[frozen.ash]

Good to see an RS attempt by Honda for India after quite a bit of time. I do hope this rumor turns out to be true. Though the speculated engine specs would mean they would have made much more sense in an Amaze RS or a Jazz RS


Honda is known for desirable and insanely powerful variants in foreign markets, but has been in general playing it safe when it comes to launching sporty variants in India, though there may have been quite a few models over the years where we could have had some drool-worthy options (for Eg: A Brio RS may have been a good proposition probably a decade ago, or for now a Civic Type R in the Octavia vRS segment, not to sell too many, but just to make things interesting for the brand image maybe?)

Instead, there were a few half-hearted attempts that did not go as well as hoped by the company. Remember the Mobilio RS? The company had maintained the same powertrain and chassis, added a bit of sporty kit, and expected to pass it off as a sports variant. (If I wear a football jersey, I will not become a football player)

[blueeyed]

Originally Posted by akshay386

Let me put in this way,

2) 3 Cylinder = 1 less cylinder which means less moving parts - reduced manufacturing cost which required for key components like piston,connecting rod etc. - reduced cost of engine - reduction in weight of the engine as well

Agree with you on the first point. Stricter emission norms are the main driving force behind the engine downsizing trend. But IMHO, car companies are not saving much in terms of cost incurred by this process.
For example the current trend of 1L engines in question are all with,
1. Turbocharger
2. Direct Injection
3. Variable valve timing
4. And due to the added boost pressure and all, with stronger/heavier engine block, manifolds etc.

So, actually the companies are spending more in terms of R&D and manufacturing of these newer downsized and powerful engines. I don't think they are saving much here, at least in the short term. This is my viewpoint and if anybody else has any insights please do pitch in.

[PrideRed]

Originally Posted by blueeyed

So, actually the companies are spending more in terms of R&D and manufacturing of these newer downsized and powerful engines. I don't think they are saving much here, at least in the short term. This is my viewpoint and if anybody else has any insights please do pitch in.

Probably 1.0L is where manufacturers break even. 1.0L have comparable(or more) fuel efficiency to that of 1.5L mill and offer better performance, all at possibly at similar cost. A 1.2L Turbo or a 1.5L turbo will make it pricier. They might not be saving but with same money they can claim better everything!

[sidindica]

The City RS 1.0 Turbo CVT does 0-100 in 8.64s. It can easily annhilate the verna DCT.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ixw7uBZQ2KQ

[Morpheus83]

Mod Note : Please do NOT post messages that add little or no informational value to the thread. We need your co-operation to maintain the quality of this forum. We advise you to read the Forum Rules before proceeding any further. Request to post ONLY when you have something substantial to add to a discussion.

[alikidwhy]

As much as I’d love to own the turbo city, it practically serves no purpose. The NA engine produces 118 bhp and the Turbo produces 120 bhp, a mere 2 bhp increase.

If Honda India were serious, they’d plonk the 1.5 NA across the lineup in cars like Jazz and Brv.

Of course the engine capacity goes down from 1.5 to 1.0 but the introduction of a turbo means most of the power in the power band of the turbo and not exactly a rev free engine, add to that the cost of replacing a turbo in the future and any other unforeseen expenses.

A turbo that puts out AT LEAST 150 bhp is what this deserves imho.

[EuroMachine]

Stonker of an engine should be married to a car with strong dynamics. The main reason Honda City has a fan base is because of the IVTEC engine.

Will this 1L turbo engine draw the enthusiast away from the Germans, I don't think so.
Will a petrol sedan buyer pay a premium to the already expensive City, again no is my guess.

[Storm2.0]

Originally Posted by sidindica

The City RS 1.0 Turbo CVT does 0-100 in 8.64s. It can easily annhilate the verna DCT.

Guys do you notice one thing, the redline is marked from as low as around 5800 onwards.
Why is it so less that too for a Honda petrol engine?

[Nazaar25]

Originally Posted by sidindica

The City RS 1.0 Turbo CVT does 0-100 in 8.64s. It can easily annhilate the verna DCT.

The way Honda has tuned the CVT on the new City (even with the 1.5l iVTEC) is just fantastic.
I never thought a 1l turbo+a CVT box could propel the City from 0 to 100 in just 8.64 seconds!
Honda should offer a proper RS variant with the smashing red shade, blacked out grille and ORVMs, stiffer springs, wider rubber, all black interiors, this 1L turbo engine mated to the well tuned CVT or a manual box to keep the City on top in every enthusiast's list

[sidindica]

Originally Posted by alikidwhy

As much as I’d love to own the turbo city, it practically serves no purpose. The NA engine produces 118 bhp and the Turbo produces 120 bhp, a mere 2 bhp increase.

If Honda India were serious, they’d plonk the 1.5 NA across the lineup in cars like Jazz and Brv.

Of course the engine capacity goes down from 1.5 to 1.0 but the introduction of a turbo means most of the power in the power band of the turbo and not exactly a rev free engine, add to that the cost of replacing a turbo in the future and any other unforeseen expenses.

A turbo that puts out AT LEAST 150 bhp is what this deserves imho.

Have you forgotten something which turbo engines offer-stupendous mid range torque. And only for India, why would Honda make a 150 bhp turbo city? under 9s is a LOT fast. Verna/vento/Rapid too offer 1.0 with similar power/torque figures. And if you are more concerned about turbo replacement that car is not meant for you. I drive a turbo petrol hatch and don't regret going turbo at all. Turbos are the future and they are here to stay. haven't seen any premature turbo replacements on any mass market petrol turbos till date.

[vipul_singh]

Originally Posted by EuroMachine

Will this 1L turbo engine draw the enthusiast away from the Germans, I don't think so.

What sales numbers do the Germans have in this segment to draw people away from, in the first place?

Also, I used to be a Euro car fan when I was younger. But all that went out of the window when I moved from driving the Palio GTX to the Jazz (yes, the 1.2 with 89 bhp). The dynamics were significantly better in the Jazz, compared to the Palio and the Ford Figo which I also have experience with.

More relevant to the current thread, I expect this turbo City to properly thrash the Euro competition in track tests, again.

Also, chasing after Euro car problems gets old, really quick. For people like me, the turbo City is surely relevant.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by vipul_singh

What sales numbers do the Germans have in this segment to draw people away from, in the first place?

Vento and Rapid combo sells in decent numbers, especially considering the decade old platform.

Here are the numbers for full year 2019 -

1. Ciaz - 29,706 units.
2. City - 28, 696 units.
3. Verna - 28,190 units.
4. Vento + Rapid - 9751 + 5606 = 15,357 units.

Originally Posted by sidindica

The City RS 1.0 Turbo CVT does 0-100 in 8.64s. It can easily annhilate the verna DCT.

Brilliant. This engine could have totally made a drastic difference with respect to the 4th generation.

[PrideRed]

Originally Posted by vipul_singh

What sales numbers do the Germans have in this segment to draw people away from, in the first place?

Also, I used to be a Euro car fan when I was younger. But all that went out of the window when I moved from driving the Palio GTX to the Jazz (yes, the 1.2 with 89 bhp). The dynamics were significantly better in the Jazz, compared to the Palio and the Ford Figo which I also have experience with.

Interesting, all over the old gen Figo and Punto were benchmark when it comes to handling. Palio too was quite fun! Jazz is more comfortable but I don't think is as much fun to drive. Jazz scores on other points - space, reliability, smoothness etc.

[GBX]

Originally Posted by sidindica

The City RS 1.0 Turbo CVT does 0-100 in 8.64s. It can easily annhilate the verna DCT.

A 1L CVT breaking into the 8s? This has officially piqued my interest. Are you sure it's stock?

Originally Posted by alikidwhy

A turbo that puts out AT LEAST 150 bhp is what this deserves imho.

One advantage of a turbo is that, it's much easier to get more power out of it. Whether aftermarket or by the manufacturer themselves, they will steadily escalate the power figures over time. The real limitation will be the gearbox.

Originally Posted by Storm2.0

Guys do you notice one thing, the redline is marked from as low as around 5800 onwards.
Why is it so less that too for a Honda petrol engine?

For a Honda, yes. For a turbo, it's par for course.

Honestly though, it shouldn't really matter. You're not likely to be in the lower half of the rev range when driving spiritedly. In all likelyhood the useable range of a high revving engine will be the same or less than a turbo engine when driven at speed.

[vipul_singh]

Originally Posted by PrideRed

Interesting, all over the old gen Figo and Punto were benchmark when it comes to handling.

Would post a detailed 5 year review on my GK Jazz soon to cover this topic more fully (165k KMs on the Palio and 45k on the Jazz), but my impression of the GK Jazz and its derivative - the City - is that these cars have much better handling acumen that they are generally given credit for.