[Mi10]

Originally Posted by im_srini

The i10 Kappa is still faster to 100 Kmph no ?

Attachment 399438

Granted the i10's handling is nothing to write home about, but so is the Alto's, on stock tires. It rolls & understeers quite a bit when pushed, you'd need much stiffer dampers & wider tires to make the Alto handle well.

Mi10 --> K10 ?

Reasons below;

• Yes, i10 1.2 is faster, but its like very poor response till 1.8K RPM and then it picks up with a sudden surge of Torque. This results in too many gear changes.
• Handling and Body roll really dont allow the engine to perform to its capabilities. Alto surely will be more chuckable than the i10 (if not in league of Figos' or Puntos'). Motor assisted PS doesn give correct feedback (Esp at speeds above 70 km)
• Better Mileage
• Mod friendly engine

[Gansan]

May be the Alto K10 will set the sales charts on fire, may be not. But this thread is really on fire! Barely 4 hours old and already 4000 hits!

[asdon]

Vxi Ex-showroom Bangalore
3,16,000/-
On Road - 3,84,713/-
Minimum waiting period 1 month
Cars booking started from 25th July, booking amount 10k
1st lot for delivery in between 21st to 26th August

[blackasta]

Originally Posted by asdon

I am totally impressed with the car when I saw it today, but the tyre profile failed to impress. Now if I buy it it has to be with a tyre upgrade with Alloy, so can the Gurus tell me what size and profile will be best for this version of Alto?

I'm no guru - but I calculated 175/60R13 to be the best upgrade with 1.6% deviation.

[Mi10]

Originally Posted by blackasta

I'm no guru - but I calculated 175/60R13 to be the best upgrade with 1.6% deviation.

Not really sir,

its the 175/50/14" whihc has 0.2% deviation

and then

the 165/60/13" which has 0.7% deviation (This works the best, considering the ride quality and power of the car)

[sandeepmdas]

My thoughts are in bold:

Originally Posted by adimicra

Coming to the new engine, isn't this the same engine which was claimed as unrefined and worst in driveability by the people here (including GTO, refer to the Micra test drive thread)? Now calling it a pocket rocket and what not seems totally contradicotry!

This is what GTO has said in the Micra test report, about the NISSAN engine:
"Idling is silent, refinement leagues ahead of an A-Star and there is hardly any rocking motion felt inside.....Start accelerating and the classic 3-cylinder thrum becomes audible. In fact, when being worked, it sounds identical to the humble Alto! ... The Micra's engine cannot hold a candle to the Maruti K12M engine (the segment benchmark)".

Here's the link:
http://www.team-bhp.com/forum/test-d...review-31.html

IMO, that review sounds pretty balanced.

When I mentioned in several threads about 0-100 times of different cars, people bashed me saying that those times do not matter. Now I see people dancing with joy over the 13.5 secs time of the Alto..what an irony??

Agree.

[blackasta]

Originally Posted by Mi10

Not really sir,

its the 175/50/14" whihc has 0.2% deviation

and then

the 165/60/13" which has 0.7% deviation (This works the best, considering the ride quality and power of the car)

175/50R14 - hmm - IMO thats too low a profile
165/60R13 - should be ideal.

[adimicra]

Originally Posted by sandeepmdas

My thoughts are in bold:

Here is a quote from GTO's review of the Micra -
"The Micra's driveability is middle-of-the-road; it's nowhere as good as the Hyundai 1.1, nor is it as bad as the A-Star."

This tells us that the K-series 1 litre engine is really bad in terms of driveability. So, why is everyone going gung-ho about this engine now?

I think that for an enthusiast who cares about performance, driveability is not that important but what I have seen in this forum people give more priority to driveability. Now why this sudden change of opinion for the Alto K10?

Can someone clarify? GTO?

[JustCause]

It may not be the quick 0-100 timings, but, the new heart will change the whole equation for prospective buyers who prefer the 'smooth' engine feel a la Wagon R. I am glad Maruti did not change much in the winning formula & also did not go overboard with the facelift. The colour reminds me of the old PALIO which was endorsed by Sachin Tendulkar.

As someone pointed out earlier, it is no reason to be overjoyed as 'Safety' aspect has literally been overlooked in the upgrade.

[Mi10]

Originally Posted by adimicra

Here is a quote from GTO's review of the Micra -
"The Micra's driveability is middle-of-the-road; it's nowhere as good as the Hyundai 1.1, nor is it as bad as the A-Star."

This tells us that the K-series 1 litre engine is really bad in terms of driveability. So, why is everyone going gung-ho about this engine now?

I think that for an enthusiast who cares about performance, driveability is not that important but what I have seen in this forum people give more priority to driveability. Now why this sudden change of opinion for the Alto K10?

Can someone clarify? GTO?

Ya agreed. Prob'ly a TD between the two can clarify this.

But i think someone mentioned that its running different gear ratios for Alto K10. Tuning might have been different (my guess). A-star is also approx 120 kgs heavier than the K10

[deetjohn]

Nice move MSIL!

So like from the good old 80/90s, a hatch which is relatively fast between the lights and not too tall.

The stock air intake really looks like a CAI. So I guess the only needed mods are the much needed Tyre and Alloy upgrade and a sweet sounding FFE. I really like the good old Zen ORVMs.

A good tyre upgrade should deal with the grip and steering play somewhat. I think all the Maruti EPS systems cut off at 60KMPH.

The ideal rubber upgrade with minimum Speedo and Odo error is 165/60/R13. The Bridgestone Potenza GIII has the spec. I guess they are now made in India and not a patch on the old Japanese ones.

The site is up with all details http://www.altok10.com/

[MutantX]

Mag, a very good review. My Dad was planning to buy an Alto0 F8. Good that he has differed the plan for a few months.

This question might sound silly but I will ask: The K10 Alto is termed as an enthusiast's car and many people are excited about the 0-100 acceleration. I totally agree that it would be an excellent car for young gen-Y.

But my question is, "How suited is this for a 60 year old?"

[Mi10]

Originally Posted by deetjohn

The stock air intake really looks like a CAI.

Actually if you can hook up a conical air filter, it has the potential to turn to a Short ram air intake

[theMAG]

Originally Posted by MutantX

But my question is, "How suited is this for a 60 year old?"

Its really age-agnostic. Everything would depend on how the driver would handle a car.

Ridewise, not many complaints either - atleast at lower speeds. It does a decent job. Its only as the speeds become higher does the suspension starts becoming jarry. The steering is light- ideal for lower speed handling, but not for higher speeds.

The only other factor I can think of for a 60-year old's consideration is the ingress/egress. Its not very easy if your dad is above 5'6". Its a side-twist and flop arrangement. But then again, thats the same from the Alto 800 as well.

If you're looking at rear-seat comfort, its almost as cramped as the Alto 800 in the back but for some pseudo 50 mm knee space they've carved from from the backs of the front seats.

[aaggoswami]

1) Very nice review.

2) The seats with Fixed head restraints are for cost cutting. Bad move, but the engine in the light car will more than make up for this.

3) Front end reminds me of Baleno, specially the side profile. But rear end has lost everything.

4) Boot space is surprisingly in practical shape, i.e. more space utilizable without too many intrusions.

5) With the reworked front seats, I think the rear legroom must have improved. A good thing.

Ovreall, a real good bet. I am sure that competition will be hit. The real Zen thing!