Team-BHP - 4th-gen Honda City : Official Review

I agree with a lot of what you have said, but at the end of the day the overall package of the city is way better than the petrol verna. I cannot comment on the diesel as I have not driven either. The petrol volkswagon with its beautiful 1.2 tsi+dsg box is superior in drive and fit and finish. But I just found it very cramped for some reason. The back seat of the honda is a class topper and so are the features. The things I don't like about the honda are:

1. Better quality music system. Even the top end one looks a bit sad. The screen is full and the software is a decade behind.

2. Better fit and finish

3. Use of soft plastics on dash board area

4. The whole dashboard looks like three different people designed it

9
Other then these couple of things, it's a great car and one that you enjoy driving specially in the city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tejas08 (Post 3501813)

Pretty Startled with your response.

I know I am a Proud New City owner and being that I could go biased on the City but surely would like to hear your opinion.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tejas08 (Post 3501866)

The issues that you highlighted are already being highlighted by all the reviews across all sites. I certainly agree to it that this is not expected from Honda and certainly it would not have costed more to Honda to rectify these issues at the first place.

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?

Quote:

Originally Posted by DoctorKK (Post 3501874)

City is no doubt a good car but definitely has some short comings as pointed above. Verna is no way inferior to city and may be even better as far as the engine goes. It was the segment leader in fact till the city was launched. What works for the city in the present scenario is that Verna is 2011 model and doubts over a new version is very much in the rounds. Plus the new honda engine promise a very good mileage and the trust people have in Honda is unimaginable in India! ! So overall you have a winner in City the day it was launched. I guess many people won't have even taken test drives of other cars and blindly booked the city. Moreover the after sales service and the resale value of Honda is much better.
So I think these reasons make city the winner and not that it is perfect in all senses.

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by pixantz (Post 3502159)

No offence to the healthy discussion going on here, but I sincerely think we should create a new thread for this segment of cars like Rapid, Vento, Verna, City, Linea,etc. where the differences could be discussed/enjoyed/debated, the reason being, that this is a Honda City thread which consists mainly of people who have already proved that they believe only in the City by already buying it and hence automatically meaning that it's the best, for them. So the debate doesn't hold much substance, in a way. Just my two cents. Again, no offence but this is what I felt. Feels like spoiling their party. ;) Does anybody know of the existence of such a thread? Any mods listening?

My intention was not to hurt or offence anyone. I strongly believe that a review should clearly highlight +ves and -ves. People who says they could not find quality issues should check the fit and finish of i10 grand, a car which is 2 segment lower than city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B747 (Post 3502091)

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 (Post 3502091)

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 (Post 3502091)

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.

Quote:

Originally Posted by tejas08 (Post 3502256)

Definitely agree that city is more spacious and petrol engine is better (we did not check petrol as usage is very high).
Regarding floor hump, it definitely creates inconvenience but please check the attached thread (image at the end of first page)
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/techni...ml#post2366223

On the topic being discussed in the last few posts - Honda's quality - for me it's not just the bit about comparing it to the competition, the bigger disappointment for me is Honda's own gradual decline in fit and finish. Lets not look at the Brio platform for now, it was meant to be low-cost. The City itself has seen a decline in quality, the NHC was brilliant in terms of fit and finish, the plastics used, the tactile feel - everything. The ANHC's fit ND finish went a little low rent compared to the outgoing model but was still ahead of the competition at launch, plastics were harder but it was well screwed together. The latest one is a downgrade on the ANHC let alone the NHC, hard plastics with poor finish, things not well put together - e.g. My business partner purchased the petrol, within two weeks of delivery, the rubber strip that manufacturers these days refer to as a dead pedal had come unglued and was at the drivers' feet and I mean completely unglued! Honda did fix it back during service but quite frankly this isn't what Honda quality is supposed to be....

Quote:

Originally Posted by bejoy (Post 3502370)

Seriously? Why they didn't limit the top speed then?

The 175s are there for a reason - ARAI Mileage. Of course, anything less would be a disaster.

Because there is no requirement to limit the top speed on the vehicle. It is the road conditions that define the speed limit not the manufacturer. For people who want to drive faster than 120+, they have upgraded. Also there are people who have driven 120+ even on the stock 175s and have not reported any less stability or baking issues. ARAI mileage definitely plays a part on deciding the tyres but even 195/60s don't disturb the mileage. I drove a highway stretch of almost 100+ KMs and got an average of 18+ on 195/60s.

We can keep on debating over the tyres but the fact remains that only Honda knows why they have given 175s and they would have certainly taken the safety factor of thinner tyres into consideration.

:OT
The likes of BMWs & Audi must be having their top speeds above 200+ Kmph. I don't think anybody would be able to confirm that the tyres they provide stock would be able to withstand that top speed even if India were to have roads that would help in achieving those speeds.

Went to Crystal Honda and checked out both the City & the Mobilio. Honda is selling cars on its good will and the now famed engine. Nothing else seems class leading. The wow factor faded for me after the smashing exterior. The interior is hardly beige, its a pale yellow shade and a sea of it. The plastic quality is on-par with the rest but the design of the switch gear such as the steering mounted audio controls seems elementary.

Some really interesting misses on the City were the missing touch screen on the ICE when the A.C.C is a touch operated unit on the top end. The boot does not have cladding and the wires are exposed even on the top end. I found the overall experience (except the drive) 2 notches lower than what i expected. The less said about the Mobilio the better. I'm simply dumb founded as to why doesn't Honda sell fully loaded cars with little things taken care of and price them like Hyundai? Hyundai sells at a premium to the rest when it comes to the top 2 trims and still does good numbers.

I will not buy a Honda for upwards of 10lacs simply cause it has a brilliant engine. So i'm going to wait a little more and use my Getz until the festive season sees a few more launches.

My current frame of reference is the Ecosport I own.

Quote:

Originally Posted by da_lowrider (Post 3502356)

Exactly my point, Honda quality is no where to be seen in the new city. My request to those who claim no issues with quality is to please check i10 grand fit and finish and then comment, and please note that it is 2 segment lower compared to city.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bejoy (Post 3502370)

Seriously? Why they didn't limit the top speed then?

The 175s are there for a reason - ARAI Mileage. Of course, anything less would be a disaster.

Honda has done everything possible from tyres, to thin body panels, low grade & thin plastics, ultra low viscous oil all for ARAI mileage.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Nilesh5417 (Post 3502405)

You are 100% correct, other than petrol engine & space nothing else is class leading and quality & fit and finish is that of a lower segment. As you mentioned design of exterior is good (esp the rear) but the centre console as someone in forum mentioned it looks like designed by 3 different people.

I was just going through the pictures of the new Jazz which is due later in this year and found that the dashboard of the two cars is almost identical. I believe Jazz is a far more important car for Honda than City due to its global market hence it is definitely not the case that it was just slapped on to a car like city without any thought. Except for the touch screen ICE whose processor some people have compared to that of a Casio wrist watch calculator ( which my car doesn't have because I own the SV variant so I can not comment about it from personal experience), I don't find any flaw in the design. But may be I prefer function over form. May be to me the A/C vents are just at the perfect height. May be for me the slight tilt in the central console gives me a feel and confidence that all controls are within my reach. But then again, beauty lies in the eyes of the beholder. While some people are hating what Honda is calling "Sophisticated Futuristic Cockpit" but at the same time some are in love with it.