[JayPrashanth]

They've forgotten the Fiesta Facelift with its ARAI certified 25.01 Kmpl. :-P

Cheers,

Jay

[DCEite]

Originally Posted by msdivy

The engine is same in City & Amaze. But city scores even with more kerb weight. Interesting

Same goes with Xcent and Grand.

But in that case i guess its the more aerodynamic shape of the Xcent that is the reason.

[thoma]

But I would like someone to actually carry out a massive FE reality test among the best rated. For those who are not into FE wars, why do we have to shun away from the FE costs when all other costs are paramount to us?

[a4anurag]

Originally Posted by msdivy

The engine is same in City & Amaze. But city scores even with more kerb weight. Interesting

The Amaze is a 5-speed whereas the City is a 6-speed so the gearing is take hence the vehicle will be more relaxed hence fuel efficiency will be better.

Anurag.

[dass]

No Maruthi car in the top 10, that is very surprising for a company whose tag line for advertising has always been "Kitna deti hai". It would be interesting to see what they come back with.

On a side note, interesting to see the term gasoline in the list, I hope the reader is not confused with the autogas/cng for no one I know of has ever used the term gasoline for petrol in India in a long long time.

[gops2009]

Dear Bhpian's, I have a Corolla Altis 1.8G 2010 model, of late I find that on highways with a load of 4 adult passengers and maintaining the revs below 3k I have the average FE being shown as 15.3 - 15.7 Kmpl. However, the ARAI figures are something like 14.4 KMPL. My query is , is it possible that the onboard computer calculation is wrong? How does the onboard system calculate average fuel consumption? Could anybody throw some light on this aspect please. I have not cross checked this with the traditional tank full to tank full methodology, but to be frank I'm pleasantly surprised with the efficiency.

[arnabchak]

Originally Posted by gops2009

Dear Bhpian's, I have a Corolla Altis 1.8G 2010 model, of late I find that on highways with a load of 4 adult passengers and maintaining the revs below 3k I have the average FE being shown as 15.3 - 15.7 Kmpl. However, the ARAI figures are something like 14.4 KMPL. My query is , is it possible that the onboard computer calculation is wrong? How does the onboard system calculate average fuel consumption? Could anybody throw some light on this aspect please. I have not cross checked this with the traditional tank full to tank full methodology, but to be frank I'm pleasantly surprised with the efficiency.

ARAI for Wagon R CNG is 26.2 kms/kg.

I have got averages of 30+ kms/kg in many of my highway trips.

Your On board computer is not doing a miscalculation.

The MIDs takes an instantaneous average(some new cars have this on as a representation in the console board like the City) and an average based on the fuel vs teh kms traveled. Option 2 is based on sensor inputs derived from the fuel in the tank.

Some error can be expected arising out of air trapped in the tank, moisture or sensor float.

[gops2009]

Originally Posted by arnabchak

ARAI for Wagon R CNG is 26.2 kms/kg.

I have got averages of 30+ kms/kg in many of my highway trips.

Your On board computer is not doing a miscalculation.

The MIDs takes an instantaneous average(some new cars have this on as a representation in the console board like the City) and an average based on the fuel vs teh kms traveled. Option 2 is based on sensor inputs derived from the fuel in the tank.

Some error can be expected arising out of air trapped in the tank, moisture or sensor float.

Hi Arnab, in that case why would any manufacturer quote a lower number as the ARAI figure, given the Indian penchant for Kitna Deti Hain?? Maybe the ARAI figures are derived by extrapolating the distance travelled using 100ml under test conditions. Would that be a reason?

[arnabchak]

Originally Posted by gops2009

Hi Arnab, in that case why would any manufacturer quote a lower number as the ARAI figure, given the Indian penchant for Kitna Deti Hain?? Maybe the ARAI figures are derived by extrapolating the distance travelled using 100ml under test conditions. Would that be a reason?

Dear Gops

FE is a very subjective term that people tend to take very seriously.

Do you remember a bike named Centra by TVS.
It had claimed very high mileage of 100 kmpl where in in real time, it delievred a more than decent 65-70 kmpl. But it flopped miserably.

One of the main reasons was its "poor mileage".

Manufacturers are wary as far as FE is concerned. HEnce, at times the real time mileage may be actually more than the published mileage.

Also, ARAI is a sort of average mileage which is normally much higher than the actual mileage you will get.

Eg. Lets take my example of a month of my Mileage.
This month included a trip to Vapi.
Highway: 31 Kms/kg
In Vapi City- 23 kms/Kg
In Mumbai-21 kms/kg

My average running per month= 2000 kms.

Hence, lets do a quick calculation

Vapi and Back = 310 kms= 10 kgs
City= 100 Kms= 4.34 kgs
Mumbai= 1590= 75.71 kgs

Total Kms= 2000
Total Kgs= 90.05
Average=2000/90.05= 22.21 kms/kg

[SR-71]

Reviving an old thread... Where do we find the ARAI ratings for the cars; rating like laden and unladen ground clearance, fuel efficiency etc. It doesn't seem to be readily available in their Neanderthal website.