[Col Mehta]

Another one spotted, somewhere between Gurugram and Delhi. Looks bold.

https://youtu.be/MiIXGXe9CfU

[ashvek3141]

Originally Posted by Col Mehta

Another one spotted, somewhere between Gurugram and Delhi. Looks bold.

The Youtuber had good chance to capture the Sonet & the Ecosport in a single frame, but he missed it, instead he kept focus on the Sonet itself. Would have given a fair amount of idea how the two compare from the rear.

[Dr.Abhi]

Originally Posted by Col Mehta

Another one spotted, somewhere between Gurugram and Delhi. Looks bold.

...

At .08 mins, sonet looks comparable to Innova passing by but somehow looked smaller to ecosport adjacent to it. A prolonged shot would have been more helpful. But yes, this thing looks purposeful than its cousin, Venue. Had venue been more upright, it would have made stronger case because of its more elegant interiors.

[84.monsoon]

Hi all, any official word on the actual launch date of the Sonet? I am thinking the longer they delay this, the higher they impact sister company Venue's sales. Prospective Venue buyers are bound to wait to find out prices of the Sonet before confirming their purchases. This eventually hurts the overall group's cash flows.

[NFS2024]

Originally Posted by ashvek3141

The Youtuber had good chance to capture the Sonet & the Ecosport in a single frame, but he missed it, instead he kept focus on the Sonet itself. Would have given a fair amount of idea how the two compare from the rear.

It's pretty clear in those couple of seconds that both Innova and Ecosport are taller than Sonet. Can't make out anything else.

[Sebring]

If you go by the Venue, the size is going to be diminutive. I found the space it close to i10 in dimensions. It's a Venue sized mini-SUV isn't it, Or is there something I'm not getting?

Originally Posted by NFS2024

It's pretty clear in those couple of seconds that both Innova and Ecosport are taller than Sonet. Can't make out anything else.

[Col Mehta]

Black GTX+ spotted. The car looks quite imposing but the back seat space seems to be limited. At the same time though, there are a few youtube videos where the rear space, after adjusting the front seat, doesn't look that bad. Guess we all need to see the car in flesh to determine the actual space in the rear seat.

https://youtu.be/anbG-4jC8zU

[Venkatesh]

Kia Sonet Mileage and Acceleration numbers



https://www.rushlane.com/kia-sonet-m...-12372945.html

[jasjotbains]

Originally Posted by Venkatesh

Kia Sonet Mileage and Acceleration numbers
[/url]

The fuel economy drop between the diesel mills is quite drastic (if this rushlane post isn't clickbait) considering the difference in power and torque is minimal AND the AT is a CVT. Isnt VGT supposed to be more economical than the fixed geometry turbine?

[84.monsoon]

Originally Posted by jasjotbains

The fuel economy drop between the diesel mills is quite drastic (if this rushlane post isn't clickbait) considering the difference in power and torque is minimal AND the AT is a CVT. Isnt VGT supposed to be more economical than the fixed geometry turbine?

The Diesel has a torque converter (TC) auto box and not a CVT. However, I agree completely that something does not appear right about these figures. The fuel efficiency of the Diesel AT is quoted as 19kpl while the larger Seltos achieves 18 kpl in real life tests, according to various auto mags. Being a smaller and lighter vehicle, I would have expected the Sonet Diesel Auto to have a 2-3 kpl advantage over the Seltos. The difference between MT and AT also does not look right since the Waste Gate Turbo (WGT) in the manual is very differently engineered compared to the Variable Geometry Turbocharger (VGT) in the auto and technically the VGT should have higher efficiency. The TC box does impose a penalty over the manual, but that should be around 1-1.5 kpl and not more. For example, according to autocar tests, the Seltos Diesel AT has a fuel efficiency of 17.9 kpl while the diesel manual is rated at 19.1 kpl, a difference of 1.2 kpl.

The bigger surprise is the fuel economy difference between the Petrol DCT and Diesel with TC is so less (only 0.7 kpl!) - this is not believable as we all know that in real life conditions, the DCT will fare very poorly in urban driving conditions.For example, the Seltos DCT delivers just 8.5 kpl in city according to Autocar tests. Granted, that is a larger 1.4 L engine, however the behaviour of the smaller 1.0 litre engine is unlikely to be very different because the problem is a small engine size, struggling to move a relatively heavy car with no assistance from the turbo when it is off boost.

[Bibendum90949]

Originally Posted by 84.monsoon

The difference between MT and AT also does not look right since the Waste Gate Turbo (WGT) in the manual is very differently engineered compared to the Variable Geometry Turbocharger (VGT) in the auto and technically the VGT should have higher efficiency. The TC box does impose a penalty over the manual, but that should be around 1-1.5 kpl and not more. For example, according to autocar tests, the Seltos Diesel AT has a fuel efficiency of 17.9 kpl while the diesel manual is rated at 19.1 kpl, a difference of 1.2 kpl.

I own a seltos with TC box. After having driven 15k plus kms, recently I happened to drive my friend's diesel manual Seltos for a fairly long distance. The immediate thing I observed is manual is much more relaxed and smooth while you drive sedately(gears 5 and 6 and in 65-80 kmph range) as against AT diesel. Even engine braking is a tad better with manual(of course with revv limiter in AT, one can't downshift early), I'm comparing downshifts of both in similar speeds. With AT, one feels the in gear tightness a bit more than manual while doing 70-80 kmph. The reason for it could probably be due to the different turbo charger set up

With that kind of smoothness in manual, it's quite impossible to match it's fuel efficiency with an AT, I feel. It's a known fact though.

[volkman10]

KIA SONET bags 9000 bookings. Of-course the numbers could go up or dampened when the car will be launched next month.


Link

[jasjotbains]

Originally Posted by 84.monsoon

The Diesel has a torque converter (TC) auto box and not a CVT.

The TC box does impose a penalty over the manual, but that should be around 1-1.5 kpl and not more.

Yes TC. Thanks for correcting me. Though anything apart from AMT will suffice

The penalty of 2 kmpl is exactly what I see in my i10 4 speed TC vis a vis my i10 MT. 5 kmpl penalty is going to push people away from the AT, since it will drop down to claimed Petrol DCT territory. Seems like a clickbait article to me.

[Behemoth]

The figures for mileage given for the Diesel AT look realistic as it is a higher power and torque engine than the 1.5 D Manual version. You can also see that it does the 0-100 run in 0.5 sec less than the Manual. (normally engines with TC with same power will tend to do it slower than the manual by 0.5-1 sec) so this means that the torque curve and power outputs are quite different from the manual version. Also, a TC gearbox has inherent losses due to the oil turbine and hence there will be a drop in mileage.
In real world conditions, a Diesel Auto engine will still deliver good mileage (13+ in city and 17+ on highways, with a real world average exceeding 14.5+) which is very good. DCT Petrols on the other hand will not deliver more than 10kmpl in real world conditions, even on a small car like the Sonet. In bigger cars like the Jeep Compass (1.4L DCT) the actual mileage owners get is in the range of 7-8kmpl.
The diesel Auto would definitely make sense for anyone who is doing more than 30K kms per year. Anything less than that it may not make as much sense. But what remains to be seen is the price difference between the Petrol DCT auto and the Diesel Auto. If there is not much of a price difference (Like the Seltos), the Diesel Auto may still make sense with even lower running. The 1.5 Diesel engine in the Venue is a gem and has a clean pulling power and is also very refined, and the same engine should be great for the Sonet.

One aspect when comparing Diesel vs Petrol cars to consider is your monthly cash flow.
Say for example a Petrol Auto car costs 13.5 on road and the Diesel Auto costs 14.5 on road and in both cases, you make a down payment of 3.5 lacs and take a loan on the rest. Say your running every month is 2500 kms per month.
(Fuel Cost taken for Petrol 75/L, for Diesel 72/L)

For the Petrol Auto cars with a loan amount of 10 lacs and a 4 year loan & interest rate of 9.8% and with a loan of 10 lacs, your EMI works out to approx 25,300 per month.

Fuel cost for Petrol variant (Mileage estimated :10kmpl): =(75/10)*2500 = 18,750 per month.

Petrol - Total monthly outflow (excluding insurance, service etc) = 44050 per month.

For a Diesel Auto, you take a loan of 11 lacs , with a 4 year tenure and interest rate of 9.8% , your EMI works out to 27,800 per month.
Fuel Cost for Diesel variant (Mileage estimated 15 Kmpl) = (72/15)x2500 = 12,000 per month.

Diesel - Total monthly outflow (excluding insurance, service etc) = 39800 per month.

In this way, the cash outflow of the Diesel variant turns out less than the Petrol variant, if your monthly running is 2500Km (You can change the calculation as per your city fuel rates).

Over an ownership period of say 7 years, you will save (7 years x 12 months x 4250 rs/month) = Rs 357,000 on the running fuel costs.

In terms of resale value, after 7 years, there may be a difference in resale of Diesel vs petrol by around 1 Lac.

Even then a Diesel variant will overall save 2,57,000 over the petrol variant.

(This is an indicative calculation which I have been doing over the years.
To this calculation, if you wish to fine tune, you can also add the service costs, the insurance costs and other costs as applicable)

[Behemoth]

Originally Posted by Behemoth

Over an ownership period of say 7 years, you will save (7 years x 12 months x 4250 rs/month) = Rs 357,000 on the running fuel costs.

Correcting my calculation a bit and adding more details:

For 4 years (during the loan period), the saving is 4 x 12 x 4250 =204,000

Post Loan period (no emi being paid) - 3 years, the saving is 3 x 12 x 6750 = 243,000

So total saving over 7 year period = 204,000 + 243,000 = 447,000

Less Lower resale value diesel of 1 lac = 347,000

Now assuming that you are spending 7k extra per year on the diesel service (Compared to the petrol) so you spend 7k x7 = 49,000 on service extra.

Net saving of diesel vs Petrol car in this scenario: 298,000 Net over 7 years.

These calculations are considering that the Diesel Auto is priced 1 lac more than the Petrol Auto - but in reality they may be very close.

(if we see the Seltos, the prices ex showroom of the GTX Plus DCT Petrol and the GTX Plus D AT are almost same - only 5K difference!)


I expect that they will do the same thing for the Sonet and the price of the Petrol DCT and Diesel AT variants will be almost same. In this scenario, the saving will even be higher. Let's assume then that the prices are same for both variants.

Fuel cost saving over 7 years will be 7 x 12 x 6750 = 567,000
Less Lower resale value diesel of 1 lac = 467,000
Service additional = 49,000

Net saving of diesel vs Petrol car in this scenario: 418,000 Net over 7 years.

This may be the likely scenario in case of the Sonet.

End of the day it will boil down to personal choice - some people like the torquey, punchy nature of the diesel engine while some prefer the high revving linear and less noisy nature of the Turbo Petrol.
Take your pick!

Either way, Kia have come up with a phenomenal value proposition which is going to confuse a lot of buyers! I expect the Sonet to sell close to 12000-15000 cars per month when it settles down and some of these will be at the expense of its elder sibling Seltos too. With the way pre-bookings are going the Sonet could soon rack up a waiting period of 4-6 months.