[mazda4life]

Saw the i20 Active today up close in Trident Hyundai , IMHO, the car is overdone, the car that was on display was chocolate brown in color and the worst offender for me are those circular reflectors on the rear and fuel cap. i20 elite is far more refined and classy.

The plastic cladding across the bottom of the body does not gel well with dark colors, it might look better on a white/lighter color.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by Samurai

I suspect it is more like 7-8cms, you be the judge.

Same wheel on level ground.

Yes, it does look like 7-8 cms. But then, the GC just increased from 170mm to 190mm. That's just a measly 2cm. So what are we missing here?

[dipen]

Originally Posted by Samurai

[center][b]
ARAI stats for the i20 Active are 17.19 kmpl (petrol) & 21.19 kmpl (diesel). That's ~1 kpl lower than the Elite i20.

Actually, the difference is not entirely 1 kmpl between Elite and Active.
The difference between Magna and the Asta versions of the elite itself could be 1kmpl or near as Magna comes with 14 vs 16 inchers on the Asta.

ARAI does not compare variant wise data and Hyundai conveniently could use the Magna for ARAI testing. Its kind of a mid-leading thing but manufacturers use this to their advantage.

Same goes for Swift VXI and ZXI.

[Samurai]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Yes, it does look like 7-8 cms. But then, the GC just increased from 170mm to 190mm. That's just a measly 2cm. So what are we missing here?

GC is merely the distance of the lowest hanging part of underbelly from the ground. You don't really have to lift the whole body to achieve an increase in GC. I won't be surprised if the body was not lifted at all. It could be just an exhaust pipe raised higher to achieve 20mm more minimum distance from ground.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by Samurai

GC is merely the distance of the lowest hanging part of underbelly from the ground. You don't really have to lift the whole body to achieve an increase in GC. I won't be surprised if the body was not lifted at all. It could be just an exhaust pipe raised higher to achieve 20mm more minimum distance from ground.

Actually that is an interesting thought. But, given that the height has increased by a full 5cm (1505mm to 1555mm), which cannot be wholly accounted for by the roof-rails, I guess some jacking up has happened. If not, Active seems to be an Elite with cladding, no cross.

[Speed Pujari]

Originally Posted by Vik0728

..apart from Ecosport (which does not apparently have a hatch form), none of the other "Cross-Over", "Move-Over" or "Roll-Over" look better than their Hatch avatars.

I think its a matter of personal choice as well.
I can be beaten up by a mob for this, I find ecosport the ugliest in this segment. The dimensions looks disproportional and looks like a desperate bid to make a hatch look like a SUV, which it is not apparently. (Though apple to orange comparison of ecosport with Duster does exist in cyberspace)

The only thing I could appreciate about the ecosport is the ecoboost engine.

Coming to the real meaning of cross over; to me the moolah going behind this category should have some value. At least the car should be able to do rural trips seamlessly.

Having said that, I am unable to comprehend how delecate-darling like a Hyundai i20 can be put into that segment. I know multiple cases in my family when their i20 started giving creaking sound once it went over a pothole, or the wheel alignment went for a toss, or generated some issue with the suspension.
Everyone knows that Hyundai cars does not stand the definition of 'Sturdy'.

I don't know who is getting pleased by the non-functional roof-rails. I would rather remove every single non-functional part which is eating up the bhp figures.

As rightly said by GTO, the Active is only a tool to handle supply chain with more gains.

BTW, Hyundai designs are always about inspiration. I always find a loosened originality in their designs. I mean look at the inspired design of flower petal alloy wheel from Avventura.

With that, if we ignore the shortcomings of extremely debatable topic of Fiat, I think Avventura is the best bet as it stands the 'sturdy' definition to core.

And this is what I get reminded of once I see the rear of elite.


source and courtesy
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/iipcache/152702.jpg

and

http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/iipcache/152703.jpg

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by Speed Pujari

I think its a matter of personal choice as well.
I can be beaten up by a mob for this, I find ecosport the ugliest in this segment. The dimensions looks disproportional and looks like a desperate bid to make a hatch look like a SUV, which it is not apparently. (Though apple to orange comparison of ecosport with Duster does exist in cyberspace)

While what looks ugly is "in the eye of the beholder", I would raise my eyebrows if somebody told me that Scarlett Johansson looks ugly.

Now about proportions, what sets apart a SUV from an hatchback is the width to height ratio. Naturally SUVs have a lower width to height ratio compared to a hatch.



As you can see the famed crosses are no better than the hatches, while the Ecosport is closer to the Fortuner and Scorpio.

[Speed Pujari]

Originally Posted by blacksport

While what looks ugly is "in the eye of the beholder", I would raise my eyebrows if somebody told me that Scarlett Johansson looks ugly.

Now about proportions, what sets apart a SUV from an hatchback is the width to height ratio. Naturally SUVs have a lower width to height ratio compared to a hatch.

Attachment 1350910

As you can see the famed crosses are no better than the hatches, while the Ecosport is closer to the Fortuner and Scorpio.

Like I said, personal choice .. Many like the look of i10 and Om Puri .
BTW can we have the same analysis done for LandCruiser, Range Rover and Avventura ?

[kingofmyworld]

Personally I feel the car is over done. The huge round reflector on the rear bumper looks hideous. Front foglamps look too big for the car. They just don't blend in. Those wheels don't look like they're 16" either.

This car looks more like an aftermath product.

[NST440]

Well done Hyundai, you have finally spoiled the looks of your i20 elite and created a crap looking wanna be cross over which looks not only hideous but also resembles a shoddy mod job done by a teenager who have just got his first car.

Don't these manufacturers do some kind of Marketing research of the competitors and their failure. The liva and Cross Polo are live examples of failed concept of adding plastic cladding to the hatch and raising its ground clearance, charging more to fool the customer. But, I guess there shall be some takers for this vehicle as well. The enthusiasts usually stay away from the fragile Hyundai's, the people wanting every gizmo and feature on the planet in a wanna be crossover must already be applauding and getting the financials ready to buy this masterpiece.

[Vigkey]

Originally Posted by dipen

Actually, the difference is not entirely 1 kmpl between Elite and Active.
The difference between Magna and the Asta versions of the elite itself could be 1kmpl or near as Magna comes with 14 vs 16 inchers on the Asta.

ARAI does not compare variant wise data and Hyundai conveniently could use the Magna for ARAI testing. Its kind of a mid-leading thing but manufacturers use this to their advantage.

Same goes for Swift VXI and ZXI.

Hi Dipen, if I were to believe the ex-ARAI engineer, I would have to differ with you regarding the ARAI testing for fuel efficiency. Please refer the post below from a different thread. The poster is an ex-ARAI engineer and he has clearly outlined the procedures followed while testing fuel efficiency of a vehicle. To put it in a simple statement, ARAI uses the heaviest variant to calculate the fuel efficiency (which will be Asta and not Magna). So the ARAI figures we see is based on the top variant. However, the manufacturer has an option to quote the mileage of a lower variant but I dont think they can use the term ARAI mileage for this lower variant mileage calculated.

Originally Posted by Gansbab

Usually a fuel-efficiency test is conjoined with an emission test (UN ECE R83, which is similar to the Indian Regs). The requirements say that the test be conducted on the widest one. If more than 3 options, the test is conducted at the widest minus one tyre.

However, I will go in a bit detail with regards to when you say variant. (Variant is a completely different meaning in type approval, but will not go there). The emission test is conducted on basis of reference weight (Unladen + 100kg). The test is conducted on the vehicle with the highest reference mass. Hence, in your examples, I would assume your top variant would have the highest reference mass (as it would be loaded with goodies). Thus the top version would automatically be selected for the emission test, and thus the fuel-efficiency figures would be quoted from it.

But that would not be the best figure for the manufacturer to quote, so he may want to perform additional test on lighter version to enable him the best figures to quote.

[shankar.balan]

I think the Hyundai I20 Elite and this Active Crossover are lovely cars.
The only things I don't like about them are;
1. Gut-less 1.2 litre petrol engine (in my father's car I always feel like Im running out of breath). Why can't they give us at least the option of the 1.4 litre engine in the MT?
2. Only 2 airbags in the Indian variant whereas the foreign avatars get many
3. Front discs and rear drums - why on earth can't they give us rear discs too?
4. A few more little bells and whistles like Traction Control, ASR, Hill Hold etc would be nice to have.

All in all, the Hyundai I20 Elite looks very stylish and the Active does too - I really love their looks. Very clean styling and definitely worth turning one's head!

[ratangera]

Just wanted to understand etios cross or a i20 active are only for india models, if yes then we not only innovate we force people to innovate as well

[dipen]

Originally Posted by Vigkey

Hi Dipen, if I were to believe the ex-ARAI engineer, I would have to differ with you regarding the ARAI testing for fuel efficiency. Please refer the post below from a different thread. The poster is an ex-ARAI engineer and he has clearly outlined the procedures followed while testing fuel efficiency of a vehicle. To put it in a simple statement, ARAI uses the heaviest variant to calculate the fuel efficiency (which will be Asta and not Magna). So the ARAI figures we see is based on the top variant. However, the manufacturer has an option to quote the mileage of a lower variant but I dont think they can use the term ARAI mileage for this lower variant mileage calculated.

Thank you for the update from ex-ARAI engineer. However I think what manufacturers are quoting is still the ARAI number for the lowest model - Magana/Era. The Asta would surely have slightly lower.

The new Hyundai Elite i20 has an ARAI certified mileage of 18.6kmpl for the petrol and 22.54kmpl for the diesel - both base variants

Source : http://www.zigwheels.com/news-featur...89-lakh/19348/

[CarNerd]

For a lakh more, Hyundai should have given side & curtain airbags along with a touchscreen infotainment system in the Active. Just for the cosmetic changes, I think it is overpriced at the moment. Also, there was an expectation of the 1.0 Turbo engine & Automatic Transmission which Hyundai has skipped again. Maybe it will introduce all of these in the face-lift after 2 years.