[adarsh76]

Originally Posted by tejas08

It's the most famous issue discussed on the 4th Gen Honda City. So I am not the only one suffering from this.

Quite frankly, had I not known that this issue is reported by a lot of BHPians and read about it on Team-BHP, I would not have known the issue myself. Because it's very easy to neglect this sound specially when you drive the car around with your windows rolled and AC on. This problem can be only known if you hear the engine carefully in a noise-free environment or open the hood and listen closely.

Tejas, here is the update on my car for this issue. I noticed this sound probably at around 1000 kms and took to the service center. They replaced the belt and so far my car has crossed about 10200 kms. This sound hasn't resurfaced back till now.

But the interesting part is that, the belt was replaced under warranty. I came to know from the service center that the warranty claim was rejected by Honda and the dealer had to pay for the price of the alternator belt. When I asked the specific reason, the dealer told me that Honda was saying that the belt would have been lubricated or repaired by adjusting the thread instead of straightaway replacing it. I could only tell that if Honda asked my feedback, then I would render my full support to the dealer and tell that replacement was the best option since many users have complained about this. I insisted on re sending it for warranty claim again, not sure if they have done it. Even though I did not spend any money on this, why should the dealer pay for a faulty part from Honda?

Really doubt, what exactly the issue is...is it the belt or some other part?

[tejas08]

Originally Posted by adarsh76

Really doubt, what exactly the issue is...is it the belt or some other part?

The funny part / surprising part in my case was during the first time I had reported this issue.

I reported this issue first during the third free service. They cleaned the belt and gave the car back saying that the problem has been solved. The Invoice Remarks read "Engine Noise checked and found OK'. I was pissed off at that time but kept myself came. The reason for this was, they had washed the car and since the belt was moist, there was no sound.

I took the vehicle back to the ASC couple of days later to report the same sound, this time I kept the engine running and called the service advisor who in turn called a couple of people for reviewing the sound. They clearly heard the sound this time. This was fixed with the SA telling me the Drive Belt replaced. I was surprised to find out about 3 weeks back that the Belt was never replaced at that time. The Remarks in the Invoice read "Drive Belt R&R" which mean removal and refitting.

But to my surprise this had solved the problem. For over 7500 Kms, I did not hear that grinding noise again till after the 1st paid service. The rest of the story I already posted a few posts back.

The replacement of Drive belt was done last monday and the remarks in the Invoice Read "Drive Belt replaced under Goodwill". These words got me so mad, I can't explain through words.

What do the ASC guys mean by Goodwill ? Are they doing charity work for me? That's their job and the car is well under warranty.

[bharatbs]

For the Honda City fog lamps, is OSRAM Night Breaker H11 the correct model to use?

[tejas08]

Originally Posted by bharatbs

For the Honda City fog lamps, is OSRAM Night Breaker H11 the correct model to use?

As far as I rememebr H11 are for the Low Beams only. Fog Lamps have a different bulb. Please go through the Owner's manual. You will find the details of all the different Bulbs required in Honda City for different applications.

[Seran Manian]

Originally Posted by bharatbs

For the Honda City fog lamps, is OSRAM Night Breaker H11 the correct model to use?

I think they are H11for Sure. Volt / Watt rating is 12V / 35W.

[feroz_009]

Originally Posted by adarsh76

Tejas, here is the update on my car for this issue. I noticed this sound probably at around 1000 kms and took to the service center. They replaced the belt and so far my car has crossed about 10200 kms. This sound hasn't resurfaced back till now.

But the interesting part is that, the belt was replaced under warranty. I came to know from the service center that the warranty claim was rejected by Honda and the dealer had to pay for the price of the alternator belt. When I asked the specific reason, the dealer told me that Honda was saying that the belt would have been lubricated or repaired by adjusting the thread instead of straightaway replacing it. I could only tell that if Honda asked my feedback, then I would render my full support to the dealer and tell that replacement was the best option since many users have complained about this. I insisted on re sending it for warranty claim again, not sure if they have done it. Even though I did not spend any money on this, why should the dealer pay for a faulty part from Honda?

Really doubt, what exactly the issue is...is it the belt or some other part?

Adarsh, when I reported this issue last year, they changed pulley idler bearing. TOUCH Wood! The issue never resurfaced again . Drove more than 11000 kms after that.

Due to some technical reasons not able to upload the pic of the bill.

[srameshdelhi]

Tyre Rotation is not only about changing the position. Sometime they reverse the Tyre also, if the wear is more on one direction. In fact I had big arguments with SA for the amount they charge under the head Wheel Rotation, Balancing and Alignment. They took me inside and explained. After that, I found only the Alignment cost is not justified. Outside you can get it at one fourth or half the cost. But Balancing and rotation is best done at the Authorised Service Centres as they do a better job IMHO.

[tejas08]

The car just doesn't stop to surprise me with stuff.

Here's something interesting:

I did a small drive today morning to drop my wifey to the office and come back home. The trip-meter readings were as under:

Start - 310 Kms / 9.9 FE
End - 338.7 Kms / 10.7 FE (Reading taken at the petrol pump before filling the tank. I reset the trip meter A every time I refill.

If you do the math with the above figures, the FE for the trip comes out to a whopping 84.1 Kmpl. I know that's impossible. So I did another calculation considering 10 FE at start and 10.6 FE at the end. (Considering that the FE were near to these numbers which was causing the anomaly).

The FE came out around 30.1. Achievable with the City Diesel definitely on highways. But there's one problem.

Mine's a Petrol City.

To add to certainty of the MID, I checked the amount of petrol that went into the tank till auto cut-off. It was 32.22 Ltrs. (Have the bill with me to confirm) If you look at how much petrol has been consumed with 10.6 FE for 338.7 Kms, its 31.95 Ltrs.

So technically the MID data shown is not wrong. Neither is the total kms for the trip as I had checked it on Google Maps for the distance prior to starting the trip.

Being a public holiday, the traffic wasn't there. About 30% or the regular peak-hour traffic. The trip was mix of 60/40 highway/city. But then again the highways are inside Mumbai city highways.

Can somebody please explain me how I am getting a FE of 30.1 kmpl, when the FE bar was going over 18-20 for the majority of the time.

Also, this is not the first time I have actually used this method to calculate FE of the regular routes I travel on. Till today, I have not come across any absurdity through this calculations.

[Carpainter]

Originally Posted by tejas08

Start - 310 Kms / 9.9 FE
End - 338.7 Kms / 10.7 FE (Reading taken at the petrol pump before filling the tank. I reset the trip meter A every time I refill.

If you do the math with the above figures, the FE for the trip comes out to a whopping 84.1 Kmpl.

I'm sorry but I couldn't understand your calculations. Could you please explain the whole thing.

If I'm not wrong the 10.7 FE is the avg. fuel consumption of your car for 338.7kms of travel as per your MID. In other words, your car has consumed 338.7/10.7=31.7 liters of fuel for 338.7 kms travel which I believe is absolutely normal.

[tejas08]

Originally Posted by Carpainter

I'm sorry but I couldn't understand your calculations. Could you please explain the whole thing.

If I'm not wrong the 10.7 FE is the avg. fuel consumption of your car for 338.7kms of travel as per your MID. In other words, your car has consumed 338.7/10.7=31.7 liters of fuel for 338.7 kms travel which I believe is absolutely normal.

I was doing the FE calculations for the 28.7 kms trip between 310 Kms and 338.7 kms. The logic was getting the total fuel consumed at 310 and 338.7 each. the difference between these total fuel consumption would tell me how fuel was consumed for the 28.7 kms trip between. That way i can calculate the FE for that 28.7 kms trip.

[Cartman]

Originally Posted by tejas08

Can somebody please explain me how I am getting a FE of 30.1 kmpl

Same reason you got the 84 kmpl figure, the maths is wrong.

The best way to do it is the full-tank to full-tank method. Here's how you calculate the efficiency of the car

Step 1: Fill her up to the brim

Step 2: Reset a trip meter

Step 3: Drive around

Step 4: When the tank is near empty - refuel. Note the amount of litres consumed.

Step 5: Check your trip meter. That will give you the distance you have traveled between the two refuels.

Step 6: Divide distance by fuel consumed. And you have your answer.

For eg: 300 kms in 30L = 10kmpl.


I have no clue what method you're using to calculate FE. Your instantaneous FE has got no place in the calculations whatsover. That said, I really want to know what kind of wizard maths landed you that 84kmpl figure. Just curious.



Cheers!
Cartman

[tejas08]

Originally Posted by Cartman

Same reason you got the 84 kmpl figure, the maths is wrong.

The best way to do it is the full-tank to full-tank method.

Cartman,

I disagree with you. The math used by me is as correct as it can get.

The method described by you for full-tank to full-tank method has been used by me right from the start of my ownership.

But I do calculations to understand what kind of money I spend for regular routes than can be covered by Auto-Rickshaw too. For that I used the method I narrated above. Let me put it clearly once again.

Step 1 - Journey Start MID readings - 310 Kms & FE 9.9 i.e. 310/9.9 = 31.31 Ltrs consumed

Step 2 - Journey End MID readings - 338.7 Kms & FE 10.7 i.e 338.7/10.7 = 31.65 Ltrs consumed

Step 3 - Fuel consumed for the Trip from 310 to 338.7 Kms = 31.65 - 31.31 = 0.34 Ltrs.

Step 4 - FE for the trip (338.7-310)/0.34 i.e 28.7/0.34 = 84.4 Kmpl.

Step 5 - To remove any anomaly of second decimal points near to the first decimal point, the FE at start was used as 10 and at the end was used as 10.6 and Step 1 to 4 were repeated again. The FE came out as 30.1 kmpl.

You can try out the calculations anywhere anytime and you would get the correct figure on any car. It is school math.

Also, this is not the first time I have done this method. I have used this method to check my Fuel consumption for my daily Home-Office-Home runs and the result has been accurate.

[AshBabu]

Originally Posted by bharatbs

For the Honda City fog lamps, is OSRAM Night Breaker H11 the correct model to use?

Yes bharatbs. The Honda city Low beam headlight and fog lamp ratings and type are the same.

I have upgraded the fog lamp in my City with Philips Xtreme vision (H11 type). The throw and brightness had improved and visibility is good.

[for_cars1]

[quote=tejas08;3693902]

Originally Posted by shubhamag92

On a full tank on City roads you can do around 400 Kms easily with still 7-8 ltrs. still balance. On Highways, one can easily do around 550 Kms with a full tank and still have around 6-8 ltrs of Petrol in fuel tank.

I think that's a pretty healthy number. No person is going to drive to that extents without stopping, so I don't see any reason that for a car of this size should necessarily have a bigger fuel tank than what it has right now.

Originally Posted by geotracks

Highways may be, you are right, about Honda City giving 550 kms on a tankful. But regular day-to-day city driving going to a gas station every 375 kms (approx.) on a tankful is too quick. That's why I said, a slightly bigger tank would have been good.

Originally Posted by vsrivatsa

we need to look at the Diesel variant as well.
You will not see the diesel owners complaining about the smaller tank. The average in City limits hovers in the range of 16 kmpl-18 kmpl which would yield 528-596 kms of range @33 Litres being mark before reserve. Although I am not sure if that figure of 33 is correct.

Maybe the tank is on the smaller side in the Petrol City.

For the Diesel City, 40 Ltr tank gives a fantastic range both in the city and on highways.

In the last 16000 km run, the City Diesel mileage has been consistently giving between 17 to 19 km/l average mileage, even with the drives in peak hour traffic (9 to 11 am) and (5 to 7 pm). So the range is above 650 KM and refuel can be comfortably done after running 500 km with plenty in reserve.

On highways, if you have the patience to keep the speed between 65 to 75 kmph (I end up in this speed range or slightly higher on divider-less highways), then it is effortless to get 25 kmpl average efficiency without resorting to any trick, just drive steady with the right throttle input . So the range is effectively 1000 km on this 40 liter tank. I always get fantastic efficiency figures on divider-less highways. Getting 25 kmpl on a C2 sedan with full load and AC always in auto mode is simply phenomenal.

However, on 4/6 laned toll roads, on cruising speeds between 100 to 120 kmph, the fuel efficiency drops to 20.5 kmpl average. So the range drops to 750 to 800 km. (Practically this is the highway efficiency I end up with on highways)

So the interesting part is both highway and city, i'm ending up with nearly the same efficiency numbers. (17 to 19 kmpl in city) v/s (20.5 to 21.5 kmpl on highways)

[kkkkkaran]

Originally Posted by tejas08

Cartman,



I disagree with you. The math used by me is as correct as it can get.



The method described by you for full-tank to full-tank method has been used by me right from the start of my ownership.



But I do calculations to understand what kind of money I spend for regular routes than can be covered by Auto-Rickshaw too. For that I used the method I narrated above. Let me put it clearly once again.



Step 1 - Journey Start MID readings - 310 Kms & FE 9.9 i.e. 310/9.9 = 31.31 Ltrs consumed



Step 2 - Journey End MID readings - 338.7 Kms & FE 10.7 i.e 338.7/10.7 = 31.65 Ltrs consumed



Step 3 - Fuel consumed for the Trip from 310 to 338.7 Kms = 31.65 - 31.31 = 0.34 Ltrs.



Step 4 - FE for the trip (338.7-310)/0.34 i.e 28.7/0.34 = 84.4 Kmpl.



Step 5 - To remove any anomaly of second decimal points near to the first decimal point, the FE at start was used as 10 and at the end was used as 10.6 and Step 1 to 4 were repeated again. The FE came out as 30.1 kmpl.



You can try out the calculations anywhere anytime and you would get the correct figure on any car. It is school math.



Also, this is not the first time I have done this method. I have used this method to check my Fuel consumption for my daily Home-Office-Home runs and the result has been accurate.

The math is absolutely correct, the error is measurement error. The MID mileage is not perfectly accurate, and a more accurate measurement would be to consider MID mileage only at the end of the trip, and not both ways.. Dont you think 85kmpl is a little ridiculous? Considering the fact that even the most frugal commuter 2 wheelers like the Hero Splendor barely manage to get close under ideal conditions? The perfect way to check mileage on MID would be to reset trip meter to 0 and do the trip.