2021 Honda City GM6 Dedicated Discussion, Owner/ Fan Club Thread

[TechMan]

I don't have Alsvin bro lol as I drive a very old Corolla XLi (shitty car I know). But you are forgetting one more advantage of new City and that is you can run it on rent on Careem Rickshaw.

[kjohn_18]

Whats the fuel average of 1.2 CVT?
Whats the fuel average of 1.5 CVT?
I think people are buying 1.2 bz of financial constraints and secondly 1.2 is giving very good average.
Lot of people have claimed that 1.2 cvt is giving more than 17 average.

[ghufran.tariq]

giving more than 17 average.

1.5 also gives more than 17 on long, if driven with light foot it gives you even more.You also get the benefit of better engine.

[kjohn_18]

Bro its a never ending debate and story regarding engine power. Most of the people might be 90% use car for offices and back home and their daily drive is abt 30 to 40 kms on average.They dont drive on long routes. Fuel average within city matters. 90% buy any car considering drive within city. Rest of the 10% have choices to select a car of their choice to fullfill their purpose of long drive.

[pwuser151967054480]

Fact of the matter is no one's stories can be believed. Pakistan has no official fuel economy testing numbers so we have to use international numbers. Our neighbour India is the most like Pakistan. 1.2 over there is used in smaller and lighter cars like amaze and brio. Yet it officially still gets lower fuel economy than the 1.5 city there and the 1.2 here is in a bigger and heavier car. Hence proven 1.5 is better than 1.2 in both performance and fuel economy. 1.2 only really has a tax advantage, nothing else.

And yes 1.2 feels weak even in the city. Just cause people drive slower in cities doesn't mean somehow a hatchback poverty grade engine will feel reasonably powered. Even 1.5 city doesn't feel particularly fast. Really weird how much people love tiny engines in pak which don't even get good fuel economy. It's the same case as the old corolla 1.3s which felt horrible to drive and got lower fuel economy than 1.6 and 1.8.

[mohammadali_1]

brother, like you, about ten years ago, i used to breed bias based on nothing, i can understand where you are coming from...

You will mature inshallah one day!
Till then you can do what ever you want!

[ifadey]

Small engines are good enough for city driving. It may even give you better fuel economy, specially in traffic jams.

But for highway/motorway driving or on hilly areas, a big engine is a must. I am saying this from experience of driving a lot on motorways, like 11 to 12 hours of driving. You need torque when the vehicle is fully loaded or on hilly areas. Then power is important when overtaking at high speeds like accelerating from 100 to 110 or 120. With small engines, it takes forever to overtake.

1.5 City has the best in class engine when you consider performance numbers, power-to-weight ratio and 0-100 time. This is the major reason for its success in India and Malaysia. It's most loved B-Segment sedan in those countries.

Keep this in mind. 1.5 engine will give you better fuel economy on speeds above 100kph. Below that 1.2 engine will have an edge. Specially in traffic jams.

[kjohn_18]

Bro i am saying the same thing. I agree with you. Read my comment again

[ifadey]

Yes, I read your comment. I was elaborating that point further.

[mohammadali_1]

1.2 and aspire 1.5 are selling equally

manual users are buying 1.2 and cvt users are preferring 1.5

[htb456]

And yes 1.2 feels weak even in the city. Just cause people drive slower in cities doesn't mean somehow a hatchback poverty grade engine will feel reasonably powered. Even 1.5 city doesn't feel particularly fast. Really weird how much people love tiny engines in pak which don't even get good fuel economy. It's the same case as the old corolla 1.3s which felt horrible to drive and got lower fuel economy than 1.6 and 1.8.

First thing, 1.2 l city is decently powered, the cvt variant does 0-100 in 12-13 seconds, very very decent for city driving. Where in the city can you drive above 100 on average? Ring road lahore has an absolute limit of 110 to which 1.2 accelerates easily. Secondly, smaller engines shift the fuel economy towards lower end of the rpm band, for example in start stop traffic 1.2l engine will always give better fuel economy than 1.5 l engine. The bigger engine has advantege in mid to top end. To better understand my point, consider the case of alto 660cc vs cultus 1000 cc in city vs highway. Alto significantly outperforms new cultus in urban fuel economy (i have driven both cars for thorough comaprison) whereas cultus outperforms alto on highways. Cultus has better power to weight ratio (67bhp on 780KG vs 48bhp in 650KG in alto) but still alto has significant advantage in start stop traffic and low end FE.

[nightsurfer]

Completely agree and experienced the same. I have been driving a FAW v2 for four years. In this time I have taken it to the mountains, driven on motorways and have used is as a daily runner being a city dweller. I also have a Suzuki Alto so I know exactly what you mean by low consumption in traffic. A smaller engine will consume less fuel compared to a bigger engine when idling. A smaller engine will consume more fuel at high speed because it will have to rev higher than a more powerful engine to retain those cruising speeds.

[pwuser151967054480]

And you think the Indians would be testing those fuel economy numbers on the highway only? India has got even worse traffic issues than pak so their testing should have higher start stop scenarios. We really need to find someone who's got both 1.2 CVT and 1.5 CVT to do a proper fuel economy comparison to settle it once for all. I'd bet on the 1.5.

People with both 1.3 PT and 1.5 PT always reported better fuel economy with the 1.5. CVT should make the situation a bit more favourable for the smaller engine, but it can't suddenly polish a turd into gold, only in the case of manual I can maybe believe equal or slightly better fuel economy for the 1.2 (+0.5kmpl). Old 1.3 and 1.5 manuals got pretty similar fuel economy numbers which is a good indicator that 1.3 may be the minimum reasonable power needed for that weight with a manual. CVTs have more drivetrain losses than manuals.

[ammarzubair]

honda chooses equally incompetent partners.

I wanted to install a data sin in my aspire head unit as mentioned in the aspire brochure that head unit has sim capability. I waited till first check up the honda qaideen rep said we can't do this tracking world people will do it for you. I said ok. He gave me a number where the guy says it has no sim capabilities which i refuse to believe the head unit clearly shows network bars.

how am i supposed to get the sim installed from someone who will not wreck the dashboard in removing the panel.

[chinyoti]

what does the slot in front do?

[ghufran.tariq]

Micro SD card slot

[mohammadali_1]

those network bars basically reflect your phone's network status when you connect via bluetooth, it also shows your battery status, does that mean it has a battery aswell?

Since there is no mention of imei i believe this is a wifi only tab that allows sim dongles...

Moreover, Honda has also mentioned Optional Twitters... on query i was told that it is an option for you, if you want, you can install aftermarket and that too not from honda or tracking world

[mohammadali_1]

1.2 not only is a little less fuel efficient but also lacks all the goodies, all the feel....

there is no sports mode in city, with 1.2 you feel as if your nervez are being tested, you get to hear loud engine roar when flooring the car, this roar is basically the sound of that expensive fuel being wasted.... 1.5 is optimally managed, it drives at much lower RPMs and thus is 3 to 4 kilometers per liter more fuel efficient. Furthermore, on long routes cruise optimises ease of driving and fuel efficiency. In city with start stop traffic 1.5 is a much relaxed engine... i am getting over 15 in islamabad without eco with ac on and that is more than good.....

[pwuser151967054480]

Even 1.5 in D mode at lower speeds can feel a bit laggy. S mode counters it by just keeping the engine at higher rpms. I don't know how the hell people are finding 1.2 acceptable. The one time I drove a 1.2 CVT it reminded me of the 660cc CVT cars where the engine keeps screaming like crazy but the car is barely accelerating. Difference between 1.5 CVT and 1.2 CVT is huge, 1.5 CVT feels on par with old 1.3 manuals so it isn't some great overpowered car. Even if 1.2 got better fuel economy, which I doubt, I'd still recommend 1.5 over 1.2 cause of how bad 1.2 feels to drive.

Good thing most 1.2 cvts seem to be driven by grandpas who never take it above 60 in the cities and above 100 on the motorway. Seriously weird that new citys always seem to be driven around at slow as hell speeds, 1.2 especially. I wonder why that is.

[pwuser151967054480]

Also didn't you used to have 1.2 CVT?