Team-BHP (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/)

-   Technical Stuff (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/technical-stuff/)

-   -   Ground Clearance: How much do you really need? (https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/technical-stuff/222633-ground-clearance-how-much-do-you-really-need-4.html)

I have to drive both in Delhi and high ranges in Kerala (some with un-paved roads), both in different types of vehicles of course. Given that be the case, the given options are a bit tricky.

While for my urban use, I will vote for Option 1, I have to go in for Option 2 for the latter use.

On a lighter note, NOTA / "Both of the above" is not an option here:)

Voted for adequate GC. I believe what is being missed as part of the question is the suspension tuning. If the suspension is on the firmer/stiffer side, car with adequate GC will not scrape.

Proof Point for this, is the call out below from fellow BHPian:

I own the same and I have had extremely rare scrapes (maybe 3-4 times in 6+ years) throughout the ownersip so far. Honda took the customer feedback from the 3rd Gen City and really nailed this part in the 4th Gen Honda City. My cousin once borrowed my City and drove to Hampi, KA on a trip. This place is known for bad roads and he came back completely surprised and said the car did not scrape even a single time.

I dropped buying the Verna in 2012-13 timeframe as it was notorious for bottom scraping. My friend owned one and have seen horror stories from the bottom scraping - the silencer fell off once in the early days of his car ownership and more recently the Diesel Tank itself had got dislodged and was hanging on one screw due to bottom scrape.

Voted for option 2. Not because of scraping the underbelly, but primarily because cars with higher ground clearance in a lot of cases seem to have better suspension travel too. This is something I could definitely use.

I currently drive a 3rd gen Swift diesel and the front suspension bottoms out quite often.

That being said, my swift has a rated ground clearance of 167 and it has been a problem only 3-4 times in the last 2 years, except twice when I did have to genuinely stop the car and check the underbelly, perhaps that has more to do with the potholes in Gurgaon.

In the case of cars with ground clearance between say 150-180 I would be more comfortable if there was good protection underneath (much unlike my swift). Beyond 180 I think most cars if driven just normally would be finne on 90% of our roads.

Absolutely. On my way back from Goa, I missed a completely unmarked speedbreaker and took it almost 40-50KMPH. No issue at all to the Nexon. I was thinking what if I had a sedan.

Also 2 other things are important here,
1. Time taken: A car with higher GC will cover the distance faster than good handling sedan, unless the roads are smooth throughout (rarity in India)
2. Less fatigue: I just don't need to keep thinking of road bumps or potholes. I can enjoy my music and drive without much care.

For a beater car, option 1, but for a go anywhere/ highway car, option 2 is more suitable.

That apart, anything above 190mm is pretty comfortable for real world conditions, barring only few places.

In my brezza, I have upgraded the stock 215/60 r16 tyres with 215/65 r16 AT tyres which gives me some additional ground clearance (approx 11 mm). It certainly gives me more confidence.

There was a time when I could live in perfect harmony with a GC in the rated range on 160-180 mm, but then the Gurkha happened. Those 5-6 years of owning a Gurkha changed my driving forever. I simply lost the ability to gauge humps and bumps accurately, or plot routes to avoid them. So now, even after 3+ years of selling off the Gurkha, I cannot drive a car with less than 200 mm rated GC and that too with a reasonably stiff suspension. I simply fail to register ruts, potholes, speed breakers, minor road dividers etc... you get the drift. I even broke the bash plate on my Versys!!!

So, for me the absolute minimum GC is:
- 200 mm on a short-medium wheelbase vehicle, and
- 230 mm on a long wheel base vehicle

And equally importantly I need a stiffer suspension and controlled roll/pitch/yaw.

I am fine with anything above 170mm. Most of my cars rarely scrape their underbelly as I am a very sedate driver and have been usually able to navigate rough patches and speed breakers quite patiently. I have owned M800, Dzire 2010, Alto 2011and Aspire 2019. Surprisingly Aspire with the highest GC of 174mm has given me the nastiest of scrapes because of my confidence around its high GC. On the same stretch I had navigated the same speed breaker with my Dzire quite easily but Aspire struggled. I was completely taken by surprise here as Aspire has a stiffer suspension as well.

I would surly look for a decent GC whenever am buying a car. The fear of getting stranded due to a nasty underbelly hit is sufficient for me to not opt for such cars. Unfortunately that comes at a price of letting go some great cars from your buying list but with the kind of driver I am I feel I am ok taking some hit towards driving dynamics rather than my car's underbelly.

Ground clearance is the only thing that I hate in my Honda City 2009 model. I believe it is 165mm. I have found crossing usual speed breakers with my family of four seated in, usually gets very difficult. If there's no traffic around, I usually try to attack the humps at an angle but that's rarely possible in a place like Mumbai. When the underbelly scrapes despite all the precautions, I feel like something has run over my chest - gets really painful.
The issue is compounded because of all the non standard speed breakers all around. I doubt if anyone follows any standard while constructing them.
So what I am looking for in my next car is a minimum GC of 180mm. That should be good for me. Higher than that is good so long as it does not affect the overall stability of the vehicle.

Voted for I am fine with adequate GC. I have been to Ladakh with four people onboard and full luggage in my New Dzire. We did scrape at certain craters(Zoji La has potholes comparable in size with craters on Moon), but no serious hits at the underbelly. If Dzire with full load can do Delhi-Ladakh I feel GC is over hyped, the wheelbase and overhangs of a Car matter equally. Last but not the least Driver skills matter the most.

Voted for Option 2, though I'd have preferred it to be worded as "I need a GC on the higher side. Better safe than sorry".
I use a Fiat Palio Stile 2007 and drive mostly in Kerala and Tamil Nadu, with occasional trips on bad/rough surfaces. With 5 people on board, I have to be extra cautious not to scrape speed breakers or rocks.

Based on my experience with various cars, I have judge based on the empirical Wheelbase:Ground Clearance ratio.


I like hitting new roads and going to places with unknown traffic patterns and need the assurance that my car can go off-road. On the low slung cars I hate shedding speed and the fact that the planning needs to be more thorough in terms of the roads it is being driven on.

Peace of mind is paramount.

It takes just one look at a lowered i20 (i20 N?) or a Polo or a Baleno to understand where this ground clearance number war has gotten us. It has made hatchbacks and sedans ugly!

For now we still have cars with steering wheel and controls with us to make decisions, drive carefully when roads are not proper, sometimes its wise to take the decision to turn around, there is no glory in pushing your Sedan to the top of a mountain that it was not supposed to go anyways.

@SKChettry - You have in my opinion the last model of good cars Honda made (grey grille), its low ground clearance was a problem but it enhanced the looks, the silver grille that came afterwards was a bit too tall, spoiled the looks. We have a white one from the earlier batch in our family, still looks brand new! Certainly we do not take it to a place that we know of having bad roads, its not worth it since there is another vehicle available for such places.

Voted for option 2. I used to drive a first generation ford figo. The car was a hoot to drive but was low on ground clearance. As a result it's underbelly used to be scraped quite often and it needed to be driven carefully on bad roads. Now i drive a ford ecosport & i don't need to worry about speed breakers or bad roads at all. It will be difficult for me to revert to a low ground clearance car after driving ecosport.

Want more GC. The only issue I had with Zen is the ground clearance. Used to scrape every hump. The Nexon has adequate height and more, so its a tension free ride always. I felt it on my latest drive to Coorg where the road just disappeared after a point and I could still make it to my destination.

I voted for the 2nd option.

Whenever I take my Rapid on the road, it scrapes against a lot of things. Things get worse with passengers onboard - I have to drive the car in slow motion to ensure the scraping sound is brought down to a minimum. Don't want them to mistakenly think that something is wrong with the car :uncontrol

But yes, the car kisses most speedbreakers, craters and bumps on the road, giving me the shivers ALWAYS.