re: 4th-gen Honda City : Official Review Quote:
Originally Posted by B747 If you cant find any quality issues then I can confidently say that you have not checked other cars like Rapid/Vento/Verna. Please note that I did not say that it has serious issues but Honda quality is no where to be seen.
As I said earlier we have 2nd gen city in my family (uncle is still using it) and those days Honda was upmarket compared to other brands like Maruti/Hyundai but that is not true any more. |
I did check out Rapid and Vento. I did not check out the Verna as I rejected it outright for the Back-seat space. I am 6'3" and I position my driving seat all the way back and with that position I do not see a good enough space behind for another tall person to sit. An owner of Verna did acknowledge the same when he compared it with the current City back to back.
With regards to Rapid and Vento, I was looking for a Petrol car right from the start. Although Rapid and Vento are pretty sturdy as compared to City and Verna, but the FE part, the high maintenance cost, horrible after sales service etc. kept me away from both these cars. The huge floor-hump on the back-seat is a huge turn-off. I had checked out the third gen city when it was still available and it had the same story as that of Verna.
To put into perspective if people do not expect such quality lapses from Honda, how do people accept such huge floor hump from a manufactures whose Sister company is of the likes of BMW and others. I do not expect such things from the VW group. So for me Vento & Rapid did not qualify.
The Skoda and the VW Sales guys kept on pestering me with calls and offering all sorts of discounts and stuff just to try and get me to book their car. Why? Because they are not selling. Quote:
Originally Posted by B747 As you said we never expected this from Honda, a brand which is considered upmarket. If a segment lower car like Swift gives better tyres then defintely it is a concern (at least for me & my friend), are you saying that wider tyres are of no use? |
I think somebody else on the forum has already put up the same views as mine. Yes. It is not expected from Honda for such quality lapses. Well it goes the same for others too. And finally a person buying a car would look at it from the overall package and not on certain points.
For the tyres, I look at it this way. Honda has designed the car and they know it more than anyone else does as to what tyres should be good enough. We upgrade the tyres because we want to travel at higher speeds and hence want more stability. Our Highways have a max. speed limit of 80 Kmph and only in a few cases it is upto 100 Kmph and nowhere above that. Considering these legal speed limits, Honda has given the 175s.
Is it wrong on Honda's part? Definitely not.
There are a lot of BHPians driving with the stock 175s and have not reported any problems on the same and are pretty happy with the performance of the stock tyres too. Quote:
Originally Posted by B747 Definitely agree, diesel engine of Verna is very refined compared to I-DTEC, we did not do TD of petrol so I cannot comment on that. As you said many people go for it blindly and they should drive Verna/Rapid/City back to back to see the difference. |
Again, if you look at the Ownership reports of a lot of BHPians, they haven't gone blindly for City. They have seen and driven the likes of Verna/Rapid/Vento. But at the end the decision is always based on the Overall package that one is getting. |