[extreme_torque]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

There is only a slight difference in the specifications.

Swift has 75 bhp and 190 Nm of torque.
Palio has 73.9 bhp (75 PS) and 184 Nm of torque.

Manufacturers in India often use PS and BHP's interchangeably.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by AadiAtPlay

Of course that is true and that is why reversing the rear wheel will make a tighter turn but why is it so painfully obvious on a Palio and not on other hatches?

Low turning radius and comparatively long wheel base.

Anyways, it obvious in other cars too. There was even an ad of WagonR where a guy reverse parks into a very small gap.

Originally Posted by AadiAtPlay

My Guess (and i could be horribly wrong here): Could it be that the Petra was designed first and then boot chopped of get the Palio instead of the other way round (as in swift/dezire indica/indigo may be)

Sienna was introduced as the booted version of the Palio.

[AadiAtPlay]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Sienna was introduced as the booted version of the Palio.

thanks for the correction. My question is more like chicken and egg what came first Sienna or Palio?

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

Low turning radius and comparatively long wheel base.

did some research
Palio
Wheelbase - 2373
Turning Radius - 5.1m
(Palio does not mention front/rear track)
Source: Fiat India :: Showroom : Palio Stile Multijet

Swift
Wheelbase - 2390mm
Turning Radius - 4.7m
Front Track - 1,470mm
Rear Track - 1,480mm
Source: Maruti Swift - Specifications Diesel

How is a longer wheel base in the swift account for a shorter turning radius?

is it something to do with the front track being smaller than the rear track?
(An extreme example would be an auto rickshaw ; front track is zero and is very maneuverable, no offense meant to the swift only trying to bring forth a point )

I guess the steering system should also play a factor, right?

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by AadiAtPlay

My question is more like chicken and egg what came first Sienna or Palio?

As per Wiki, seems Palio made it first.

Originally Posted by AadiAtPlay

(An extreme example would be an auto rickshaw ; front track is zero and is very maneuverable, no offense meant to the swift only trying to bring forth a point )

If you drive an auto rickshaw, you'll realize that the handles turns all the way to almost 90 degrees. Seriously freaky, considering a bikes handle doesn't go more than half as much.

So much so that, in full lock, the handle is almost in between the legs of the driver.

[zaks]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

As per Wiki, seems Palio made it first.

If you drive an auto rickshaw, you'll realize that the handles turns all the way to almost 90 degrees. Seriously freaky, considering a bikes handle doesn't go more than half as much.

So much so that, in full lock, the handle is almost in between the legs of the driver.

That is the reason for auto rikshaw being highly unstable during turns done at speeds. It topples over like a toddler out of balance

Originally Posted by AadiAtPlay

thanks for the correction. My question is more like chicken and egg what came first Sienna or Palio?


did some research
Palio
Wheelbase - 2373
Turning Radius - 5.1m
(Palio does not mention front/rear track)
Source: Fiat India :: Showroom : Palio Stile Multijet

Swift
Wheelbase - 2390mm
Turning Radius - 4.7m
Front Track - 1,470mm
Rear Track - 1,480mm
Source: Maruti Swift - Specifications Diesel

How is a longer wheel base in the swift account for a shorter turning radius?

is it something to do with the front track being smaller than the rear track?
(An extreme example would be an auto rickshaw ; front track is zero and is very maneuverable, no offense meant to the swift only trying to bring forth a point )

I guess the steering system should also play a factor, right?

I feel it more of the steering than anything, the Swift could have the front wheel axle turn a 1/4" more at full turn than the Palio leading to a shorter turning radius.

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Manufacturers in India often use PS and BHP's interchangeably.

Yes, true. But i dont think its a mistake here. Specially because of almost 2 sec difference in the 0-100 timings.