[Mpower]

Originally Posted by Shan2nu

Yup, 11.5-11.6 seems to be the range for the G3HC. From a general perspective it might be quick but from a Honda perspective, this is the slowest City VTEC ever launched.

It's a sec off the NHC VTEC's time and 1.6 secs off the OHC VTECs time. Like ive mentioned before i think the culprit is traction, 5.46sec to 60kmph is already 1.04 secs slower than the OHC VTEC. Had they launched this car with the 195mm option, the launch could have been better. Honda has always been hopeless with their OEM tyre size options.

Shan2nu

I am thinking its mostly poor driving.
Honda Fit that launched recently in the US was tested at 8.3 secs for 0-100 timing. Same engine, same power 117bhp. However they do have a sport version here and probably has fatter rubber. Still big difference!!

Originally Posted by nayaksudhir

There is about one foot space that is lying unused between grill and the engine! ! ! why this wasted space when there is no space in the cabin?.

its not wasted but a part of the car's structure

[Shan2nu]

I am thinking its mostly poor driving.
Honda Fit that launched recently in the US was tested at 8.3 secs for 0-100 timing. Same engine, same power 117bhp. However they do have a sport version here and probably has fatter rubber. Still big difference!!

Anyway, lets see what Overdrive does with this car since they were the ones who got 9.9 and 10.6 for the OHC/NHC.

Shan2nu

[teefosi]

Thanks for the detailed pics and write up on the new honda city. Your feedback is pretty close to what Autocar has given. The biggest weakness is the handling thanks to the tyres. I fail to understand why Honda is not giving alloys even as an option. In the Thai model you have an option of 15" , 16" alloys and they are damn nice.

[columbus]

I have been a Honda owner (NHC) for about 5 years and the itch for change had already begun after hearing about the launch of the new city.
So with this itch in my hand I went with great expectations i went to check out the new city at the local dealer. It was a display vehicle, no test drives. I don't know why? Here are my first impressions.

1) Exterior styling is fabulous.
2 ) As stated by many the wheels are skinny.
3) The boot space though more than NHC but has huge covers for rear suspension. Infact boot space looked lesser that NHC??
4) The engine is ultra compact. Can't believe that a 1.5L is a so small engine. There is almost a foot of space where a skinny man like me can stand!! The sales guy told me its for crumple zone. But i think all cars in this segment come with crumple zones. does one need so much of space?

So far so good and then i stepped INSIDE

Who the hell designed the interiors of this car?

5) The plastics reek of cheapness.
6) The colour is almost greyish beige with absolutely no contrast.
7) The door trims cloth went unnoticed. And what ever there was looked
dirty as right arm rests on it. And it was a two day old car.
8 )The seat fabric was nothing exciting.
9) The dash looked garish or shall i say nightmarish in that red orange lights and they remain permanently on!
10) The much talked about Honda integrated player is in fact nothing to talk about. The sound quality is pretty ordinary with heavy bass. My Pioneer CD player and kenwood 6x9s beats it any day!
11) The AC knobs are a real joke for a 9lac+ car. Even the gas burner in our kitchen has better knobs!
12) The interiors are no way near to the NHC. The space which NHC used to offer with two glove boxes and other small boxes are all gone.
13 ) Even the rear seat looked cramped when front seats pushed back!
14 ) The steering is from civic but looked out of sync in these horrible interiors!

When i came out of the showroom all i thought was
Why couldn't Honda retained the interiors of NHC?

BTW the the itch had gone by then. now i'll have to drive it to see if the itch returns.

[Dippy]

Checked out the new City at Linkway Honda yesterday. I quite agree with most of the views given by fellow Bhpians out here. The car looks great on the exterior, moreso the front end. I wasnt too impressed with the rear, looked more like a notchback to me. Could have been a bit longer. The tyre size is pathetic and thats the first thing which will need a change if my dad does end up buying this car. The hub caps look cheap. So far ok.

The big disappointment is once you get inside the car. I am not a great fan of the NHC but cant help saying that is has more classy interiors than the newly launched car. The quality fit and finish from the NHC just isnt there. The door panels feel cheap and the two tone dashboard isnt attarctive. Didnt check the audio sound because that was the last thing on my mind. The Civic steering is pretty good. I didnt like the orange display on the speedo/ tacho.It was too loud. White light would have been way better or maybe something on the lines of the Civic tacho.

Under the hood the engine looks good. A big gap between the radiator and the engine. Something that is seen on the Optra. The coolant bottle is wierdly placed just behind the radiator. Its going to be pretty difficult filling the coolant. You might end up spilling half of it on the floor.

Overall first impressions left quite a bit to be desired. Hopefully a test drive should change things here. Book now for a Dec delivery thats what he told me. I dont know if I should say this but I love my OHC even more now. It may be old now but there is something in that the new one lacks as well.

On an ending note, test drove the new Accord while I was there. Nice car. Loved it. Paddle shifts work like a charm.

[autoenthusiast]

Folks, just returned from the Deccan Honda dealer today. I feel the ANHC was a major letdown.
I liked the exterior shape, it did look fresh and the new styling was impressive, but not something that bowled me over and had me drooling.
The engine compartment had a large space between the engine the the radiator, I don't think that's for safety during a crash, but rather an option for Honda to put in a larger engine in future in the same chassis.
The interior ? The interior was one of the worst I have ever seen on a 10L car. Cheap fabric seats that just don't live up to the car. Plasticky interiors, lousy plasticky dashboard (Honda could have atleast given a soft dashboard for a car in this segment). The door trims were again pathetic, plastic with a light coloured fabric for the arm rest (jeez, imagine the colour of the armrest in 2 months time).
All in all, I felt the car was just not worth the kind of money Honda was charging, they didn't even throw in alloys/ACC/leather seats on a 10L car, Jeez what was Honda thinking ? But then Honda's always known to charge an extra premium for their cars and one of the reasons people in India were willing to pay the extra bucks for Honda was for the fuel efficiency of the vehicle. I wonder what the FE of this engine would be for it to outweigh the kind of non-VFM feeling the car generates.

All in all, the car didn't live to my expectations.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by Dippy

The big disappointment is once you get inside the car. I am not a great fan of the NHC but cant help saying that is has more classy interiors than the newly launched car. The quality fit and finish from the NHC just isnt there. The door panels feel cheap and the two tone dashboard isnt attarctive.

Originally Posted by autoenthusiast

The interior ? The interior was one of the worst I have ever seen on a 10L car. Cheap fabric seats that just don't live up to the car. Plasticky interiors, lousy plasticky dashboard (Honda could have atleast given a soft dashboard for a car in this segment).

Originally Posted by columbus

So far so good and then i stepped INSIDE

Who the hell designed the interiors of this car?

5) The plastics reek of cheapness.
13 ) Even the rear seat looked cramped when front seats pushed back!

I am slowly getting the feeling that the new Honda City is not a fitting successor to the outgoing gen. And I have my doubts on whether it will be as successful. Here is why:

1. The NHC entered at a lower price point.

2. It had fab interiors; in fact, many bought the car on this factor alone.

3. The idsi engine was far more fuel-efficient (if ODs report is anything to go by. And OD is generally overtly optimistic!!).

4. The NHC had a highish stance with a relatively high-set rear seat. The new Citys rear bench is low.

The latest City seems little more than a mini-Civic. But the positioning of the NHC was entirely different! Not to mention, the ANHC will clobber the (suffering) Civics sales all the more.

[autoenthusiast]

Yes GTO I agree with you too.

Oh and one other thing I forgot to mention, I don't know about the rest who tried the rear seat, but I definitely found the sloping floor uncomfortable behind and couldn't stretch my feet under the front seats the way I could normally do. I'm a bit on the taller side.

[Guna]

I dont know if somone has felt the same or pointed this already- I felt sitting in the driver seat in ANHC is far from being airy with the overly steepy windscreen starting right on your face. It is almost claustrophobic (well I am exagerating). With the drivers seat height set to maximum, my head touched the roof.

[Path_Finder]

Originally Posted by autoenthusiast

Yes GTO I agree with you too.

Oh and one other thing I forgot to mention, I don't know about the rest who tried the rear seat, but I definitely found the sloping floor uncomfortable behind and couldn't stretch my feet under the front seats the way I could normally do. I'm a bit on the taller side.

I remember reading somewhere that the ANHC we have is desinged for Asians (the European version will be slightly differenet) - But by Asians they mean more of the countries with shorter persons like Thai, Chineese etc. That could probably explain for the sloping floor etc.

[karanraheja]

Originally Posted by GTO

I am slowly getting the feeling that the new Honda City is not a fitting successor to the outgoing gen.

I think you have made a good point. I think after having a look at the City at the showroom i was tad disappointed with interiors, rear seat thigh support was poor!! I would like to take a TD soon to get more idea about the car. But somehow that excitement is not the same after seeing the car. But it could still be my next car!

[CBlazer]

Originally Posted by Dippy

The big disappointment is once you get inside the car. I am not a great fan of the NHC but cant help saying that is has more classy interiors than the newly launched car.

I thought I could take the interiors for granted given that it's a Honda and it costs quite a lot. I am shocked at the number of comments I read about the poor interiors. Lack of alloys, fog lamps one may understand - but providing cheap interiors is taking cost cutting to the limits.

So what on earth are they charging 10L for? The price tag maybe. And as long as people show desperation by making down payments without even looking at the car, Honda will continue to .... well, take us for a ride.

[Elito11]

Originally Posted by Guna

I dont know if somone has felt the same or pointed this already- I felt sitting in the driver seat in ANHC is far from being airy with the overly steepy windscreen starting right on your face. It is almost claustrophobic (well I am exagerating). With the drivers seat height set to maximum, my head touched the roof.

Actually that was one of my observations with Civic too. Kind of reinforces the fact that ANHC is almost like a mini Civic.

Also though i hated the shape of the NHC (type I), i found the type 2 shape grow on me. I thought it was the perfect City Car (albeit a bit expensive)!

Elito

[nayaksudhir]

Hi Guys,

Picked up the Nov edition of OD today. These guys seem to have done a fair apple-to-apple comparison of both the cars. I am quoting their results here for you all to debate and conclude:

Performance
Honda City S MT
Maruti Suzuki SX4 ZXI
Delta b/w SX4 & ANHC
0-60kmph
5.07 Seconds
5.03 Seconds
(-) .04 Seconds
0-100kmph
11.53 Seconds
11.89 Seconds
(+) . 36 Seconds
0-400 Meters
18.03s@125.11kmph
18.16s@123.26kmph
(+) .13 Seconds
0-1000 Meters
33.18s@155.10kmph
33.48s@156.30kmph
(+) .30 Seconds
Top Speed
182kmph
179.92kmph
(-) 2.08kmph
Roll On



40-100kmph in 4th
19.19 Seconds
23.35 Seconds
(+) 4.16 Seconds
40-100kmph in 5th
23.03 Seconds
24.84 Seconds
(+) 1.81 Seconds
Braking (80kmph -0)
29.32m/2.66s
27.04m/2.65s
(-) 2.28m/.01s
Braking (100kmph-0)
50.60m/3.49s
47.14m/3.45s
(-) 3.46m/.04s
Fuel Efficiency



Highway
18.20kmpl
18.1kmpl
(-) 0.1kmpl
City
10.82kmpl
10.12kmpl
(-) 0.7kmpl
Overall
12.66kmpl
12.11kmpl
(-) 0.55kmpl


Honda city performs just a whisker above the SX4 except 40-100kmph sprint in 4th gear.

The much touted fuel effeciency of AHNC has gone phut if this review is to be believed. Now just consider that SX4 ZXI rides on 205/60/R16 and 1.6 engine and still manages almost the same FE while honda uses it's skinny footwear ! ! !

It even beats the ANHC in 0-60kmph spurt and the braking department. Common guys, you all know about the 1 lac cost delta and Maruti A*S*S.

I think ANHC has already lost it unless they launch a new facelifted model soon with ACC and alloys at the same cost or the reduce the tag for the current car.

Any comments ???

Post EDITED since it contained various [FONT], [COLOR] and [SIZE] tags.
Posting with such text formatting should be avoided on Team-BHP as it is inconvenient for members to read post.
Kindly go through Announcements section before proceeding.

Thanking You for your anticipated co-operation

The Team-BHP Support Staff

[Guna]

Originally Posted by nayaksudhir

Fuel Efficiency



Highway
18.20kmpl
18.1kmpl
(-) 0.1kmpl
City
10.82kmpl
10.12kmpl
(-) 0.7kmpl
Overall
12.66kmpl
12.11kmpl
(-) 0.55kmpl

I would take the FE figures reported by OD with some reservation. It is the same magazine which reported highway FE of 27kmpl for NHC