Team-BHP

Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)
-   Official New Car Reviews (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/official-new-car-reviews/)
-   -   4th-gen Honda City : Official Review (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/official-new-car-reviews/145656-4th-gen-honda-city-official-review-371.html)

Quote:

Originally Posted by mxh (Post 4179162)
Congrats for your servicing. :) Isn't 1900 excessive for the Bosch cabin filter? Are there any advantages of this v/s the stock filter? Since I believe the stock filter is less than half of this cost right. Did you really supervise the entire servicing? I believe it's not allowed at my service station though I never tried. Which insurance did you go for and how much did you pay?

AC duct cleaning is a must in Honda city as the design seems to be susceptible to mold growing in the ducts. I also had to get this done within a month of buying the car (free) as there was a bad smell every time the AC was started.

In other news I got all 5 of my tyres rotated as Honda was refusing to rotate all 5 tyres since the job sheet mentioned only 4 tyre rotation. Also got the wheel alignment done. The alignment was quite a bit off and after the first round of alignment they swapped the FR and FL tyres and finally after some more adjustments it was proper. They also discovered that there was a puncture in one of the tyres which was fixed at the same time. Preventive maintenance always makes sense...

The stock cabin filter costs around 1200 I guess. This Bosch filter is carbon activated which is said to prevent foul smell from getting inside even in the fresh air circulation mode. There is a mild fragrance in the air which is pleasing. Regarding the performance of the filter don't want to comment much as of now. So far its very good. I have some sort of rapport with the service center so could watch some of the activities being performed.

This time the insurance (bumper to bumper Honda Assure) also with engine protect component was renewed for 31,517. No claim bonus was not eligible since I had taken some claims last year. The renewed insurance policy is applicable from May 31, 2017. To avoid the increased costs, the renewal was done on Mar 31, 2017. Also for bumper to bumper, every year there would be an increase in one component of the premium and also B2B could be taken only for first 5 years. Its costly but I really do not want to take any risk.

Alignment was not done at the A.S.S. since I had a complementary free alignment which had to be done within 1500 kms at the dealer where I changed the tyres. It was done today.

For those purchasing a new Honda City, do relook at the stock tyre brand that come with the car. At the time of my purchase, I had requested Michelin tyres, but the car they ordered in my name (as the dealer did not have the color of my choice and had to place an order) came with stock MRF ZVTV tyres. I was told at the time that Honda cannot just ‘replace’ MRF ZVTVs with Michelins before delivery as each part / accessory (with serial numbers) on any new Honda is updated in the system. Hence, changing tyres at the local dealer was not an option. Thus began my frustrating experience with MRF ZVTV tyres.

I really have a very poor opinion of MRF ZVTV 175s on my 2012 Honda City V MT. I had replaced under warrantee over the last 3 years (at various times) all the 4 stock tyres. Each time the same problem (within 6 to 8 months of the earlier) - bulging on the surface or side wall. About 6 months back another of my stock (5th stock) MRF ZVTV had a bulge. Since warrantee was over by then, I put the bulged tyre as spare. Later the Honda dealer exchanged it (merely out of relationship) for a really used (but drivable) Michelin (that they had lying around). I put the Michelin as a spare. So I was driving with 4 replaced MRF ZVTVs and one used Michelin as spare.

At that time, I thought now that I have finally replaced all 4 “defective” MRF ZVTVs, I should be all set. Wishful thinking, as they say. 6 months later, now there is a new bulge developed on the surfaced of a 'replaced' MRF ZVTV 175. The tyre that has this new bulge now, is actually a replaced tyre from MRF. This is now is out of warrantee. So I have put this as spare and now using the used (but drivable) Michelin tyre.

With this, I really have a very low opinion of MRF ZVTVs. The funny thing is, barring 1 puncture on the original stock, there was never any punctures. Just merely substandard quality control on part of MRF for their ZVTV tyres. Imagine tyres from different batches replaced at different times over the past 2 – 3 years, in a row have the same exact issue – bubble on the surface / side wall. Wonder, what sort of quality control MRF ZVTVs have?

In summary, having MRF ZVTVs 175s have just been an experience of dissatisfaction for me thus far. Coupled with this, the amount of time & effort I am spending each time running after warrantee claims, having to wait for days / weeks for MRF to verify then replacing the tyres after deducting the depreciated value. Only to find out later, that the replaced tyres from the new batch have identical issues cropping up. What’s more is that even the newly replaced MRF ZVTV 175s, have been plagued with the bulge issue on the surface. So finally in less than 2 years with really low mileage (800 kms a month, sedate driving), I now have to spend again on 2 more new tyres, this time full price as warrantee period on my 2012 Honda City is over.

I must say that the Honda dealer has been very supportive & helpful in filing the initial under warrantee claims, but the problem issue has been with MRF ZVTVs quality.

I will now have no choice but to purchase 2 more new tyres to replace the newly bulged MRF ZVTV and the used Michelin. I have shortlisted: Michelin XM1 / XM2 or Yokohama. My current requirement is long lasting tyres. I understand from some forum posts that Michelin tyres have ‘softer’ side walls. Thus, I am inclining towards Yokohama. Suggestions or pointers welcomed.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geotracks (Post 4179534)
, I am inclining towards Yokohama. Suggestions or pointers welcomed.

Yokohama without doubt. It offers the best of both worlds. It's not as costly as the Michelin either but gives a comfortable smooth ride. You will feel the difference once you use them. I had replaced my JK's on my Ritz with Yokohama and can vouch for that. The steering felt a bit on heavier side as compared to JK's but that might as well be because of new tyres. The real difference was going over potholes or interlocking paver blocks. While JK's transfer the bumps to the inside of car, Yoko's do a much better job of cushioning. Michelin's are slightly better at comfort but like you said Yokos especially the earth1 series is long lasting with almost the same comfort.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geotracks (Post 4179534)
I was told at the time that Honda cannot just ‘replace’ MRF ZVTVs with Michelins before delivery as each part / accessory (with serial numbers) on any new Honda is updated in the system. Hence, changing tyres at the local dealer was not an option.

I was told the same and took Delivery of my Honda City V-MT in Feb 2014 with MRF ZVTVs. I went to the tyre dealer right after taking delivery and swapped all the stock tires with Michelin XM2s. Your story kind of makes me feel I made a good move at that time.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geotracks (Post 4179534)
I will now have no choice but to purchase 2 more new tyres to replace the newly bulged MRF ZVTV and the used Michelin. I have shortlisted: Michelin XM1 / XM2 or Yokohama. My current requirement is long lasting tyres. I understand from some forum posts that Michelin tyres have ‘softer’ side walls. Thus, I am inclining towards Yokohama. Suggestions or pointers welcomed.

I would recommend the Michelin XM2 or the Primacy 3STs. I have not had issues with the XM2s in City driving. The tires are approaching the 40K mark now and are doing well - looks like they have another 10 K life in them. I did have to completely replace 1 tire as I hit a sharp object once which tore the sidewall. I replaced the torn tire again with the same XM2 though...

I got Good Years with my City. Immediately upgraded them to Michelin XM2 195s. However, I did see other V MTs with MRFs, Bridgestones and Michelins.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Shashankjk (Post 4179574)
Yokohama without doubt. It offers the best of both worlds. It's not as costly as the Michelin either but gives a comfortable smooth ride.

Michelin's are slightly better at comfort but like you said Yokos especially the earth1 series is long lasting with almost the same comfort.

Thanks. Agree, lots of good feedback on this forum for Yokohama Earth 1 tyres. I have Yokohama A Drive on my second car and really happy with them.

Quote:

Originally Posted by vsrivatsa (Post 4180642)
I was told the same and took Delivery of my Honda City V-MT in Feb 2014 with MRF ZVTVs. I went to the tyre dealer right after taking delivery and swapped all the stock tires with Michelin XM2s. Your story kind of makes me feel I made a good move at that time.

I would recommend the Michelin XM2 or the Primacy 3STs. I have not had issues with the XM2s in City driving. The tires are approaching the 40K mark now and are doing well - looks like they have another 10 K life in them. I did have to completely replace 1 tire as I hit a sharp object once which tore the sidewall. I replaced the torn tire again with the same XM2 though...

Thanks & good decision to swap stock MRFs to XM 2. Lots of good feedback on XM 2, especially on the quietness and ride comfort. The Michelin website also has great customer reviews.

Still deciding as both, Yokohama Earth 1 & Michelin XM 2, are good tyres. The one factor I need to consider now is that my daily drive has patches of potholes and loose stones jutting out. Plus in rainy season, the daily drive road gets even worst with big potholes. Some are as deep as 6 inches and for months they are left unrepaired. Even if repaired, due to shoddy work, they break in the same place again year round. With this type of commute just thinking, XM 2 has 'softer' side walls but better comfort while Yokohama has similar ride quality with less softer side walls. Plus, the price factor, wherein the Yokohama Earth 1 are almost INR 1K less than the XM 2 per tyre. I'll also need to look at the manufacturing date when I make the final choice.

Great suggestions, thanks once again, it was very helpful.

Quote:

Originally Posted by geotracks (Post 4182845)
Great suggestions, thanks once again, it was very helpful.

You are welcome mate. Btw, Yokohama claims that they have designed these tyres especially for India where long lasting is an important quality. And spot on about the Yoko sidewalls. The sidewalls are built thicker and stronger than other brands.

Friends,

Need advises and suggestions.

Which suspension would be the ideal aftermarket choice for Honda City 2014 CVT model? The criteria is comfortable ride and neutral handling characteristics.

The current suspension setup is very good for smooth roads and to a moderate extent for rough roads. The ride is not that bad but the thud sounds (although reduced now from what was before) filtering into the cabin is getting a bit irritating on rough roads. The Kerala roads including the National Highways are notorious for rough patches especially the Trivandrum - Alleppey section.

Question also whether the suspension change would actually reduce the thud sounds filtering into the cabin.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adarsh76 (Post 4184534)
Friends,

Need advises and suggestions.

Which suspension would be the ideal aftermarket choice for Honda City 2014 CVT model? The criteria is comfortable ride and neutral handling characteristics.

The current suspension setup is very good for smooth roads and to a moderate extent for rough roads. The ride is not that bad but the thud sounds (although reduced now from what was before) filtering into the cabin is getting a bit irritating on rough roads. The Kerala roads including the National Highways are notorious for rough patches especially the Trivandrum - Alleppey section.

Question also whether the suspension change would actually reduce the thud sounds filtering into the cabin.

Why don't you move to a tyre with taller side walls and/or a smaller wheel first and then decide; why mess with the suspension.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Durango Dude (Post 4184547)
Why don't you move to a tyre with taller side walls and/or a smaller wheel first and then decide; why mess with the suspension.

That is out of option for now since I recently upgraded to Michelin P3ST 195/60 R16. To be honest, ride is much more comfortable than with the stock tires but still the irritating thud sounds remain on sharp edges and potholes.

Considering the road conditions in the sector where I drive mostly don't think the suspensions would last long enough. This has prompted me to look into aftermarket suspensions.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adarsh76 (Post 4184645)
That is out of option for now since I recently upgraded to Michelin P3ST 195/60 R16. To be honest, ride is much more comfortable than with the stock tires but still the irritating thud sounds remain on sharp edges and potholes.

Considering the road conditions in the sector where I drive mostly don't think the suspensions would last long enough. This has prompted me to look into aftermarket suspensions.

Hi Adarsh,
Aren't the suspensions under warranty?

Quote:

Originally Posted by Content Reactor (Post 4184762)
Hi Adarsh,
Aren't the suspensions under warranty?

Warranty on suspension is for 2 years or 40,000 kms only and that's over. My car would be completing 3 years next month.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adarsh76 (Post 4184645)
Considering the road conditions in the sector where I drive mostly don't think the suspensions would last long enough. This has prompted me to look into aftermarket suspensions.

Considering the road conditions where you drive mostly, I think you have made a wrong choice of car for your daily drive. A compact SUV or normal SUV/MUV with bigger more beefier suspension would have served you better. A C-segment sedan is not the apt requirement. Logically, that is.

For example, if you want to travel on water on a daily basis, you buy a boat. You don't take a City and then add paddles and a Hull and sails later. I don't know what prompted you on your decision, it was yours to make anyway, but I'm just sharing my perspective to the situation you have put forward. Basically what I mean is that the City doesn't have a lousy suspension to begin with. If that's what you've come to conclude. It's just that you need a different setup in your environment.

Coming to the City, if you install a softer suspension, you might end up suffering from bottoming out or scraping the belly situations. Maybe a tyre with softer side walls may help a bit as suggested earlier too.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixantz (Post 4184992)
Considering the road conditions where you drive mostly, I think you have made a wrong choice of car for your daily drive. A compact SUV or normal SUV/MUV with bigger more beefier suspension would have served you better. A C-segment sedan is not the apt requirement. Logically, that is.

For example, if you want to travel on water on a daily basis, you buy a boat. You don't take a City and then add paddles and a Hull and sails later. I don't know what prompted you on your decision, it was yours to make anyway, but I'm just sharing my perspective to the situation you have put forward. Basically what I mean is that the City doesn't have a lousy suspension to begin with. If that's what you've come to conclude. It's just that you need a different setup in your environment.

Coming to the City, if you install a softer suspension, you might end up suffering from bottoming out or scraping the belly situations. Maybe a tyre with softer side walls may help a bit as suggested earlier too.

If there was an automatic SUV available during 2014 I would have definitely taken that only. My primary criteria was automatic. Duster is the apt vehicle which can manage these kind of rough roads. However, there was no automatic available at that point of time. No other SUV's (Creta, Brezza, Ecosport) offers the ride quality of Duster. Those are just comparable to City only.

Again, I am saying its not the ride quality which is too bad. Thankfully the seats absorbs most of the vibrations. It is the thud sounds creeping inside the cabin causing irritations on broken roads in highway.

Michelin P3ST is installed already in my car. Those are said to have softer sidewalls but what I heard is that the tires exported to India are stiffened for the environment we have.

Quote:

Originally Posted by adarsh76 (Post 4185048)
It is the thud sounds creeping inside the cabin causing irritations on broken roads in highway.
.

If you were experiencing the thuds from day one even when the suspension was new then you need to change. If it's crept up later then a suspension overhaul will solve it.


All times are GMT +5.5. The time now is 23:53.