Quote:
Originally Posted by akaush Wow... I was in fact waiting for the sedan's and SUV data just like the small cars you did sometimes back. (will wait for some more time for SUV data) |
I'm thinking about SUV ranking, but its a toughie. Offroadability is a subjective aspect and is not measurable with numbers. However, 2wd SUV/MPV/MUV ranking might be feasible.
Quote:
We are now also thinking about Optra, and ANHC suddenly doesnt seem to be "THE BEST CAR FOR US". Thanks dude !!
|
I always knew many customers (including myself) look at both petrol and diesel cars in a price range. But magazines never compare a petrol car with a diesel car, for some inexplicable reason.
Regarding Optra diesel Vs ANHC, it is quite obvious that Optra diesel has a big advantage over ANHC when it comes to running costs - inherently fuel efficient diesels plus cost difference between petrol & diesel. However, keep
depreciation in mind too - being an Optra owner, I know that its depreciation curve resembles an abyss/cliff. ANHC will have a better resale value.
However, I'm not sure if Optra diesels too depreciate like Optra petrols. Do check some used car websites to get a rough idea about depreciation.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arishi1 I was expecting the high scores from Optra 2.0 TDCI, thats the biggest diesel in this category. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by benzinblut I thought the mangnum had a better 0-100 timings. for louzy 30-80 and 40-100, turbolag is the culprit. Take the runs in a gear lower and it will give you far better timings apart from the headrush! (especially 30-80 in 2nd.. whoa!!) |
From the stats, it looks like the Optra diesel's performance is very impressive - no wonder they plonked that engine in Captiva & Cruze too. Even, the in-gear acceleration numbers are not exactly bad. That's why, in the overall ranking, Optra diesel comes very close to the first place.
Quote:
Originally Posted by LithiumSunset I am in the hunt for a sedan and your thread is so timely.. |
Glad to know that this thread is helping!
Quote:
Originally Posted by Dr.AD 1. The point system of giving 25 points to the top car and 1 points to the bottom car is a bit unfair. The bottom car may be very close to the top car in a given category (e.g. performance) and may not deserve such harsh penalty. |
Although it seems to be unfair, as you have mentioned yourself, the high & low values will cancel itself out - I think it is a good property!
![Smile](https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/images/smilies/smile.png)
When we look at the overall scores via addition, the "normalization" will be done automatically.
Example No. 1: It seems unfair to give the Tata Nano 1 point each for performance & driveability, but it still manages to beat 4 or 5 cars at the end - because of excellent pricing, good FE, decent practicality & features. And when you look at the overall snapshot where we look at all the parameters (performance, FE, features etc) of the Nano, you will exactly know what you are losing out and what are you getting in return.
Example No. 2: We are being unfairly partial to Ford Ikon diesel by awarding high points for driveability. It is decently priced and has excellent FE too. In the next 2 rounds, you will notice that Ford Ikon diesel will probably be among top 3 cars. This seems quite illogical. But when we bring in the same system of awarding points (26, 25, 24...) for measuring safety & features, you will notice that Ikon diesel will go down the rankings.
Basically, multiple parameters & addition of points in each parameters automatically takes care of normalization, and also keeps the scoring system fairly simple.
Quote:
Therefore, I would like to suggest a “normalized” point system as follows:
|
Had to read it twice, but I understood! And this is not very difficult to implement either with the help of MS Excel. And yes, you are right - it makes the ranking system much more accurate.
But as ACM mentioned, it makes the scoring system very complicated & difficult to understand for many. We will be going further away from the KISS philosophy. Also this scoring system cannot be using to rank EQUIPMENT & SAFETY.
Quote:
The most accurate way of compounding these scores (over different variables) is to calculate the area of a polygon, where each axis of the polygon corresponds to normalized score for that car in each category, with origin at (0,0,0…) for each category.
|
![EEK!](https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/images/smilies/eek.png)
Doc, Are you a PHD type of doc?
Quote:
Please let me know what you think about these suggestions. Please feel free to let me know if I have missed something of if this does not make sense.
|
As ACM suggested, I will stick to points system in descending order for simplicity, readability & usability. But I will also upload my XL sheet at the end - anybody can work on it with your much accurate system of ranking cars.
Quote:
Originally Posted by pnredkar I remember that you had asked about how to update the rankings automatically. You can use the "RANK" function in Excel. I have attached an excel sheet that illustrates this formula. |
hey thanks Prasad. Makes my life a bit easier.
Quote:
Originally Posted by lifeonwheels The style of ranking seems to be reasonable and the results acn't said to be far from reality. |
Quote:
Originally Posted by ACM Dr. AD and Smartcat. Nice suggestion on Normalizing the values. But But this makes it complex inspite of being fairer. Though unfair, I would still recommend that Smartcat atleast for now goes ahead with the analysis the way he is going it. It keeps the process transparent. |
Bingo.
Quote:
But the normalization method could also be carried out in parallel. There is a major value to it as well.
|
Bang on target again. It would be interesting to see how different the results would be.
Quote:
Originally Posted by vasoo Excellent work smartcat. By the way, the in-gear acceleration listed in ACI website is actually for 20-80 kmph in third gear and not 30-80 as mentioned in your analysis. Please correct the same. |
20 - 80 kmph it is - thanks! City driving speeds zone.
Quote:
Originally Posted by arnabchak The Verna Diesel coming on tops among petrol heads is a surprise. The Fiesta Diesel languishing towards the bottom of the table is also pretty surprising!! |
The same 1.4 TDCi diesel in the Ikon is faring much better - probably something to do with Fiesta's extra weight or gearing.