WRV vs EcoSport Comparison Review

Published on: Mar 23, 2017
Ford EcoSport vs Honda WR-V Comparison Review:

Part I 
Comparison of Pricing & Features: 
WR-V's top-end variant, the 'VX' diesel costs 11.4 Lakh Rs. on road, Delhi, which is 60,000 Rs. cheaper, than Ecosport’s ‘Titanium+’ variant, costing 12 Lakh Rs.

The EcoSport ‘Titanium+’ may be a little expensive, but it offers a plethora of extra features, over the top-end WR-V like Side & Curtain Airbags, Parking Sensors, Leather Upholstery, Auto Dimming Inside Mirror, Rain Sensing Wipers and Light Sensing Headlamps. The WR-V ‘VX’ also has a few extra features, like Electric Sunroof, Electrically Folding Mirrors, Cruise Control and Wi-Fi Connectivity (for the head unit), which are absent in the EcoSport ‘Titanium+’.

The difference between top-end petrol manual variants, of both these cars, is even greater, i.e. 1 Lakh Rs. in favour of the WR-V ‘VX’, which costs 10 Lakh Rs, while the EcoSport ‘Titanium+’ retails for 11 Lakh. Honda has deleted Cruise Control, Push-button Start & Smart Key from the ‘VX’ petrol, which has increased the price-gap between top-end versions of the petrol fueled WR-V & EcoSport by an additional 40,000 Rs. over and above the existing price gap of 60,000 Rs. between their top-end diesel versions.

EcoSport is currently available in a special edition ‘Platinum’ variant also, which gets Cruise Control, bigger 17” Alloy Wheels and a Contrast roof, for an additional 50,000 Rs. over the Titanium+.

The EcoSport is also available in a petrol-automatic variant, the 'Titanium AT', which costs 11 Lakh Rs. on road, Delhi. Honda has decided not to offer an automatic option in the WR-V range for now.

Common Features: ABS, Airbags-2, Automatic Climate Control, Power Steering, Power Windows, Central Locking by Remote, Parking Camera, Infotainment: FM, Aux, Bluetooth + 4 Speakers, Steering Wheel Switches, Electrically Adjustable Mirrors, Rear Wash-Wipe-Defog, Fog Lamps, Touchscreen, Navigation, Driver’s Seat Height Adjust, Alloy Wheels, Push Button Start & Smart Key, LED DRLs, Telescopic Steering Adjustment, Auto-up Anti-Pinch Driver’s Window

Extra Features in WR-V (VX): Electric Sunroof, Electrically Folding Mirrors, Cruise Control and Wi-Fi Connectivity (for the head unit)

Extra Features in EcoSport (Titanium+): Side & Curtain Airbags, Parking Sensors, Leather Upholstery, Auto Dimming Inside Mirror, Rain Sensing Wipers and Light Sensing Headlamps

{EcoSport ‘Platinum’ variant gets Cruise Control}

Part II
WR-V vs EcoSport Comparison of Performance & Dynamics:
EcoSport's turbocharged, 1-litre EcoBoost engine, has been the talk of the town, for winning the engine of the year accolades, multiple times. But in reality, it is a bit of a downer. The problem is that the EcoSport, is quite a heavy vehicle, nudging upwards of 1250 kilograms, which is too overwhelming, for the little 999 cc, 3-cylinder engine, till the turbocharger comes into action. Which is a problem, because the big-ass turbo that Ford has bolted on to their little engine, needs almost 3000 rpm to spool up. This makes it a pain to pilot around city traffic, requiring excessive gear-shifting, to overcome the immense turbo-lag.

Honda has decided to stick with the 1.2-litre iVTEC, from the Brio, Amaze & Jazz, which is a gem of an engine. It's buttery smooth refinement and rev happy nature is no secret. Its only shortcoming, is its weak low-end torque. On top of that, the WR-V is the heaviest car powered by it, which again requires excessive gear-shifting around town.  

Thankfully, the EcoSport is also available with an old-school, 1500 cc, naturally aspirated engine, which is easier to live-with, on a day to day basis. It matches the WR-V in terms of outright performance and has a more potent mid-range as well. The cherry on the top is that, it is also available with a state-of-the-art dual clutch automatic gearbox, which is incredibly smooth and quick shifting, making it a real pleasure to drive, be it in the city, or out on the highways.

Power to Weight Ratio (PS/ton): EcoSport 1.5 - 88, EcoSport 1.0 - 99, WRV – 82
Torque to Weight Ratio (Nm/ton): EcoSport 1.5 - 110, EcoSport 1.0 - 135, WRV – 100

Power (PS@rpm): EcoSport 1.5 - 112@6300, EcoSport 1.0 - 125@6000, WRV – 90@6000
Torque (Nm@rpm): EcoSport 1.5 - 140@4400, EcoSport 1.0 - 170@1400-4500, WRV – 110@4800
Kerb Weight (kg): EcoSport 1.5 - 1268, EcoSport 1.0 - 1259, WRV – 1104

It is very hard to choose between the two diesels. Both have excellent drivability, with hardly any turbo-lag, making them a breeze to pilot around town. But the EcoSport has an edge over the WR-V in terms of refinement. Ford has been making small capacity diesel engines, for a much longer time than Honda. EcoSport's engine also revs much more freely, and it uses a lot more sound deadening material than the WR-V, making it much more silent and a bit smoother than the WR-V.

Power to Weight Ratio (PS/ton): EcoSport - 78, WRV – 83
Torque to Weight Ratio (Nm/ton): EcoSport - 160, WRV – 166

Power (PS@rpm): EcoSport – 100@3750, WRV – 100@3600
Torque (Nm@rpm): EcoSport – 205@1750-3250, WRV – 200@1750
Kerb Weight (kg): EcoSport - 1290, WRV – 1204

Handling & Ride Quality:
Both the EcoSport as well as the WR-V, have distinctively car like dynamics. Both cars have struck a right balance, between ride and handling. The WR-V soaks up the bumps and ruts, really well and handles rough road situations, without even a whiff of discomfort. Its handling too is fairly neutral, with a well-weighted and precise steering, albeit devoid of any feedback from the surface below. The EcoSport is even better, with a clear edge over the WR-V in terms of dynamics, staying true to its European heritage. There is a noticeable pliancy to the ride, but still body-roll is kept well under check, aided by a telepathic steering rack.

Ground Clearance (mm): EcoSport – 200, WRV - 188

Wheelbase (mm): EcoSport – 2520, WRV - 2555

Tyre Size:
EcoSport: 195/65R15 (Ambiente/Trend), 205/60R16 (Titanium), 2015/50R17 (Platinum)
WRV: 195/60R16

Part III
WR-V vs EcoSport Comparison of Fuel Efficiency & Cost of Ownership: 
WR-V petrol has an ARAI certified mileage of 17.5 kmpl, which is 1.6 kmpl more than the EcoSport 1.5's fuel efficiency of 15.9 kmpl and 1.4 kmpl less than EcoSport 1.0's mileage of 18.9 kmpl. However, in our real-world tests, the WR-V was half a kmpl more efficient than the 1.0 Ecoboost and almost 2 kmpl more efficient than the EcoSport 1.5.

The EcoSport 1.5 petrol-automatic is rated at 15.6 kmpl, but in reality, it was just as efficient as the manual geared EcoSport 1.5. The WR-V diesel has an ARAI certified fuel economy of 25.5 kmpl, which is 3.2 kmpl more than the EcoSport's fuel economy of 22.3 kmpl. In our real world tests, the diesel WR-V was just half a kpl more efficient than the corresponding EcoSport.

ARAI Mileage (kmpl):
Petrol - Manual: 
WRV - 17.5 kmpl
EcoSport - 15.85 kmpl

Petrol - Automatic: 
EcoSport- 15.6 kmpl

Diesel - Manual 
WRV - 25.5 kmpl
EcoSport - 22.27 kmpl

Fuel Cost: (for 75,000 km)
Petrol - Manual: 
WRV - 4.10 Lakh
EcoSport - 4.50 Lakh

Petrol - Automatic:
EcoSport - 4.60 Lakh

Diesel - Manual 
WRV - 2.35 Lakh
EcoSport - 2.70 Lakh

Reliability & After Sales Service: 
Honda has built a stellar reputation for product reliability over the past two decades in our country, whereas Ford is still trying hard, to recover from its tarnished image, courtesy of products like the Escort & Ikon. Honda's dealers have become increasingly complacent, but thanks to Honda's reliable products, they make do with nothing more than regular servicing. Sadly Ford's dealers are even worse than Honda's and though they have improved a lot after the launch of Figo and EcoSport, they still have a long way to go before they deliver Honda levels of Hassle Free Ownership experience.

Resale & Cost of Ownership:
EcoSport, is bound to retain marginally better residual value, than the WR-V, post a usage of 5 to 7 years. Overall, the EcoSport 1.0 'Titanium+', works out to be around 75,000 Rs. more expensive, than the WR-V 'VX', in terms of Total Cost of Ownership. Interestingly, the EcoSport 'Titanium' automatic, works out to be just 1 Lakh Rs. i.e. 10% more than the WR-V 'VX' manual, in the long-term, which is outstanding value-for-money, whichever way you look at it. When it comes to diesels, both cars work out to be identical to each other, in terms of Overall Ownership Costs, and more importantly 50,000 Rs. cheaper, than the corresponding WR-V petrol.

Resale Value (after usage of 5 to 7 years)
Petrol - Manual: 
WRV VX - 4.25 Lakh
EcoSport Titanium+ - 5.00 Lakh

Petrol - Automatic: 
EcoSport Titanium AT - 4.75 Lakh

Diesel - Manual: 
WRV VX - 4.50 Lakh
EcoSport Titanium+ - 5.25 Lakh

Total Cost of Ownership (Price + Fuel Cost – Resale Value)
Petrol - Manual: WRV VX - 9.85 Lakh
EcoSport Titanium+ - 10.50 Lakh

Petrol - Automatic: EcoSport Titanium AT - 10.85 Lakh

Diesel - Manual: WRV VX - 9.25 Lakh
EcoSport Titanium+ - 9.40 Lakh

Part IV 
WR-V vs EcoSport Comparison of Comfort & Interiors:
The EcoSport looks bigger on the outside, but it’s the WR-V which has more space on the inside. The EcoSport is based on the claustrophobic Fiesta's platform, while the WR-V is based on the spacious Jazz platform. There is significantly better legroom, head-room and shoulder space, inside the WR-V, and three occupants can comfortably spend hours on the WR-V's back seat, while in the EcoSport they will definitely start complaining within a couple of hours.

 WR-V's ergonomics, in terms of lower back support and under-thigh support, of both the front seats as well as the rear, are much better than the EcoSport's. Both cars have reasonably well-built cabins, but they are lacking in modern design flair, making them feel a bit dated, in this day and age.

 EcoSport's leather upholstery, lifts the interior ambiance a bit, but overall, their cabins don't feel even as luxurious and premium as hatchbacks, like the Elite i20 or the Polo. Both cars have sufficiently large bootspace, for carrying 5 people's weekend luggage, with the WR-V having an academic advantage of 17 litres, with its 363 litre of boot volume, over the 346 liter boot capacity of the Ford EcoSport.

  Boot-space (lit): EcoSport - 346, WRV - 363

Length (mm): EcoSport – 3999, WRV - 3995
Width (mm): EcoSport – 1765, WRV - 1734
Height (mm): EcoSport – 1708, WRV - 1601

Part V 
WR-V vs EcoSport Comparison's Final Verdict:
We are shocked by the sheer complacency, that Honda has shown with the WR-V. Looks apart, it definitely has the substance to win against the EcoSport, if it wanted to. But sadly, it hasn't even made an effort! If you look at Honda's portfolio in India, they have not one, but two automatic transmissions mated to the 1.2 iVTEC powerplant. First is the tried and tested 5-speed torque convertor powering the Brio and the other is the cutting-edge CVT powering the Amaze and the Jazz. Heck they even had readymade paddle-shifters from the Jazz, to plug-in straight into the WR-V. Fuel-efficient automatic transmissions are nothing less than life savers, on our chock-a-block city streets.

Otherwise, both cars are pretty evenly matched, in terms of their performance, practicality and value-for-money as well. But Ford has taken the efforts, to offer their best automatic transmission, the DCT, for a fairly reasonable price tag, on the EcoSport. And that is what gives it an undeniable edge, over the WR-V. We have long been proponents of diesel powertrains, thanks to their low-end drivability and efficiency advantage, over their petrol counterparts, but looking at the small premium, that Ford is asking, for such an advanced gearbox, has convinced us to switch sides. The EcoSport 'Titanium AT', is the crystal clear winner, of this comparison.

Related CarComparos:

*If you can't find the Comparison you were looking for? Just mention it in the comments section below and we'll put it up as soon as possible.

Ford Figo Aspire vs EcoSport Comparison

Volkswagen Ameo vs EcoSport Comparison

*If you can't find the Comparison you were looking for? Just mention it in the comments section below and we'll put it up as soon as possible.