Team-BHP - Hatchback options with Automatic Transmission

Instead of a new Santro/Wagon R, can you consider a used old Honda City, used Corolla (preferably the modified 2005 `Indian-conditions' version), used Civic or used NHC CVT. I drive a 2007 Corolla AT and it gives me more than 11 kmpl. NHC CVT can give more of around 14-15 kmph but I found it to very noisy at speeds greater than 70 kmph, and has no airbags and ABS, even as an option. Finally, do not consider Optra AT at all. It is available in 1.8 litre, reported to give horrible FE and horrible maintenance, and parts are difficult to obtain and expensive (it does not sell much and so has limited spare parts pin). Optra AT may be available at discounts of more than 2 lakhs.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vasudeva (Post 409489)

Instead of a new Santro/Wagon R, can you consider a used old Honda City, used Corolla (preferably the modified 2005 `Indian-conditions' version), used Civic or used NHC CVT.

Does Honda City have automatic transmission? Does it have ABS?
Also how expensive it to maintain a Honda City as compared to say a
Maruti Swift? Is it just a little more expensive (say 50% more?) or much
more?

Honda City CVT is great for city and has great FE of min. 12-13 kmpl if you can ignore the higher road noise (not sure if this is in all the NHC CVT or only in my test drive cars, but I drove it thrice with different dealers). It is priced at 8.5 lakhs on road in Delhi, but has no ABS and airbags as options. A newer version (expected with airbags and ABS) is expected later in 2007. They could have had more buyers if VTEC had been launched with automatic.

Please read the posts, carboy :-)

New Honda City does have an Automatic. Its the CVT model. Its 8.25 ex-showroom approximately. So should come to around 9.5 after tax and insurance. I doubt if you would get heavy discounts on it. Honda usually has a very clear policy regarding discounts.

No, it does not have ABS. None of the City models have it.

The Swift Zxi (top end) is 6+ lakhs on road. Comes with ABS. No Automatic option.

Maintenance should be a bit higher for the City CVT than the Swift. Can't comment on the %. But Honda's are very reliable and have good service records.

Maintenance should be a bit higher for the City CVT than the Swift. Can't comment on the %. But Honda's are very reliable and have good service records.

I have checked and maintenance cost is usually the same for ATs as for manuals (at least for Toyota/Honda). Perhaps others may have a different experience with other models. Brake pads do get used more but no clutch plate but brake pads do not get worn out significantly earlier than in manual. AT fluid also requires long replacement intervals. So maintenance is not higher, and is to be balanced against better comfort.

Automatic Transmission (AT) is not Continuously Variable Transmission (CVT). CVT is much more that just plain AT. Ideally a true CVT can run the engine at a const rpm (irrespective of the throttle position) depenging upon the drive mode (econo or sport). In the econo mode engine runs at the most fuel efficient speed while in the sport mode it runs at the highest torque producing speed.

AT has limited gear ratios (4-7) whereas CVT has unlimited.

rgds,
Rajiv

Quote:

Originally Posted by ronline (Post 412003)

Wow, :thumbs up now thats what I call true learning. Thanks for the valuable feedback. This would surely get me to show more respect to the NHC CVT.

From what I could gather, CVT is supposed to more efficient than plain AT. But CVT is a newer tech with lesser development history and so at present the technical limitation is not its quality but in adopting it to bigger engine cars. See wikipedia which may give an idea. NHC has CVT. Even the new Corolla (in India perhaps during 2008) has some sort of super CVT. Yes CVT is supposed to keep rpm at constant. NHC CVT is reported to be very FE. But even ATs of Toyota and Honda also keep rpm in a narrow range till you reach the overdrive gear. I notice my Corolla's ATs rpm and it remains at 1000-1800 rpm before it shifts into next gear.

Even AT (of which CVT is a subset) have progressed a lot, and it would be safe to say that ATs of esp. Toyota and Honda impose very little penalties in FE as compared with manual versions. For example, my Corolla AT has given 11.5 in the last week (although I think 10.5-11 may be a reasonable FE to expect). By comparison, Corolla manual can give 12-13. Do not know much about Civic but it should be comparable. NHC CVT also imposes little FE penalty as compared with manual.

I shall post here actual FE achieved for combined cycle for small cars sold in both manual and AT versions in the US. The data is from ConsumerReports and requires a subscription so that it may not be easily verifiable by members:

AT is first figure and manual is second figure (figures in mpg, to get kmpl multiply mpg by 0.425)

Civic 28/31
Ford Focus 24/26
Corolla 29/32
Mazda 3i 27/30
Suzuki Forenza 24/27 (simialr to Optra except it has a larger engine)
Toyota Yaris 33/34
Accent 27/30 (sold as Verna in India)
Nissan Versa 1.8 28/29

The biggest advantage of AT that I have seen after driving for more than 2000 kms is very little fatigue, greater control, quicker practical acceleration (OK, manuals have a higher theoretical 0-100 km speed but that may require driving in a fuel inefficient manner at high rpm in low gears), no stalling in stop and go, more precise stop and go movement, no need to worry on upward inclines (car does not slide back unlike in manual where it requires a precise application of handbrakes, clutch, brakes, and accelerator). There is also no need to constantly monitor gear and rpm till you reach the overdrive 5th gear, since the AT does it for you.

The biggest thing is fatigue. I drive close to 400 kms a week and am now 40 yrs. Driving 400 kms is more tiring at 40 years of age than at 30-35 yrs!. But that is not the real issue. The real issue is that our mindset is conditioned by poor ATs of yesteryears which were costly, unreliable, and imposed high FE penalties. Most of us never even put an AT as an option to be considered when buying, forget about even test driving. I suggest drive a AT and you may not wish to drive a manual ever again.

Regarding FE, that cost may be a bit too heavy for a compact segment, but does not make sense for midsized and above. For Corolla if I drive for 1500 kms a month, and I consider the bottomline figure of 12 for manual and 10.5 for AT, my actual higher cost (at Delhi petrol rates of 42.85/litre) is only Rs. 800 per month. That is a small price to pay for the infinitely higher driving comfort and other benefits listed above.

At any level of mileage per month, AT makes sense, provided you drive on your own. At lower mileage, the monthly penalty is even lesser. At higher mileage, the fatigue is much less for a slightly higher cost. Ever figured why Americans buy only ATs (or at least more than 90% do). They cannot hire drivers at a reasonable cost, and they drive on an average more than 25000 miles per annum. More than 90% of all road/rail trips in America are made by car. The rest is rail.

Precisely Vasudeva. I think you've hit the nail on the head! Everything boils down to "convenience" at the end of the day. No body (within their own means) minds paying a little extra for convenience.

Which is why in today's evolved market, I think the car manufacturers should sit up and open their eyes and shed the conventional wisdom, and start offering "convenience" to suit everybody's budgets - thereby offering A/T cars in various segments.

regards