Maruti Suzuki Ertiga ZDi Bought: Ownership Review
- Thread Starter saby
- Start date
wow.. that's amazing ! Can you share some closeup shots. I am interested to see placement of the sunroof and whether the mid row AC vents are impacted. Please also share details of the vendor, cost etc. Thank you in advance
Please see the image for calculation regarding tire upgrades. 195/65/15 will lead to around 4% variation in overall height & hence there would be significant variation in speedo & odometers. The upgrades with minimal error are 205/60/15 or 195/60/15. I have upgraded 195/60/15 and found the ride to much better than stock.
However, considering 205/60/15 for next upgrade to further enhance stability although mileage could marginally drop. By moving from 195/60/15 to 205/60/15, I would benefit from additional 6mm ground clearance and also extra cushioning.
Please see the image for calculation regarding tire upgrades. 195/65/15 will lead to around 4% variation in overall height & hence there would be significant variation in speedo & odometers. The upgrades with minimal error are 205/60/15 or 195/60/15. I have upgraded 195/60/15 and found the ride to much better than stock.
However, considering 205/60/15 for next upgrade to further enhance stability although mileage could marginally drop. By moving from 195/60/15 to 205/60/15, I would benefit from additional 6mm ground clearance and also extra cushioning.
Attachments
I feel there is some error in the calculation. 195 X 65 R15 will be a right upgrade with 6 mm increase in ground clearance and 2%^ error. We are using that from the beginning.
Attachments
Hi Vinod
Both our calculations are similar to a large extent, except for the 'error calculation' part. I guess you have used height for the calculations. But IMO, odometer error has to be calculated based on circumference of the tire since odometer will be calibrated based on rotations of the wheel (i.e., for each rotation of the wheel how much linear distance the tire will travel). Have included that also in attachment with this response.
Even if I use your calculation, errors are as follows:
> 195/60/15 : -1.05% &
> 205/60/15 : 0.88%
> 195/65/15 : 2.09%
Among the 3, error is more in 195/65/15 than others.
To put things in perspective, if we use tires with +ve error, odometer will show lesser kms than what the car actually travelled (since car will travel more distance per revolution). Assuming error is +4%, if car travelled 100kms odometer would show 96 kms only. It could appear small for 100km example - but if you use car of 1,00,000kms error will be 4,000kms which is significant.
Both our calculations are similar to a large extent, except for the 'error calculation' part. I guess you have used height for the calculations. But IMO, odometer error has to be calculated based on circumference of the tire since odometer will be calibrated based on rotations of the wheel (i.e., for each rotation of the wheel how much linear distance the tire will travel). Have included that also in attachment with this response.
Even if I use your calculation, errors are as follows:
> 195/60/15 : -1.05% &
> 205/60/15 : 0.88%
> 195/65/15 : 2.09%
Among the 3, error is more in 195/65/15 than others.
To put things in perspective, if we use tires with +ve error, odometer will show lesser kms than what the car actually travelled (since car will travel more distance per revolution). Assuming error is +4%, if car travelled 100kms odometer would show 96 kms only. It could appear small for 100km example - but if you use car of 1,00,000kms error will be 4,000kms which is significant.
Attachments
Last edited:
Just realized that I had mentioned in my first post that height variation is 4% (Instead of mentioning circumference, I mentioned as height by mistake). Please refer to my latest post in which I posted correct calculation.
Mod: I am unable to edit my earlier post and hence posting it as separate comment. Please merge if possible
Mod: I am unable to edit my earlier post and hence posting it as separate comment. Please merge if possible
Agreeing that error is more with 195 X 65, but its only 2.1% which is negligible in my opinion; 6 mm addition in ground clearance is a bonus.
The error I was talking about is in the calculation of height, where 15 is given in inches ( so multiplication factor in 25.4/2); that is where the difference was.
One link for a quick reference
https://www.mcgrefer.com/sizeinfo/1856515/width-195#page-2=page-2-profile
The error I was talking about is in the calculation of height, where 15 is given in inches ( so multiplication factor in 25.4/2); that is where the difference was.
One link for a quick reference
https://www.mcgrefer.com/sizeinfo/1856515/width-195#page-2=page-2-profile
Hi Prem,
1. My experience on 195/65/15 is better with 6 mm increase in ground clearance with 2.1% error in readings.
3. Have seen someone added second row charger in some other forum.
4. splitting seat to 50-50 is very much possible and I have done it at a cost of Rs 9000. from a local workshop in Trivandrum; will update my ownership review thread.
1. My experience on 195/65/15 is better with 6 mm increase in ground clearance with 2.1% error in readings.
3. Have seen someone added second row charger in some other forum.
4. splitting seat to 50-50 is very much possible and I have done it at a cost of Rs 9000. from a local workshop in Trivandrum; will update my ownership review thread.
I noticed a few interesting icons on the instrument cluster of my Ertiga ZDI today.. Look carefully and you will see them.. CRUISE, SET, Traction Control, and ACC.. these four features are available in the Indonesian version of the Ertiga. All these features have been removed for the indian version leaving only their icons behind
I think these features might be included in the ertiga facelift..
I think these features might be included in the ertiga facelift..I have strange issue with my Ertiga. I own a Granite Grey ZDI 2014 October make. The problem is that whenever I come back after 1 to 2 hr drive I see a water mist/dew/sweating whatever you call it on the outside that is on the roof of the car where the second row AC is located!!! It can be clearly seen the water sweating exactly above the second row ac from a balcony! This way the roof is surely going to rust. Is this normal ? Please help me .......
If it is on the outside then there is no way that it is due to the air conditioner.. Because the roof is a closed piece of metal no water can seep through.. Also the A/C is not cold enough that the water condenses on the outer surface especially when you are driving.
It could be that the water forms on the window due to the cold and flows backward if you are driving fast.
It could be that the water forms on the window due to the cold and flows backward if you are driving fast.
Even if i take up your ambitious theory that the water is flowing up to roof from the condensed windows then why does it accumulate only on the part exactly where the second row ac is? This happens only in the evening. Im sure its the cold cooling coil of the second row ac which when chilled makes condensation on the outer metal part of the roof of the car.Kolkata is hot and humid now,guys from Chennai/Vizag/Puri/Mumbai/Kerela have you come across this phenomenon?
Last edited:
That is weird. I never faced such issue. I have openned the roof ac to clean it Also once changed roof carpet as my son made it dirty It only has a cooling coil that intake the ac air from front vents and throw them more to the rear cabin. I don't think that blower can create a mist on the roof.I see wiper washer dropplets on roof when used in high speed might not be that I can guess.