[Sheel]

I am not going to contest any one's view but why are eye brows being raised about tire/s? Whenever a track day is organized, it always has one spec tire rule. If Abarth would be faster with better tires, so would be the Figo (with same tires)

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by Vik0728

This test does not prove that Abarth is a lesser hot hatch than a Figo TDCI. I think it only showcases the biggest flaw of the Abarth - Gearbox.

Can you please tell me where it's mentioned in the OD report that the gearbox was the major limiting factor? I'm guessing I missed something.

I can only find the below comment in their report which seems to suggest it's the tyres and the difficulty to put all that power down in corners.

"Around corners, you need to be very patient till you're pointing towards the exit as only then you can step harder on the throttle leading to a quick lap time. One also has to short shift to avoid wheel spin. "

Or is it your own inference from your test drive experience?

Originally Posted by Sheel

If Abarth would be faster with better tires, so would be the Figo (with same tires)

That also depends on what is the major limiting factor during the test. Punto Abarth struggles with stock Alnac 4G itself which is better than JK Vectra. However, Vectra I guess is better than the MRF ZV2K that Figo comes shod with.

Better tyres help both cars in cornering abilities. True. But when it comes to putting all that power down, 145hp would need better tyres than 100hp. The OD report does suggest they had to slow down in the Abarth due to the tyres.

That said, I agree it's a standard practice to go with same tyres.

[Vid6639]

In the earlier days of Team-BHP these track tests would be the talk of the town. We would debate and argue on the timings and figure out which car did better in what sector of track. We would look at the videos and analyze where the car lost time or gained time. Discussions would be on power to weight ratio which is why the Baleno posted such good numbers.

It's quite surprising that nowadays the discussion is whether such a track test served any purpose and that the test is meaningless in real world. And actual doubts on the way the test was conducted. Having the same tyres is usually the ideal leveler in any sort of scientific test.

To answer the questions on how it's applicable in the real world. This is how a car behaves at the limit. While you may not experience this on your daily drive but any driving enthusiast will want to know how the car handles at the limit. These situations even occur during an emergency and it is what catches a driver out cause he doesn't know the car at the limit.

Most of the points put up in that article, I can correlate with as you can see those traits in a car when you drive them outside the city on highways or on ghat roads or on single lane state highways.

The Abarth while shows a lot of stiffness in daily usage, actually suffers from body roll as the stiffness is only initially and once the heavy weight loads the suspension, the car actually rolls and you can see the weight transfer very clearly in the videos. The Abarth appears to have a very long travel suspension to aid ground clearance and this makes the weight move around a lot when cornering hard. This also means the car will not be stable under braking.

The Polo is definitely setup on the softer side and again due to additional weight this will impact the time especially over chicanes which require quick direction changes. How the car shifts weight and how quickly it recovers is important not just on track but when doing an emergency/evasive swerve on the highway. If you swerve too much and your car is not good at changing directions you are looking at an intimate relationship with the divider. Also, the DSG downshift issue is very very noticable for anyone who drives aggressively, the Polo's gearbox is tuned conservatively for reliability and will not give an aggressive downshift to reduce the drivetrain stress. This is very very noticeable in the ghat sections where you approach a turn and the gearbox is in 3rd but you want second for getting more momentum. The DSG will refuse 2nd if you are carrying more speed and will only give you the shift till you slow down to a lower rpm in third.

The baleno timings are expected cause of the lighter weight. A light weight car is the ideal track tool as it behaves the best when changing directions. Since there's lesser mass that moves, the car will be fun to throw around the turns. Even the sentre of gravity is low in the Baleno and it has a long wheelbase. Ofcourse the suspension needs to be setup well which is the case with the Baleno.

The Elite i20 came as a surprise as it was the most dull to drive on road but did respectably on the track.

The Jazz engines let it down big time more than the chasis setup. The chasis is not that bad but the Jazz is also severely under tyred vs the others in the interest of efficiency.

The Figo. Well I guess this is the surprise of the bunch. We knew it was quick but didn't think it would dislodge the Polo GT and the Abarth Punto. Ford's chasis eve though Figo is softened down big time vsthe older one still holds good and outright grunt from a 1.5L engine helps put the power down. Plus it's lighter than the Abarth and Polo which helps in direction changes.

These tests were something we loved in the earlier days.

[Rahulkool]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

The Abarth while shows a lot of stiffness in daily usage, actually suffers from body roll as the stiffness is only initially and once the heavy weight loads the suspension, the car actually rolls and you can see the weight transfer very clearly in the videos. The Abarth appears to have a very long travel suspension to aid ground clearance and this makes the weight move around a lot when cornering hard. This also means the car will not be stable under braking.

Abarth has very short suspension travel not long, please drive the car once and you will feel what i am talking about. Body roll is less than many new hatchbacks.

I don't feel the need to comment on the track test, the last track test winner was "Honda CRV". There is a lot of money involved in these tests and so called car of the year awards.

Edit: here i am not implying that figo is slower or faster, i don't believe in these magazine results. when you go for sponsors and your magazine is filled with ads, its impossible to be non biased.

[neoonwheels]

Originally Posted by Sheel

I am not going to contest any one's view but why are eye brows being raised about tire/s? Whenever a track day is organized, it always has one spec tire rule. If Abarth would be faster with better tires, so would be the Figo (with same tires)

Why have track test if you can not utilize the potential of the car? Any normal road test would not matter much as far as tyres are concerned but then when you talk about the handling of a car, would it not make sense to have better tyres or at least the ones which the manf has used?

[Lalvaz]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

The Abarth while shows a lot of stiffness in daily usage, actually suffers from body roll as the stiffness is only initially and once the heavy weight loads the suspension, the car actually rolls and you can see the weight transfer very clearly in the videos. The Abarth appears to have a very long travel suspension to aid ground clearance and this makes the weight move around a lot when cornering hard. This also means the car will not be stable under braking.

These tests were something we loved in the earlier days.

What's the basis of these statements that the car will not be stable under braking? My experience has been totally contrary to that statement.

The Team BHP review says that the Punto Abarth has a stiff suspension. http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/test-d...ml#post3832998

To quote from the review "Ride and Handling

Handling has further been enhanced by lowering the ground clearance by 30 mm and the stiffer suspension set up ensure the ride is flat and is confidence inspiring. Be it lane changes or taking a corner aggressively the car does not feel unsettled. However, the tyres start to squeal and begs for mercy. Upgrading to a sticky rubber will enhance the excellent handling even further. Even with the stiff suspension set up, the ride is quite flat and not too harsh. At low speeds the ride feels a little stiffer, but this is a compromise to have the ride brilliant at higher speeds. People familiar with the Expressway (if one can call it that way) to Bangalore International Airport, there are a couple of places with nasty undulation which can unsettle the ride. Punto Abarth handled this comfortably and stayed predictable. Even with the lower ground clearance, the stiff suspension ensured the underbelly did not scrape anywhere. The steering feedback from the hydraulic unit is precise, sharp, keeps you connected to the road by providing ample feedback and the steering feels nice to use.

The brakes were always a strong point of the Punto Evo, but the all wheel discs on the Punto Abarth (285mm front and 252 mm rear) takes it to a higher level. The strong brakes provides sufficient bite and slows the car down rapidly from speeds over 150 kmph."

This again is totally contrary to what you've stated above.

And these tests just seem so unbelievable that its hard to swallow. Thats why people are questioning these results. To me its bunkum.

[Rahulkool]

Originally Posted by ajaypjayaraj

I think this is the kind of test which would show the real world capabilities of a car which has to be driven on mostly 2 lane roads, no road sense traffic everywhere, even the 1 stretch of 4 lane highway filled with mad traffic, etc. All of the above deacribes the roads in Gods own country. A drag race test means nothing on the roads here because you almost never get such a space. A normal hatch back can keep a premium sedan much above by price/power/class etc. very much at sight when on such roads. That is when a customer feels betrayed going by the specs on sheet. Where as this test with twisties requiring frequent braking and down shifts shows very well what you can expect in real world scenario mentioned above. Numbers and drag races speak what the car is capable of, given you have the space/roads to unleash its potential. Apart from express ways and 4-6 lane highways, which many of us are not frequent on, those numbers and specs can be deceiving. If there is one thing this test proves, I think this is it.

Brand biased arguments rather than seeing the point.. endless and useless IMO.

In a 2 lane road with curves will be perfect for high revving petrol engine with wide spread power band. Not a diesel engine which has power in very narrow range. The latter will work out better in drag races.

[ajaypjayaraj]

Originally Posted by Rahulkool

I don't know about you but in a dual lane road with curves will be perfect for high revving petrol engine with wide spread power band. Not a diesel engine which has power in very narrow range. The latter will work out better in drag races.

I dont know about where you live, but here the roads are filled with mad traffic almost always (Cars have multiplied for decades when the roads remained same). And if the roads were empty, you don't need even dual lanes for all that you said.

What I meant is, with the kind of traffic and the roads we have here, this test gives a better idea. Totally different from what the spec sheet might tell you, which is what has happened.

[Rahulkool]

Originally Posted by ajaypjayaraj

I dont know about where you live, but here the roads are filled with mad traffic almost always (Cars have multiplied for decades when the roads remained same). And if the roads were empty, you don't need even dual lanes for all that you said.

What I meant is, with the kind of traffic and the roads we have here, this test gives a better idea. Totally different from what the spec sheet might tell you, which is what has happened.

Even i am talking about the same not the empty road with no traffic. I am sure people may have difference preferences but high revving petrol should be the choice in these conditions. I am talking about 2 lane highways, i guess you are talking about city traffic now ?

You mean to that the track test and the traffic condition we have are similar ? I disagree here, have driven few times on the track and it does not feel similar at all.

Please do a google and check what kinds of cars/engines are suitable to track and which kind for drag. What you are saying is exactly opposite.

[heydj]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

It's quite surprising that nowadays the discussion is whether such a track test served any purpose and that the test is meaningless in real world.

Either there is lot more cynicism these days or internet has made everyone such a expert that they can professionally claim this test to be questionable.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

This again is totally contrary to what you've stated above.

I don't think Tbhp reviews are done under such conditions where car is driven to maximum limit or breaking point, instead the review gives good indication of how car will behave for mass market.

In such a case it is quite possible both the Tbhp review about handling and points given above can coexist.

[kiku007]

If OD's conclusion that the Figo was 0.1 seconds wasn't enough controversy, I see amusing conclusions that a properly tuned turbo diesel can take on performance petrols

I'll wait till the day all race/rally/touring champion cars, supercars and hypercars replace their "performance petrols" to "properly tuned turbo diesels" because apparently as per this thread turbo diesels are better in,

1.) Two lane highways
2.) Criss crossing traffic
3.) Kari speedway
etc..

I also hope people understand that when a standard/uniform brand (in this case) of tires is used, it could be an upgrade from OEM for a car while it could be a downgrade for another car.

The Figo TDCi, Polo TSi and the Abarth Punto T-Jet are all good pocket rockets for around a million rupees. Internationally it will be a joke to call them hot hatches. Each of them have their achilles heel. Figo lost the driving dynamics the Fiesta had; Polo could do with some more power and provide some steering feedback; Abarth Punto needs a functional gearbox.

Just because some biased magazine stirs a controversy, we don't have to encourage this any further by defending our respective preferences and going offensive against the other cars.

And if it helps, add a poll to ask if people have doubts on the credibility of this so called track test.

[ajaypjayaraj]

Originally Posted by Rahulkool

Even i am talking about the same not the empty road with no traffic. I am sure people may have difference preferences but high revving petrol should be the choice in these conditions. I am talking about 2 lane highways, i guess you are talking about city traffic now ?

You mean to that the track test and the traffic condition we have are similar ? I disagree here, have driven few times on the track and it does not feel similar at all.

Please do a google and check what kinds of cars/engines are suitable to track and which kind for drag. What you are saying is exactly opposite.

Err.. lets not google around and make it a typical quote vs quote argument please!

I am not at all interested in diesel vs petrol or track vs road race argument. OD test came out with some results. My comment was based on that. If you doubt the credibility of the results, that is a different matter altogether.

This track, as mentioned by many, is short not giving much chance for the cars to stretch its legs. It has turns that demand frequent gear changes/acceleration/braking. Drive on a 2 lane road with twists and mad traffic and you will be working the stick and pedals pretty much as frequently (during spirited driving). That is what I said. What "opposite" are you referring to?

I never said I believe diesel is better than petrol. I just said this test gives a better idea of real world situation (which I have explained above). You are arguing about the result. I'm also surprised to see it but sorry, I wasn't the judge in that test. So please save those arguments. I have only seen the results just like you.

[reignofchaos]

These overdrive track tests have a tendency to be biased towards Ford.

I remember the Fiesta S being 2 seconds faster than the Cedia and Civic in their track test once. When I actually test drove the Fiesta S, I was underwhelmed pretty badly. In fact an owner of a Fiesta S himself mentioned after driving a Cedia that the latter can no way be slower than a Fiesta on track. The power and torque difference was just way too much. Its not a direct comparison but the tuned Cedias in INRC were around 3-4 minutes faster than the tuned Fiestas over stages. That says enough about the real world performance.

Its the same story this time as well - A 100HP diesel with a dead steering and so so chassis beating a 145HP track tuned performance petrol by 0.1s. I'd take it with a pinch of salt. I recently drove the Figo and to be honest, after driving the GT TSi, it was rubbish.

[keroo1099]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

It's quite surprising that nowadays the discussion is whether such a track test served any purpose and that the test is meaningless in real world. And actual doubts on the way the test was conducted. Having the same tyres is usually the ideal leveler in any sort of scientific test.

To answer the questions on how it's applicable in the real world. This is how a car behaves at the limit. While you may not experience this on your daily drive but any driving enthusiast will want to know how the car handles at the limit. These situations even occur during an emergency and it is what catches a driver out cause he doesn't know the car at the limit.

Sure, it's lovely to know what the car can do at the limit, but how often are you going to be driving at the limit in actual driving conditions. These test make more sense for roads like the Autobhan/Autostade where you can legally drive the car close to the limit. It would be crazy to try and drive at those speed in India, even on our so called expressways.

I too, like driving fast, but I have never exceeded what I felt is my 'limit' on that particular car.

I don't think you meant it, but your statement actually promotes driving faster to explore those limits, and that then becomes a very dangerous tool in the hands of an average driver on today's Indian roads.

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by Rahulkool

Abarth has very short suspension travel not long, please drive the car once and you will feel what i am talking about. Body roll is less than many new hatchbacks.

I haven't driven the Abarth Punto like it should be driven but I agree it's a very stiff setup when driving on street roads. However take a look at the video they have on the TV show.

The Abarth shows a lot of body roll and a LOT of suspension travel. It looks nothing like a short suspension travel. Under braking there was dive and you could see daylight when it was cornering between the wheel and body.

It's stiff initially but looks like it really starts moving when you load up the suspension with the cars weight on heavy cornering.

Originally Posted by Lalvaz

What's the basis of these statements that the car will not be stable under braking? My experience has been totally contrary to that statement.

The Team BHP review says that the Punto Abarth has a stiff suspension. http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/test-d...ml#post3832998

To quote from the review "Ride and Handling

Thanks for pointing me to the review which I am aware of. We didn't test the car on a track. We drove it on the road. I clearly mentioned in my earlier post that there is initial stiffness which gets soft as you push the car to the limit. Just mentioned the same in the above para as well.

I'm going by the OD video since I haven't driven the Punto on track myself.

On street roads teh Punto is still going to be unbeatable but you can clearly see in that video that the car had body roll issues on that track.