[vishalchaudhary]

Originally Posted by kpzen

Interesting thread !

Hyundai Getz Crdi - 110 bhp/ 240 Nm
Ex showroom (July 2008) - 5,45,000/-
Rs/ BHP - 4,954/-
Rs / Nm - 2,270 /-

Pete'd - 130 bhp/ 285Nm
Ex showroom + petes- 5,70,000/-
Rs / BHP - 4,384 /-
Rs/ Nm - 2,000 /-

Ford Figo - 68 BHP
Ex showroom (Nov 2012) - 5,89,000
Rs/ BHP - 8,661 /-

Your Ex-showroom price for Getz CRDi was our on-road price.

Originally Posted by Marauder

Actually my point was more to do with the lower power figures we see nowadays in small cars due to the excise benefits of smaller engines



Apart from that,the cheaper cars will have lower price/bhp ratio as price is not directly related to bhp figures.Even if a Lamborghini was to be made locally,to achieve the price/bhp ratio of the Nano it would need to have around 3500bhp.

I apologize sir, I was just making a joke and now I've understood what you meant when you mentioned deflating BHPs.
But, like a lot of people on the forum know, Getz CRDi is a hot hatch and am just glad that we bought it, and for me it gives the most bang for the bucks among our 3 cars at home.

[VSD]

Seems like an interesting statistic.

Some figures of my cars:

BMW 525d - price 45,00,000/ bhp 204 = 22,058 Rs./bhp
Audi Q5 - 45,21,000/ bhp 175 = 25,834 Rs./bhp
VW Touareg V6 - 48,00,000/ bhp 245 = 19,592 Rs./bhp

[RoadTrippin]

Originally Posted by agambhandari

I Did calculations for these last year and nano comes out on top. Good for cheap thrills then!!

Interesting topic but purely academic, no doubt. Otherwise the Nano would be considered the best VFM car in the market

[blue_pulsar]

I think this thread does not make much sense because:
1. Dynamics matter more than outright power. Classic example: Ritz Vs Swift. Even though both cars have the same engine with same bhp rating and Ritz is cheaper than the Swift, the Swift is way more fun to drive.
2. The higher variants of a car are priced much higher these days because of the safety kit on offer. Going by the logic on this thread, the lower variants are much more bang for the buck, which is not right.

[Santoshbhat]

Originally Posted by blue_pulsar

I think this thread does not make much sense because:
1. Dynamics matter more than outright power. Classic example: Ritz Vs Swift. Even though both cars have the same engine with same bhp rating and Ritz is cheaper than the Swift, the Swift is way more fun to drive.
2. The higher variants of a car are priced much higher these days because of the safety kit on offer. Going by the logic on this thread, the lower variants are much more bang for the buck, which is not right.

As I understand, the purpose of this thread is just to see how much pulling power you get for the money you've paid. In other words - "Bang for your buck" as the title suggests. Not necessarily meaning to say that a car with more horsepower/$ is better than one with lesser horsepower/$.

Based on the few posts on this thread you can easily conclude that Indian horses come cheap, followed by Korean and Japanese horses. German horses are tricky, esp those VAG ones. Those Audi carriages will cost you a bomb. Whereas put the same horses in a Skoda or a VW carriage and what do you get? - Bang for your buck.

Lower variants are certainly more bang for the buck. No safety features = more "bangs" per buck

[FlatOut]

Perhaps (smiles per kilometre)*10000/price would be a good measure of a car's ability to please. Slightly less easily worked out, but possibly more accurate, since plenty of cars with lots of power are pretty boring to drive.

[kbk_75]

Originally Posted by blue_pulsar

I think this thread does not make much sense because:
1. Dynamics matter more than outright power. Classic example: Ritz Vs Swift. Even though both cars have the same engine with same bhp rating and Ritz is cheaper than the Swift, the Swift is way more fun to drive.
2. The higher variants of a car are priced much higher these days because of the safety kit on offer. Going by the logic on this thread, the lower variants are much more bang for the buck, which is not right.

You've completely missed the point if you think this thread has anything to do with what's better or worse. It's just a simple, fun statistic. Obviously more expensive cars are more sophisticated and come with way better suspension, brakes, creature comforts, safety features and what have you, at the cost of being very much more expensive. Also the power to weight metric is your most basic performance indicator, but this thread isn't about any of that! At any rate what matters most is purely subjective and varies from person to person.

Originally Posted by Santoshbhat

As I understand, the purpose of this thread is just to see how much pulling power you get for the money you've paid. In other words - "Bang for your buck" as the title suggests. Not necessarily meaning to say that a car with more horsepower/$ is better than one with lesser horsepower/$.

Based on the few posts on this thread you can easily conclude that Indian horses come cheap, followed by Korean and Japanese horses. German horses are tricky, esp those VAG ones. Those Audi carriages will cost you a bomb. Whereas put the same horses in a Skoda or a VW carriage and what do you get? - Bang for your buck.

Lower variants are certainly more bang for the buck. No safety features = more "bangs" per buck

Exactly

[JishD]

Ecosport Ambiente Petrol

Price : 5.59 L
Bhp : 109
Price/bhp : 5128


Nano Beater 2005 Accord V6 used

Price : 3.5 L ( good condition, you can get one for <3)
Bhp : 221
Price/bhp : 1583 Insane !

[reignofchaos]

My two cars

Cedia 830k, 115bhp - Rs 7217/bhp
Brio 395k, 87bhp - Rs 4540/bhp

[vkarulkar]

Alto K10 VXi: 68 ps- 338000/- (On road when bought)
So, Its Rs.4970/ps

[honeybee]

Originally Posted by JishD

Nano Beater 2005 Accord V6 used

Price : 3.5 L ( good condition, you can get one for <3)
Bhp : 221
Price/bhp : 1583 Insane !

That ain't fair! You need to only take the ex-showroom or onroad price. A used car price cannot be compared with a new car price.

A Nano which is seven years old will be dirt cheap compared to the Accord, and so it will still beat the Accord.

[puchoo]

Skoda Fabia 1.6
Ex showroom of 600,000

Price per BHP = 5,714

[PlatzdaTurbo]

Originally Posted by kbk_75

Let's start a thread on all the cars available in India to compare price vs power! We are, after all, a bunch of enthusiasts, right?!

On an innovative thread starting spree aren't we Karl ? Nice one though. As far as BHP goes I guess I've paid a heck of a lot per bhp.

19,167/bhp for the A4 3.0 TDi
14,686/bhp for the Laura Lnk
9091/bhp for the Civic in 2006.
You just couldn't start a rupees per NM thread, could you, Mr. M3

[racerdabba]

Interesting Thread.
Lets see what i have here...

Maruti 800 (98 Model- carb)

Price - 1,40,000 ( I bought it Used. Dont have an idea of the price then)
BHP -37
Price/BHP - 3783.7

Added Turbo - 25000
BHP - 57
Price/BHP - 2894

Killing cars four times the price....PriceLess


Apache RTR 160

Price - 59000
BHP - 16.5
Price/BHP - 3575

Race Concepts Full Kit (Big Bore, Carb, exhaust & Cams) - 22000
BHP - 22
Price/BHP - 3681

[saket77]

Maruti Zen

Price: 3,85,000/- (on road price in 2002)
BHP: 60

Price to BHP: 6416