[sandeepmohan]

Originally Posted by blacksport

The whole point of adding a turbocharger is not to get more power/torque/FE from the same engine. Adding a turbocharger, you can have a smaller engine instead of a larger one.

To your first sentence, it was the manufacturers who made all the tall claims about higher power, torque and increased fuel economy from a smaller block strapped with a Turbo. In reality, when it comes to higher economy from a small turbo engine, I have yet to see that much of a difference. Turbo petrols are highly sensitive to driving style too.

About achieving performance that equals or exceeds a larger engine, that is true. What I will say is the Ecoboost's claimed power and economy versus actually delivery is far from what the brochures talk about. Ford's Ecoboost does not even get close to the response of the 1.6l Duratec mill. Surely better than the 1.5l. I find the bottom end quite dead on the Ecoboost.

I was super excited about the Ecoboost roll out. After driving one, the excitement is all gone. Hope Ford do a better job when it rolls out on the Fiesta cause thats one chassis that needs more power.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by sandeepmohan

To your first sentence, it was the manufacturers who made all the tall claims about higher power, torque and increased fuel economy from a smaller block strapped with a Turbo. In reality, when it comes to higher economy from a small turbo engine, I have yet to see that much of a difference. Turbo petrols are highly sensitive to driving style too.

I don't think they meant that turbocharging the engine increases the FE. I haven't seen the literature. Having said that, claims from manufacturers are usually taller than what they actually are. Everybody does that. We have to see through it.

About achieving performance that equals or exceeds a larger engine, that is true. What I will say is the Ecoboost's claimed power and economy versus actually delivery is far from what the brochures talk about. Ford's Ecoboost does not even get close to the response of the 1.6l Duratec mill. Surely better than the 1.5l. I find the bottom end quite dead on the Ecoboost.

OK, if not the 1.6L, the ecoboost 1.0 is as good as or better than 1.5L in all parameters (power, torque and FE). Similarly the 1.8TSi of the old Ocatvia was better than the 2.0NA. Also, the 1.2 TSi is a lot better than the 1.6NA of the Polo/Vento. They amply demonstrate the advantages of turbocharging.

I was super excited about the Ecoboost roll out. After driving one, the excitement is all gone. Hope Ford do a better job when it rolls out on the Fiesta cause thats one chassis that needs more power.

OT: A lot of the issues with the 1.0 ecosboost in the ecosport has to do with the Ecosport's weight. It has to haul about 1.25 tonnes while the 1.6 in the Fiesta classic had to haul about 1.1 tonnes. The 1.2 Ecoboost would have made better sense in the Ecosport.

[humyum]

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

1) Yes, its forced induction and there are many possibilities attached to it. Increasing specific output wont be tough. But look at other aspects too. The block is probably very old, probably brought into market in 1998/99. Over a decade old. I think Tata did mention this as stop gap arrangement. Whats exactly wrong in it ? An Indian company doing something which many auto majors have backed out from, something atleast I will appreciate. Suzuki does turbocharging in small cars sold in Japan. Did they bring it to India ? Does Hyundai/Honda/Toyota have it ? Only VW does it and charge way too much for it.

Does Suzuki have a problem penetrating the market ? Or Hyundai, Toyota, or Honda? Did a 76 bhp Vista MJD sell even 1/10 of what a Swift Diesel did when it had the advantage of space, price, features over the Swift D ? Get my point of something 'drastic' ?

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

Tata, I believe, went in for Turbo petrol to increase lower end and mid range punch rather than focusing on top end power. I see this as a very positive movement. Nobody can ignore the refinement of cast iron block. The recent all Al. diesel from Honda is a very good example of this (as its a noisy Al. motor ).

I agree, but could have been done better is all I am saying. Now is that not a point of view I can have ?

Originally Posted by aaggoswami

Regarding new GB, as this is a stop gap arrangement, may be they have a new GB in pipeline. And for only 14.4 KGM torque, I believe how and where the torque is delivered matters most. Toyota Innova has as much torque as swift diesel, ( well almost ), but the way torque is delivered makes Innova more derivable than any Maruti diesel machine on market right now, despite the size.
160 NM torque of my Grand i10 diesel makes it feel lethargic, and more often than not, I am using K10 WAgon R CNG ( factory fitted ). The Wagon R, even on CNG mode feels better to drive in city than Grand i10 diesel. Instant throttle response and high revv-ability. In CNG mode, K10 Waggie would make half as much torque as Grand i10 diesel, but still is more responsive in daily drives.

Yes, but makes the same Innova, cry at higher highway speeds, haven't we seen that complain all over teambhp. Drivablity is one factor, Drivablity in every condition is another. Now a days families travel all around the country in a car and with the ways highways are improving, the top speeds have gone up too.

The stop gap arrangement will make the current buyer jittery as what if a better version with a more powerful engine and a better gearbox come in the market after a year ? In India people generally keep their cars for 4 to 5 years at least.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

That should also make the new Swift a looser? Too bad it sells and how.

It created the market with the DDIS. First fun to drive car in that segment was a Swift Diesel. The Petrol sells in way lesser numbers than the diesel.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

Ofcourse the competition will dictate what a company will and will not provide in a car. If the engine is not enough differentiation, something else will be. In this case the interiors and harman kardon sound system. Tata Motors had a bad year but before harping on and on endlessly do realize that barring last one year or so their cars were selling well, so much so that they were 2nd or 3rd? largest car maker by volume in India. If the new Zest and Bolt are good to drive and keenly priced, I cannot see why they can not repeat their past performance.
Did you ever question Swift's positioning which comes with the same old engine (no driving modes even though it is trivial as per you) and at 6+ lakhs OTR gives you a bare bones car which rattles at the first sight of a pothole.

Harmon Kardon System as a differentiation. LOL. Selling cars is one thing, selling cars to the passenger segment is another.

Swift has made its mark and is selling on many factors put together which work in its favour. First is Maruti Suzukis after sales service, second is the 'first movers' advantage it had in the market, third is the reputation. Name any of these which Tata had ?

Tata can repeat their performance, I don't disagree on that, but we were debating on the engine and not on either of them will sell well or not.

Originally Posted by extreme_torque

It is not a question of can do, the question is if it is worth doing. For a company which owns Jaguar-Land Rover they can do a lot when it comes to technology. Ofcourse they can give you air suspension, a mark and levison 17 speaker stereo system and all the driving modes you want and outprice it but that would loosing the plot totally.Out of the box but absolutely stupid in my book. Remember Zest/Bolt are not halo cars, they are supposed to reliable everyday cars that are expected to bring in volumes for Tata. If Tata can deliver a car which is as good to drive has others in the segment and top notch interiors I don't see why cannot have the volumes back. For a change they look good as well.
Tell me which other car in the Indian market gives you selectable power/torque output via driving modes and I will rest my case? If not even then I rest my case because I have absolutely no inclination to argue with you endlessly.

Those are your versions of out of box which are stupid, out of box does not mean air suspension in an hatchback of this size and shape. Reliable everyday cars which bring a smile on the drivers face are the ones which sell. They look good, I ll agree to that. The Zest more so. No car has select-able drive modes, so ? In an 85 bhp, 14 kgm car, I can't fathom what will u select if the power is going to remain the same and throttle response is just going change. Pointless this too.

Lets agree to disagree man. U can rest or do whatever you want.

Originally Posted by DieselAddikt

With all due respects, i would like to know more about it. The last time i drove a car with this feature was a 528i and really wondered how the engine made so much of difference in these modes. Only thing i noticed was a difference in the engine rpm while up-shifting. What is the real technology behind it ?

I don't know what the modes do in the ZEST but in the 528i it offers a choice of four different driving modes: Sport+, Sport,Comfort” and Eco Pro settings.

Default is comfort while sports mode offer a more aggressive suspension settings ( harder for better cornering, body roll etc etc), faster and more high rpm shifts and stability control settings which allow the user to enjoy the car to the max without much electronic interference

The Eco-Pro mode promotes a fuel-efficient driving style, lowers accessory energy demands on the engine and includes the use of an automated idle stop/start

In the engine, all that changes is degree of pedal travel required to reach wide open throttle in the 528I

[blacksport]

Wonder why Maruti fans have to visit each and every thread and declare that Maruti is the best. Should we petition the govt to shut down all manufacturers except Maruti since they don't seem to be serving any purpose being in business?

BTW, this tweet from Hormazd should shut some up. Hopefully.

[sandeepmohan]

Originally Posted by blacksport

I don't think they meant that turbocharging the engine increases the FE.

Yes they did and and to a some extent they are correct. Trouble is, in the real world, all those tall claims with regard to fuel economy, atleast for a gasoline turbo engine, makes little difference.

Originally Posted by blacksport

Having said that, claims from manufacturers are usually taller than what they actually are.

Yes.

Originally Posted by blacksport

OK, if not the 1.6L, the ecoboost 1.0 is as good as or better than 1.5L in all parameters.

Please remember that we are talking about 126 vs 110bhp. Torque output isn't that much over the 1.5l, probably due to the 1l block.

I don't believe the Ecoboost is all that more fuel efficient than the 1.5l duratec.

Originally Posted by blacksport

Also, the 1.2 TSi is a lot better than the 1.6NA of the Polo/Vento.

Now this is a really good example of good design and implementation.

Originally Posted by blacksport

A lot of the issues with the 1.0 ecosboost in the ecosport has to do with the Ecosport's weight.

Possible but its also about how that power is delivered.

Okay so this is going off topic and not in line with the thread title.

All I can say is, with all the buzz created around the Revotron by Tata, this engine better deliver.

[adimicra]

I think Tata Motors is not making a smart choice by making the Revotron engine as the focal point of their promotions blitzkrieg and hyping it so much.
The Revotron engine might be comparable or little better than the competition (ex, Swift 1.2 petrol engine) but don't think the difference is substantial enough (either in terms of power or FE) to claim it as a revolution or something like that. To the end user, it does not matter if the car uses a turbocharged or a NA engine..what matters is the FE, refinement and power. Yes, it offers slightly better low end torque but does that amount to something path-breaking? I guess not. As someone mentioned, the Swift DDIs was a path-breaking offering in the segment and that's why it still enjoys the love and trust of millions of customers even today. The revotron does not fit in the same category, at least on paper. Obviously, we need to wait for the detailed test drives before we can conclude.

The problem with Tata motors is that the general impression about is vehicles is not good in terms of providing a hassle-free ownership experience .. their vehicles are known to be prone to niggles and after sales service is not good either. Also, Tata motors has a history of quality issues particularly with new launches. Given all these factors, even if the Zest and Bolt offer more compared to the competition, it is unlikely that they will become blockbusters. They need to build(rebuild) the brand by not only offering better products but by providing a niggle-free hassle-free long term ownership experience.. they can do it but it will take time.

[adimicra]

Excerpt from Autocar review of the Zest -
This is what it says about the Revotron engine
"It’s smooth when you set off and when the turbo comes alive at around 1,700rpm, the transition is smooth. Off-boost, you will find some hesitation if you punch down the accelerator in a hurry, but you get accustomed to it soon enough and it’s hardly a bother in traffic. The mid range isn’t ballistic as you might expect from a turbo engine, but performance is adequate for normal motoring.

Tata has also made a lot of mention of the Revotron’s three driving modes – Eco, City and Sport – a class-first feature that uses different ECU maps to suit your need but to be honest, it doesn’t live up to the hype. There is a little more responsiveness in Sport mode, but apart from that, the differences between the modes are hard to discern. The other problem is that this motor isn’t particular free-revving and runs out of breath pretty quickly, struggling to hit 6,000rpm.

Though the Revotron has sporting intensions, the fact is that this engine doesn’t like being flogged and feels best with moderate throttle inputs. Mention must be made of the refinement levels which are superb. Because it uses a cast-iron block rather than an aluminium one, noise and vibrations are much better contained, and noise levels are quite low. In fact, the Zest on the whole is very refined, with wind and tyre noise levels also having been improved."

Is there any path-breaking stuff there? To my mind (from the above review), it seems that the engine is just par for the course and nothing more. I wonder whats all the hype about.

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by adimicra

Is there any path-breaking stuff there? To my mind (from the above review), it seems that the engine is just par for the course and nothing more. I wonder whats all the hype about.

That's the thing which I have been asking However, people here call it as bashing.

All I was asking is, after all the talk of turbocharger, driving modes, revotron etc, will this really be worth all the stuff put into their existing 1.2L block. Instead they could have worked on improvising the engine itself to make it more efficient and powerful. Not even VW created such a hype when the Polo GT TSi was launched. Silently launched, but is a decent seller no doubt.

First, people spoke about how this will be a scorcher(So does their advert). Once the engine was officially unveiled with its specs, people justified the power output by bringing in the torque part. Agreed, it has a very good torque curve which will aid driveability. Then comes the talk about fuel efficiency. This is no direct injection engine with the ultra lean burn tech found in the TSi or Ecoboost(?). Meaning, the engine has to maintain AFR within limits. Meaning, more air = more fuel - Simple chemistry. Hence, if turbo kicks in and sends more air to engine, more fuel will be used as well. Its not like turbo sends in air and the job is done. So, the speak of good torque and driveability comes with some dent in FE too.

If driven sedately, yes this engine will give good FE. As they say the turbo doesnt come alive till 1700RPM. Thats where they will achieve good ARAI figures. Once it kicks in, the story will be different.

A smart management up in the company would have focussed on concentrating on limited aspects, and refining those aspects to the best possible extent. Here its like trying to offer everything at the same time. A car with limited features, but with the best of whatever is provided would have been a better idea. A well arranged set of gear ratios could have taken care of driveability. A sixth cog too, would have been a cheaper but better option to enhance the spread of ratios. However its the opposite here.

There is a saying:
"Fast and cheap isnt reliable
Cheap and reliable isnt fast
Reliable and fast isnt cheap"

Lets see if Tata offers Fast, cheap and reliable at the same time. Signing off until launch

[Aditya]

Mod Note : Personal attacks on fellow BHPians are STRICTLY prohibited on Team-BHP. All members are part of the Team-BHP family, and any discriminating or derogatory comment will NOT be permitted.

[humyum]

Originally Posted by adimicra

Excerpt from Autocar review of the Zest -
This is what it says about the Revotron engine
"It’s smooth when you set off and when the turbo comes alive at around 1,700rpm, the transition is smooth. Off-boost, you will find some hesitation if you punch down the accelerator in a hurry, but you get accustomed to it soon enough and it’s hardly a bother in traffic. The mid range isn’t ballistic as you might expect from a turbo engine, but performance is adequate for normal motoring.

Tata has also made a lot of mention of the Revotron’s three driving modes – Eco, City and Sport – a class-first feature that uses different ECU maps to suit your need but to be honest, it doesn’t live up to the hype. There is a little more responsiveness in Sport mode, but apart from that, the differences between the modes are hard to discern. The other problem is that this motor isn’t particular free-revving and runs out of breath pretty quickly, struggling to hit 6,000rpm.

Though the Revotron has sporting intensions, the fact is that this engine doesn’t like being flogged and feels best with moderate throttle inputs. Mention must be made of the refinement levels which are superb. Because it uses a cast-iron block rather than an aluminium one, noise and vibrations are much better contained, and noise levels are quite low. In fact, the Zest on the whole is very refined, with wind and tyre noise levels also having been improved."

Is there any path-breaking stuff there? To my mind (from the above review), it seems that the engine is just par for the course and nothing more. I wonder whats all the hype about.

Well, after getting bashed by so my people, I hope whatever I was saying all this while finally makes sense. Nothing drastic = Run of the mill. The hype will get a final coffin in the nail when people test drive the car. But on the other hand the Zest Diesel AMT looks like a fantastic raised to N proposition, if priced right ( which Tata always does ), they have a super selling product at hand.

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by adimicra

Is there any path-breaking stuff there? To my mind (from the above review), it seems that the engine is just par for the course and nothing more. I wonder whats all the hype about.

Originally Posted by humyum

Well, after getting bashed by so my people, I hope whatever I was saying all this while finally makes sense.

Originally Posted by audioholic

That's the thing which I have been asking However, people here call it as bashing.

So, that means that the reviewers seem to have found out that there is nothing path-breaking about the engine which you had predicted even without seeing one. Was that intuition? Or prejudice?

Every advertisement claims their products as class-leading, path-breaking etc. Am yet to see one that isn't. BTW, I still feel that any turbo engine in any state of tune would any day be better than any NA engine of the same size. Unless the manufacturer screwed it up big time. I would still give them the benefit of the doubt until I drive one. Or at least wait for the team-bhp review.

All I was asking is, after all the talk of turbocharger, driving modes, revotron etc, will this really be worth all the stuff put into their existing 1.2L block. Instead they could have worked on improvising the engine itself to make it more efficient and powerful. Not even VW created such a hype when the Polo GT TSi was launched. Silently launched, but is a decent seller no doubt.

There is not much you can do with a NA engine. You can add variable valve timing, and that's it. And then, we have a 1.2L cap for small cars, so they can't increase the block size. Turbocharging is the only way out. Also having forced induction, allows them to run the engine in various states of tune to suit the kind of car they are dropping it on.

It is the first turbo-petrol developed by an Indian manufacturer. It is a feat however small it might be. I respect Tata for developing products suited for our market than parachuting products built for other markets and asking us to adapt to it.

[humyum]

Originally Posted by blacksport

So, that means that the reviewers seem to have found out that there is nothing path-breaking about the engine which you had predicted even without seeing one. Was that intuition? Or prejudice?

Every advertisement claims their products as class-leading, path-breaking etc. Am yet to see one that isn't. BTW, I still feel that any turbo engine in any state of tune would any day be better than any NA engine of the same size. Unless the manufacturer screwed it up big time. I would still give them the benefit of the doubt until I drive one. Or at least wait for the team-bhp review.

Reading the stats, it was more than obvious. Too bad if you feel its prejudice.

[adimicra]

Originally Posted by blacksport

So, that means that the reviewers seem to have found out that there is nothing path-breaking about the engine which you had predicted even without seeing one. Was that intuition? Or prejudice?

Every advertisement claims their products as class-leading, path-breaking etc. Am yet to see one that isn't. BTW, I still feel that any turbo engine in any state of tune would any day be better than any NA engine of the same size. Unless the manufacturer screwed it up big time. I would still give them the benefit of the doubt until I drive one. Or at least wait for the team-bhp review.

Calling us prejudiced is not correct and it's getting personal. I dont want to go into personal duel here on this forum but judging by the same parameters, you can be called prejudiced as well as you are giving it benefit of doubt and claiming it to be class leading.

Yes, Team BHP review is the best..but unfortunately we don't have it yet. Autocar is a very highly regarded auto mag and the best option other than TBHP. So, my comments are based on their review have some reason.

And I don't think just putting a turbo makes the engine a better one. Ultimately, the performance (FE, driveability, acceleration, refinement, longevity, reliability) matters and not what tech is inside.

Also, all the reviews say that the drive modes really dont make much of a difference. So, mostly these seem to be a gimmick than anything else
I don't remember any manufacturer in this class making so much hype about a petrol engine. So, unless it is a game changing one, why make so much hype?

[blacksport]

Originally Posted by adimicra

Calling us prejudiced is not correct and it's getting personal. I dont want to go into personal duel here on this forum but judging by the same parameters, you can be called prejudiced as well as you are giving it benefit of doubt and claiming it to be class leading.

Please ponder what prejudice is, trashing something without driving it, or saying that I'd give them the benifit of the doubt until I drive it?

Yes, Team BHP review is the best..but unfortunately we don't have it yet. Autocar is a very highly regarded auto mag and the best option other than TBHP. So, my comments are based on their review have some reason.

But then you trashed the engine even before the Autocar review came out.

And I don't think just putting a turbo makes the engine a better one. Ultimately, the performance (FE, driveability, acceleration, refinement, longevity, reliability) matters and not what tech is inside.

Turbocharging gives it usable/accessible torque. Even if all the other parameters don't change,it is good enough

Also, all the reviews say that the drive modes really dont make much of a difference. So, mostly these seem to be a gimmick than anything else

Probably.

I don't remember any manufacturer in this class making so much hype about a petrol engine. So, unless it is a game changing one, why make so much hype?

Forgot all those K-series ads?

[audioholic]

Originally Posted by blacksport

Forgot all those K-series ads?

When it was launched along with the Kappa from hyundai, 85 odd horses for the 1.2l engine (Naturally aspirated ) was high. Same followed by the Honda I-Vtec. Now in case this revotron at least gave five horses more, it would have definitely been worth it. Driveabilty can be greatly altered by gearing. If that was their prime focus, as I told in the previous post, a good spread of ratios would have been a lot cheaper as an option than provide a turbo and related stuff. That's where decisions come to play.