[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by AYP

I wouldn't call a 0-100 timing of 13 sec decent by any standard.

13 seconds is very disappointing and NA petrol territory! I wonder if there has ever been a slower turbo petrol hatchback in the market.

Hoping these rumours are wrong. Tiago JTP had 9.9 seconds to 100, and with not too dissimilar figures (including weight). 9.xx would have set the cat amongst the pigeons, 10.xx would have been very good and 11.xx would have been acceptable.

Originally Posted by RoadMonkey

How many people utilise this 0-100 acceleration in real life? What is it's practical benefit if I may ask?

People who think this way will be happy with the current NA petrol as well.

Whats the point of buying a turbo petrol spending additional money if it doesn't offer a performance advantage?

[museycal]

Originally Posted by DriverNo.420

And what is the meaning of Stable/Unstable body, can anyone explain please.

Slightly OT, but since you asked, I believe the 'Unstable' being referred to here is stability/unstability of the car body shell. IIRC, if in the NCAP test, the car body shell is able to withstand load more than the rated loads of the crash tests, it is rated as 'Stable', vice-versa, the body shell is rated 'Unstable'.

This has no reference to the driving stability that you may be referring to.

[saikishor]

I really doubt if those are the correct 0-100 time figures. A 980-1150kg car with a 110 horsepower engine gives a power to weight ratio of 0.957 per kg(please correct me if I am wrong, calculated these figures on some random website) and does a ton in 13 seconds? It has to be much less than that, maybe around the 10-11 seconds ballpark? If the figures are right, then our 2010 Beat petrol is not far behind the Altroz iTurbo. I would rather wait for a real world review regarding those numbers.

[akhil994]

Originally Posted by DriverNo.420

I will agree to disagree. The i20 is not yet tested and we can't comment wether it is a safe car or not. The way I see, the rear passengers do not have anything in the Atroz to count on should the car impact sideways. If you have the option to get side airbags it will not only increase the safety for the driver, but the car will become far safer for rear passengers, again for a side impact. A car with unstable platform with 9 airbags is unsafe and a car with stable platform with 2 airbags is safe? Where is that written buddy?
And what is the meaning of Stable/Unstable body, can anyone explain ? Kia Seltos is rated unstable yet when I drove it, it felt stable/planted as any other car.

Well until the i20 has been crash tested, it is equally fair to be susceptible about it's crash worthiness as well then, looking at performance of other Hyundai-Kia cars in crash tests.

Of course side and curtain airbags do provide additional protection, but do understand that there are lots of scenarios where the airbags won't inflate since their inflation is dependent on a lot of factors like vehicle speed, place of impact etc. Your only bet in those cases would be if the underlying structure of your car is stable/sturdy or not.

You will never get to know the stability of body structure of a car in everyday driving conditions. It will only become apparent under a crash, when the structure is put under stress due to external forces, by which time it would be too late to realise that the structure of your car is not stable!

[AYP]

Originally Posted by RoadMonkey

I also saw someone mention an Octavia vRS in this context, the only thing is that they cater to completely different markets.

I guess you are referring to me. I compared the VRS to the 1.8 TSI to make a point regarding the difference in acceleration. Of course, the Octavia and the Altroz cater to different markets.

[anshumandun]

Originally Posted by RoadMonkey

How many people utilise this 0-100 acceleration in real life? What is it's practical benefit if I may ask? I feel like we give more importance to this number than we should in daily driver cars. I drive a Polo 1.0 TSI. I love the acceleration, but I also follow safe driving practices on the road and I don't plan on taking it to a track.

I utilize the 0-100 acceleration every time I take my GT TSI on the highway. And I am sure I am not alone because I see a lot of fast cars enjoying the acceleration on the highways. This does not mean that I drive unsafe as I don't drive very fast but the sheer acceleration that pins you to the seat with the aural pleasure of the engine sound combined with DSG gearshifts is something a lot of people enjoy. So if this number of 13sec is true for turbo Altroz, I stand disappointed!

[Napalm]

Originally Posted by DriverNo.420

The way I see, the rear passengers do not have anything in the Atroz to count on should the car impact sideways. If you have the option to get side airbags it will not only increase the safety for the driver, but the car will become far safer for rear passengers, again for a side impact. A car with unstable platform with 9 airbags is unsafe and a car with stable platform with 2 airbags is safe? Where is that written buddy?

There is already a thread on Team-Bhp that goes in extreme details about the crash-safety tests like the Global-NCAP.
https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/road-...bout-ncap.html (NCAP tests: Things to keep in mind as a buyer / misconceptions about NCAP)
Please go through it and you will understand where "The Rationalist" is coming from. The GNCAP also rates whether the body-structure of a vehicle is "stable" or "unstable" for every car it tests and the Seltos was rated "unstable". These are globally accepted scientific tests.

According to GNCAP, if a car's body-shell/structure is rated as unstable, then adding more airbags will not change/increase its safety rating by much. That is the point "The Rationalist" is trying to make here. If you calm down and give it a thought with cool mind, you will understand it.

Please check the "Bodyshell integrity:" in these crash safety test results.
http://www.globalncap.org/wp-content...-factsheet.pdf
http://www.globalncap.org/wp-content...-factsheet.pdf
http://www.globalncap.org/wp-content...dia-Mah300.pdf
http://www.globalncap.org/wp-content...TataAltroz.pdf

The side-impact and side-airbags were mentioned multiple times and I am not sure why. FYI, the Altroz(& XUV300) has been tested for Side-impact (side mobile barrier test at 64Kmph) tests when it was rated as 5-star by GNCAP.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yL1JgzfBvWk

A car needs to clear/pass side-impact tests to get a 5 star rating. So yes, A Seltos (with barely 3 stars GNCAP rating & an "unstable" body structure) with 6 or more airbags is still less safer than another similar car with 5-star GNCAP rating and no side-airbags.

Please note that, we are not saying there wont be any increment in safety when we add side-airbags(it may help slightly in low intensity/speed side-impacts), it just wont be a signification improvement in safety, because once the body shell disintegrates in a crash, airbags are useless.

Originally Posted by The Rationalist

Whether you agree or not won't change facts! As per you if not tested, we can't comment. So the best option would be to assume that a non tested car is safe? There is a reason why Tata and Mahindra voluntarily gave cars for testing and other manufacturers haven't, you don't need to be super intelligent to gauge why!

This is a point that is very difficult to convince people about(and very frustrating too), because many have pre-conceived notions of crash-safety tests like GNCAP, for whatever reasons.

This is in part because of they way car-reviews are done in India, even on Team-Bhp. We call a vehicle well-built or has solid-build quality when its parts/panels are well put together. So people assume that it means its structure is strong. But this has nothing to do with car's structure. It just means that there wont be any panel-gaps or any rattling sounds/vibrations from any parts like doors, hatches or bonnet etc. The reviews mention the ride of the car being stable at high-speeds or bad roads and this misleads people to believe the car's body-shell/structure is stable/strong.

The biggest farce is predicting it by checking the strength/thinkness of door outer panels of the car by pressing them with thumbs and measuring how
much they flex. The main/load-taking structure of a door may not be its outer panel.

We need to avoid these confusions/misleading terms. These are just my opinions and I may be wrong too.

[arpit90]

Any idea if there is gonna be a price hike for the 1.2 Na models? We were planning to book one.

[GTO]

Relax, guys. 0 - 100 in 13 seconds sounds slow, but let's wait for official confirmation from Tata & actual numbers from acceleration tests. End of the day, this is a WhatsApp forward. For what its worth, IIRC, some people had tested the Altroz 1.5L Diesel at ~12.6 to 13 seconds too.

[Nanolover]

Little off topic but please understand that airbags are SRS - supplementary restrain systems. The primary are in fact a strong body shell,seat belts etc. Without primary there is no point to the secondary. If a structure is weak and on impact the steering wheel moves more than a prescribed limit,the dummy or real persons face will not even make proper contact with the airbag resulting in more injuries.

A strong body shell benefits torsional stiffness, ride and handling ,robustness etc ( all other things remaining equal)

[arjab]

0 - 100kmph in 13 seconds is average. The naturally aspirated Swift and Tata's own Nexon is also around that same ballpark figure.
While absolute acceleration may not be indulged in by many, it would help if that 140Nm coupled with some, (hopefully well judged 3rd/4th gear ratios) translates to competitive "roll - on" acceleration timings, particuarly 40-100kmph and 80-100kmph.

Lot of things determine an acceleration test, most importantly the driver!

[RedPhobos]

In real-world driving conditions, 0-100 in 13 seconds may not be a deal-breaker in my honest opinion. What I find really disappointing are the glaring omissions in terms of features, which Tata could have added to make their product better value for money, easier to live with and safer. Knowing the Indian customer and his preference for feature-rich cars and going by what the competition already offers, how could Tata come up short again? I feel they should have better utilised the time they took to launch the turbo variant to actually put in the features they missed out on earlier, apart from an adequately powerful petrol engine. Tilt and telescopic steering wheel, rear cupholders in the armrest, more powerful and modern LED lighting systems for the headlights and the taillights (which are woefully weak) and six airbags are the bare minimum they should have provided. To economise they could have removed the useless driving modes (which no one will use), the silly, over-sized wearable key, the voice alerts and even offer a more basic but better-looking analogue dials on the instrument cluster. The current design looks as if a toddler designed it! Well, I guess people like me will have to wait for Altroz 2.0.

[shaheenazk]

Originally Posted by AYP

I wouldn't call a 0-100 timing of 13 sec decent by any standard.

Absolutely agree. My Indica N.A. petrol manages 0-100 in 12 seconds ! 13 seconds is too slow by any standards for a turbo charger fitted car. The bhp and torque figures too are disappointing.

[Benoit]

When is the turbo variant launch expected? Any announcements or leaks on date? I thought it would be announced this week, but the announcement was for the safari and it simply snatched away the entire focus of the Indian car scene diminishing this(which is kind of obvious though).

[anish5225]

The least they could have done is not to advertise that 0-100 figure in their brochure