[2000rpm]

Originally Posted by Reinhard

What you are referring to, isn't the fuel tank. Rather its part of the chassis under-body. You can clearly see it here in this picture. -
(I'm borrowing it from a fellow BHPan's thread here.

The red boxes I have drawn denote what you are referring to. They seem to be multi purpose members in the chassis used to provide cabling tunnels + hot air venting-out. More importantly, their slanting angle towards the rear is quite a smart idea. In case of scraping, these will ensure the key components of fuel tank (denoted by arrow) and exhaust plumbing will not get hit. Smart Germans.

Attachment 2008441

Please find attached the pictures I clicked for my car during the weekend.

Look at the reduction in GC because of that slant. The first picture also shows a dent due to a hit during one of the trips.

I wish the design would have been thought out better.

[Biker Ram]

After re reading both the poll options I didn't vote for either. My vote would be somewhere in between the 2 given options. Because 'sufficient' keeps varying from ride to ride and person to person.

For a long time I was of the opinion that high ground clearance was a highly overrated factor as far as normal passenger cars were concerned. When a friend decided to buy Duster instead of Vento citing the advantages of high ground clearance I didn't quite understand because his use was mostly in city roads and highways.

But having owned a Ritz for a few years and used it in a variety of situations, I stand corrected. Ground clearance is NOT a overrated factor for someone who has one car that will be used for everything. What can be considered 'adequate' in most cases will become too less once all the seats are occupied. Even more so when you are off the good road and have to travel that last one or two kilometres into a rural home. And there is no shortage of ill planned speed breakers or unexpected potholes which are deeper than they initially appear. Sudden slowing down or taking an angled approach at speed breaker is not always practical or safe.

Bottom line - go for a car that can handle the intended use well. Ground clearance is one parameter. It has to be applied in the right context.

[Ranabegins]

Ground Clearance is an absolute must for me, 180mm is the minimum I want but if I had absolutely no other option I may even settle for 175. I drive a A Star which rarely scrapes even at large breakers but when it does it feels like my heart skips a beat because I literally get headache from the sound of metal scratching.
My friend drives an Honda Amaze and most of our outstation trips are from that vehicle and there have been occasions when we wished we had a bit more of ground clearance. Lower ground clearance is one of the reasons we haven't visited Arunachal Pradesh as of yet.

[arunu]

I voted for a Yes.

It's a question of expecting the unexpected road conditions when you travel to an unfamiliar territory.
It's better safe than sorry for me. Hitting a low lying oil sump or a petrol tank and getting stranded in an unknown place is the worse nightmare anybody could face.
Hence with today's crossovers and mini wanna be SUVs, you have a fair advantage of GC over low slung sedans.
Also many people have one car for all purposes and hence if you have choice, better to get a high GC.
For a regular Joe, handling and aero dynamics may not be as important as peace of mind with the little extra mm.
Also it's a good idea to add additional protection like engine guard, sump guard as an accessory for cars without them.

Coming from personal experience of owning OHC and dolphin nose city and being petrified of driving on semi rural areas during Maharashtra and Karnataka monsoons.

[needforspeed88]

In an ideal word where we drive only in broad daylight and have ample time and opportunity to slow down for those unmarked and unscientific speed breakers appearing out of nowhere, even a car with relatively less ground clearance is manageable.

However the sad reality is that we do not live in an ideal world. The answer to the question lies somewhere in the middle. Purely from safety point of view the ground clearance should be enough to tackle an unmarked speed breaker appearing out of nowhere across your windscreen without catastrophic consequences.

[varsin]

Lovely discussion in this thread! I am planning a road trip to Ladakh next year in my Hyundai Tucson CRDI (2017), which has a ground clearance of 170 mm. I have never scrapped the car in Delhi-NCR and during a 2200 KM+ trip to Bihar, but will the Tucson's 170mm ground clearance be sufficient for the treacherous roads in Ladakh? Please help, thanks

[airbus]

In future I would be looking for at least 185 mm ground clearance. Having adequate ground clearance is important particularly for cities like Bangalore with some giant speed breakers and good ground clearance will help to pass those without problem. Additionally it will also help to handle bad roads/potholes and flooding to some extent.

[msarunms1987]

I may be late.

High GC - hands down.
My Hyundai Santro with a 164mm GC has had several belly scratches.
I then switched to Scorpio; And belly scrapes are a thing of the past!

On another hand, the tire's side-wall height also matters to me. There was an occasion where my Santro's left rear wheel was deformed (@ a speed of 50 KMPH) because of an unexpected tiny, yet deep pothole (enough for the tire to get into it) on a national highway. It was raining and I had to change over to the spare tire to proceed with the trip.

Again, the 235/70R16 Yokohama Geolander shoes does wonders on my Scorpio. No matter how deep the ditches are, they just glide over them.