drink more fuel than a 2.0
@abcdefg5: That just says to shift early, not accelerate gently.
And what I said being racing off the line is not the opposite to what you're saying.
@ATangk: Sorry, I don't understand what you're saying.
I'm just complaining about people who take like 30 seconds to get up to speed. I agree with you that using max throttle from the lights is inefficient.
From the link: "The best thing is to accelerate briskly and shift."
@abcdefg5: That conclusion doesn't even match the graph… Thats why you can't just believe everything you read on the internet.
The conclusion to that graph is to keep your RPM at the lowest RPM that gives you peak torque, and never accelerate over 70% of your max RPM.
@abcdefg5: You have no idea why other people drive the way they do.
Perhaps they are older folk, for example. Perhaps they are young. Perhaps they are feeling a bit off colour that day. All road users have the same rights, so long as they are not breaking the law and no one has to drive to your preferred style.
Also your theory is 100% wrong. Cars have 'ideal' power and torque curves which is always a compromise between the two, depending on how the engine is set up. Rapid heavy acceleration is never the most efficient way.
@abcdefg5: The donkey with cart full of loads need to work harder to move from stationery and losing more energy until it’s in motion which requires less energy.
@abcdefg5: You just said you're using the same amount of fuel as long as you shift in the efficient rpm zone… which is not at all true. The higher the load on the engine the more fuel you burn per detonation/revolution… and the faster you accelerate, the more load there is at any given rpm. Accelerating slowly, has less load per revolution and therefore over the same distance will burn less fuel.
"If you race off every light, this will easily drink more fuel than a 2.0"
Likewise to race a 2.0 off a light. Will drink more than a V6.
So if I race off evey light with a 2.0 litre car, it will easily drink more fuel than a 3.0 litre car.
And I race off every light with a 3.0 liter car….
Ask any racer, any real racer. It don't matter if you win by an inch or a mile. Winning's winning.
Plus the residents are lighter in weight than western countries
Westerners provide better racing ballast.
82 kW should not be acceptable in this day and age. Even for city driving.
It looks to compete with the Tiggo 4 (better 108 kW), though the XUV looks considerably better.
Yep, this thing couldnt pull the skin off a rice custard
Well if I ever get one I'll know what to name her.
It's fiiiiiiine.
Isn't torque more relevant than what theoretical top speed this may have?
its a tiny car dude. Its fine.
I drive a truck with 199KW and 800NM. Its kerb weight is 9500KG, and frequently that again in cargo. At 19 tonnes I still can accelerate faster than most drivers in Sydney. How much more do people really need?
Don't forget it makes 200NM at 1500RPM. For reference a 2014 Corolla makes 103KW at 6400RPM, and 173NM of torque to 4000RPM, I can't find where that torque figure starts, but it wouldn't be any less than 3000RPM. This Mahindra probably feels quite a bit more spritely.
https://theauto.page/road-tested/mahindra-xuv-3xo-road-test/
0-100 in 10.6s. While not fast by any means, this ain't slow as a snail.
That's about the average for 70's 6 cyl vehicles. Good enough unless you're a petrol head in which case you wouldn't be in this market anyway…
nearly 60 years ago
@Wiadro: ehhh
i think 0-100 in 10.6 is fine around town and the occasional hwy run… its a HEAP better than an MG3
its 1,400kg… i looked it up…. so 82kW 200Nm isnt super but look at how many people are fine with an MG3 or any cheap petrol shit MG
i dont think them older folk are gonna be bothered
plus side is that it uses an Aisin 6 spd auto…. ie. Toyota and it runs on 91… this isnt the worst car out there, its not far off though
0-100 in 10.6s
I wonder what it is for 0-60?
Which is about real life needed acceleration for suburban driving. Light to light, stop to stop.
They tested 4.29s. Where that sits I have no idea, as my own consensus is 0-100.
For me a 0-100 in 3s is supercar, 6-7s is quick hot hatch, 8-10s is normal family car, anything more is eco shitbox but even something like 12s I wouldn't call unbearably slow. That was normal for a Toyota not that long ago
Engine size meanings have changed since the introduction of direct fuel injection. Engine sizes have gotten smaller with power output staying the same or increasing.
Do you mean they have changed with the introduction of turbos?
Turbo's have been around longer than EFI and are used in more niche applications as opposed to EFI which became ubiquitous in the automotive industry, totally replacing the carburettor
@Chizzle: That may well be but it’s only since most EU cars moved to turbos that the whole CC system has gone out of whack. A BMW 325i used to be a DFI 2.5l engine. Now it’s a forced induction engine, no longer 2.5l
Surprisingly not, 0-100 is around the 10sec mark full pelt, so it's not a fast car by any stretch, but for most people buying a cheap new SUV it'll be enough
Just for the comparison, all below cars have slower 0-100 times compared to this car,
Toyota Yaris
Toyota Yaris cross
Toyota Prado diesel 2.8L
Suzuki swift
Suzuki Jimmy
Despite their ridiculously slow off the mark figures, they are extremely popular cars here due to other reasons. This car has a great reason to join the same club, the other reason going for it is "price".
There you go.
i would assume everything that runs off the 2.8 diesel toyota "D4D" is going to be around 10 secs… if that
That Mahindra is not even close to being a winner/loser in a slow race:) https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_-FZSDMSP9M
Is fine for this type of car, torque is what you need and it has 200nm right in the middle of the rev range.
About same as a corolla.
Turbocharged though, pretty meh output specs but hey its $24k
Who cares if it get from a to b on smallest amount of fuel that is a winner for me….
Depends. If you're travelling alone, without luggage it'll be fine. The more weight you add the worse it's going to get, and quickly. This isn't a car for lugging 4 adults around with their bags, but if you're mainly driving alone you would be fine.
Looking at the numbers, The 0-100 km times are fairly slow - but the 0-60 times are fairly comparable to other basic cars (seems to be 4.6 seconds) - not fast - just comparable.
I mean… If you are desperate to have a NEW car for that money then sure. But I think you might get more for your buck if you look for something lightly used from a brand that has been making well equipped cars for a little longer (emphasis on the well equipped, I know Mahindra has been around for a while)
Mahindra (specifically Mahindra & Mahindra) was founded in 1945 in India.
As of 2026, that means it has been around for about 81 years.
It actually started as a steel trading company before moving into manufacturing vehicles—especially tractors and SUVs, which is what it’s best known for today.
Yeap 79 years more than a lot of the Chinese brands will .
79years has nothing to do with its quality.
"founded in 1945 in India." - you mean founded in the United Kingdom (or British Raj). India didn't exist as a country until 1947.
I'm surprised there's no strong hatred of the British by the Indians given the former's invasion. By some accounts, there's plenty of Indians who are proud to have British associations if anything. How is that achieved I wonder?
@clubhonda: Why would someone hate a country or people for what happened 80 years ago? Are those people responsible for the invasion still alive?
By your logic, nearly every country/people will hate someone for their invasion, as humans have been fighting with each other since the dawn of human race.
@Bargainian: Winston Churchill caused a famine in Bengal, India, that led to the deaths of well over three million people from starvation. He later famously blamed the Indians of being “a beastly people and breeding like rabbits.”
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/mar/29/winston-church…
I mean wars have been started for less, the current one among them.
surely they gotta have some feelings about this piece of history on their people.
@Jared17: Is Winston Churchill still alive? Seems you did not even read/understand my comment.
By your Logic, EU and US should still hate Germany and its people because of what Hitler did/said more than 80 years ago. Grow up buddy.
@life is suffering: Where are those imaginary trillions they looted? India was just one of the 50 other countries that British ruled. So they must have many more trillions, right?
Wake up son, and get a grip with reality. UK is declining and struggling under their record debt. They don't have the trillions you looking for.
@Bargainian: https://youtu.be/f7CW7S0zxv4?si=wrRrvVm5RIl0rBP1
It's not imaginary. Britain occupied India for nearly 200 years, pillaging, oppressing and plundering for the entire duration.
They might not have the money now due to economic policies of the past and no one is seriously asking for reparations (see the video shared above).
@xiaolongbao: Why stop at Britain then? Why not ask Iranians and Afghans who looted and pillaged India?
Nadir Shah, Ahmed Shah Abdali and others from those countries looted tonnes of gold and precious metals from temples and cities, including 1,150kg gold Peacock throne. Why single out Britain which pays billions in aid already?
@Bargainian: UK should return all treasures and Kohinoor diamond back also empty your museums. It's cursed that is
@life is suffering: Invaders like Nadir Shah and Ahmed Shah Abdali of Iran and Afghanistan are the ones who looted and plundered India. They are the ones who looted Kohinoor and Peacock throne, including tonnes of gold from Indian temples, so immense they used camels and elephants to transport it. You should ask Iran and Afghanistan for the Gold.
Kohinoor was gifted to British by Duleep Singh, young prince of Punjab. Read your history FFS.
@Bargainian: The Koh-i-Noor diamond was not gifted to the British; rather, it was taken from Maharaja Ranjit Singh of the Sikh Empire during the Second Anglo-Sikh War in 1849 please read again
@life is suffering: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Koh-i-Noor
It's right there buddy. Last time I checked 'given' is not 'taken'.
@Bargainian: right I trust wiki …. history is written by people who win either by force or bloodshed. so I would take that with a grain of salt
@life is suffering: You can take it with grain of salt or rock of salt, that's your preference. So, should India pursue the looted gold and the Peacock throne (1,150 solid gold and decorated with precious stones) from Iran and Afghanistan, considering Peacock throne was way more expensive than Kohinoor and cost twice the build cost of Taj Mahal?
@Bargainian: I dont represent indian interests , should they yes they should, British first then go back chronologically
@life is suffering: No, British came after. India was plundered for 1000 years, starting by Mahmud Ghazni and Muhammed Ghori, and then by other Muslim invaders . There wasn't much left when the British came.
@Bargainian: There are lots of false assertions in your statements -
Kohinoor was stolen by the East India company. It's described, by a BBC article as a gift at the point of a bayonet. Duleep Singh was 10 when the British forced him to sign a document handing over the jewel, while keeping his imprisoned mother as collateral.
https://www.smithsonianmag.com/history/true-story-koh-i-noor…
https://www.bbc.com/news/world-asia-india-36095025
The British (and other colonisers) have a history of pilfering precious items and calling them gifts. I'd encourage you to read more about what happened in different parts of the world that were colonized by imperial powers.
India's (pre what is the current India) GDP before the East India company was about >25% of the global economy. Around the time of independence, it had dwindled down to less than 4%. Your aim
assertion that there wasn't much left when the British came is wildly inaccurate.
Please read https://books.core-econ.org/the-economy/microeconomics/01-pr…
End of the day, no one is seriously chasing up Britain for reparations. For context - India's economy is the 4th largest in the world (by GDP), surpassing the United Kingdom.
What is needed is acknowledgement of the brutal policies, wealth-drain and plunder inflicted by the British over India instead of arguing that the British were slightly better than (or similar to) their predecessors in how they behaved in the subcontinent.
Kohinoor was stolen by the East India company. It's described, by a BBC article as a gift at the point of a bayonet. Duleep Singh was 10 when the British forced him to sign a document handing over the jewel, while keeping his imprisoned mother as collateral.
No, it was stolen by Nadir Shah of Iran in 18th Century. It was gifted to Maharaja Ranjit Singh after his conquests in Afghanistan.
The British (and other colonisers) have a history of pilfering precious items and calling them gifts. I'd encourage you to read more about what happened in different parts of the world that were colonized by imperial powers.
I know British had (not have) history of colonialism, but every great Empire has done it in the history. Egyptians, Romans, Ottomans, Spanish, Dutch and French did it too. India was mostly pillaged by the Muslim invaders, who specifically looted religious places like Somnath Temple.
India's (pre what is the current India) GDP before the East India company was about >25% of the global economy. Around the time of independence, it had dwindled down to less than 4%. Your aim assertion that there wasn't much left when the British came is wildly inaccurate.
Empires rise and fall and it has happened throughout history. Again read the history of Romans, Ottomans, Spanish, Dutch and French etc.
The main difference between Afghan, Iranian plunder and the systemic wealth drain that the British affected is britan treated India like a colony, destroying wealth generating local industries and replacing them with a consumption based economy. India moved from net exporter to importer of British goods. The Oxford debate link I shared earlier has a few more data points for you to consider.
British actually stayed and build infrastructure in India compared to ransacking and loot & scoot tactics of Muslim invaders.
For context - India's economy is the 4th largest in the world (by GDP), surpassing the United Kingdom.
For a country of 1.4 billion people it's actually pretty embarrassing. Increasing population to boost GDP is not something to boast about. GDP per capita needs to grow.
@Bargainian: There wasn't much? By some estimates, the Indian region (areas that are now India) accounted for about 25% of the global economy.
If you're not aware, the whole reason the English/Europeans came to India was for trade as it was a major player in that space. That wouldnt be the case if there was nothing there. Over a couple of centuries of "trade", they gradually started taking over and by mid 17th century were rulers of (almost) the whole region.
After 200 years of the British rule from the mid 17th century onwards, Indian economy accounted for under 5% of the world's economy. Thats a big downfall!
ps: The Mughals were invaders too, but one major difference was they did not siphon off the wealth away to their home country, rather they made India their capital and became residents there.
@hdus002: So US and European industrial revolution had nothing to do with the Indian economy accounting for less share in world economy? India's economy's share in the world economy declined precisely because US and European economies skyrocketed due to rapid industrialization.
Indian and Chinese economies were nearly the same in terms of GDP up until 1987-88, but now Chinese economy is 4.5x the size of Indian economy. Instead of playing the blame game, why not improve and become productive? India's problem in corruption, which has spread in every part of the economy and daily life.
@Bargainian: Do you think that the Indian economy would have stayed still then and not industrialised? In all likelihood it would have grown proportionally as the other majr economies did (some of which grew at the expense of colonies btw).
Correct, after independance the governments should have prioritised rapid growth over other things (as China did), perhaps without the British rule, India wouldn't even have become a democracy and thereby could make quicker decisions like China? BTW arent we talking about the period before independance, and not after?
Do you think that the Indian economy would have stayed still then and not industrialised?
You should ask that question to yourself because it's hypothetical. Looking at Indian history and how primitive the whole society and economy was when British came, I doubt it would have been an industrial powerhouse. India is still primitive in some aspects, for example, caste system, superstitions and religious fanaticism etc. is still prevalent in 21st Century, while the world has moved on.
@hdus002: For a handful of people from across many oceans to come over and take the country like India, I think primitive is pretty apt.
How is that achieved I wonder?
By building upon the institutions and infrastructure that the British left, and thriving. Just as the US did.
If a country achieves well, they don't need a scapegoat for their problems.
But read some history. The tiny number of British soldiers could hardly have "invaded" all of India.
Sure, there was resentment by many at the time, but it's history now. See also Vietnam. No need to hate Americans because they won. (If they hate anyone, it is China.)
@bargaino: You're the only one that directly answered my question but your answer got a lot of negs so I don't know if it's correct or not..?
Which school did you go to?
Didn't it start as a JV with Jeep in India?
So they learnt from Jeep to begin with?
Jeep and India, that is a good combination.
Wouldn’t be surprised if JV started a war tbh
7 Year, 150,000km warranty with fairly inexpensive service costs is pretty appealing!
Not sure you're going to get much 'lightly used' from the big brands for $24k
Mahindra XUV 3XO Capped Price Servicing
1,500 km (1 mth): Free
10,000 km (12 mths): $279
25,000 km (24 mths): $279
40,000 km (36 mths): $349
55,000 km (48 mths): $299
70,000 km (60 mths): $389
85,000 km (72 mths): $399
Key Details
Total Cost (6 years): $1,994
Average Annual Cost: Approximately $332.33
Warranty: 7-year/150,000 km factory warranty
Roadside Assistance: 7 years included
these prices are cheaper than many cars…. 10yrs ago…
if they are stealership then ? 399 becomes 799 easy lol
might get a 4 year old corolla with 150,000kms on the clock…
you can get a corolla that's out of warranty after being used up by so called "engineers" on uber or a new car that's starting its warranty
Sorry, in what world are you imagining a “lightly used” vehicle from a “well equiped” brand?
Can you please:
Define “well equipped” brands
Define “lightly used”
And give some examples please.
And preferably have warranty too, that’s a massive difference. They can’t just say “too bad” when you are stuck with a dead car if you have warranty.
wow, wouldnt this be slow as a snail 1.2l? barely accelerating