[bbv]

Originally Posted by mercedised

Maybe they will be using the same engine in H7X and have reserved the higher output figures for that.

If this is the only reason, it seems unfair. A better thing would have been to go for a lower output engine itself and save some money instead (I presumed it would have been a cheaper option). Detuning just for the sake of making it look inferior in comparison to H7X is a poor thought, I would think.

[Guna]

Originally Posted by bbv

If this is the only reason, it seems unfair. A better thing would have been to go for a lower output engine itself and save some money instead (I presumed it would have been a cheaper option). Detuning just for the sake of making it look inferior in comparison to H7X is a poor thought, I would think.

Does the 170 BHP engine (one on the Jeep Compass) come with twin Turbo? If so, that could be the difference between the 140 BHP and 170 BHP versions of the Tata cars. Can someone throw light on this?

[bbv]

In some of the reviews, they have stated that the turbo lag is more in Jeep Compass compared to Harrier. So, yes it could be to have more torque at lower revs, hence a different setting. But someone knowledgeable can only confirm.

[Behemoth]

Originally Posted by Guna

Does the 170 BHP engine (one on the Jeep Compass) come with twin Turbo? If so, that could be the difference between the 140 BHP and 170 BHP versions of the Tata cars. Can someone throw light on this?

No its a single turbo VGT type in the Jeep Compass. What they have done in the 140bhp version is to cap off the torque curve electronically beyond 3000 rpm to limit the power at higher rpms. This is the torque curve of the Jeep Compass. In the case of the Harrier the Torque of 350 Nm will be reduced to a lower rpm range. (Power= Torque x Omega ) to the total Power will be less.

[neil.jericho]

Good move from Tata Motors.

[Rahul Rao]

Originally Posted by bbv

Does any expert here have an idea on why would they detune the engine to give lesser torque and power? There are many articles stating this fact, but none of them care to justify this. So, is there a genuine advantage in any aspect by doing this? For example, would the fuel efficiency be better or something else?

De tuned engines with less maximum torque but higher torque at lower rpm give a better driving feel. Take a TD of a Storm 320nm and Storm 400nm back to back and you will find the 320 better until you cross 80 kph or so.


The 2.0 MJD has 350 NM from 1750 rpm to 2500 rpm in both tune versions, in the lower tune version the torque curve falls from 2500 rpm to 3750 rpm, but it is better in the 900 to 2500 rpm range.
This means that to reduce the turbo lag, they have sacrificed the top end, now how often do you drive a diesel above 2500 rpm, to notice it.



So reserving the higher tune version for the AT, where the converter slip at low speed, and a downshift at medium speed will not let you notice the lag and lower tune version with lesser lag and better idle torque for the MT makes sense. Only downside will be that such engines have marginally more idle clatter.


Rahul

[nainan]

Originally Posted by Rahul Rao

The 2.0 MJD has 350 NM from 1750 rpm to 2500 rpm in both tune versions, in the lower tune version the torque curve falls from 2500 rpm to 3750 rpm, but it is better in the 900 to 2500 rpm range.
This means that to reduce the turbo lag, they have sacrificed the top end, now how often do you drive a diesel above 2500 rpm, to notice it.

Adding the curves for both engines. As Rahul explained at a 1000 rpm the 140 ps tune makes 240 Nm of torque while the 170 ps version makes 200 Nm. The 140 engine will peak at 1500 rpm while the 170 peaks at 1750 rpm. Till 2500 rpm both engines are at 315 and 330 rpm. Since most city driving will happen in this range the 140 ps version with its high starting torque and similar torque at 2500 rpm will have better low end torque reducing the need for rapid gear changes and will drive better in stop start conditions. The 170 ps engine will have better acceleration with a better mid range and top end.


The site has details for all versions of the Compass including the full engine range in Petrol and diesel including the 1.4 MultiAir and the 1.6 MJD II

source

[ACM]

Originally Posted by nainan

Adding the curves for both engines. As Rahul explained at a 1000 rpm the 140 ps tune makes 240 Nm of torque while the 170 ps version makes 200 Nm. The 140 engine will peak at 1500 rpm while the 170 peaks at 1750 rpm.

Just a question. If the drivability of 140bhp version is so much better than the 170bhp version due to torque rpm range, then why is the even heavier 7 seater using the 170bhp version? Also actually why even the compass.

There must be a reason. Am trying to understand what. Not yet getting the logic.

[itsashishsharma]

Originally Posted by ACM

Just a question. If the drivability of 140bhp version is so much better than the 170bhp version due to torque rpm range, then why is the even heavier 7 seater using the 170bhp version? Also actually why even the compass.

There must be a reason. Am trying to understand what. Not yet getting the logic.

The detuned version will not have as good a top range. Simple. It's a trade off.

[akshay386]

Originally Posted by ACM

Just a question. If the drivability of 140bhp version is so much better than the 170bhp version due to torque rpm range, then why is the even heavier 7 seater using the 170bhp version? Also actually why even the compass.

There must be a reason. Am trying to understand what. Not yet getting the logic.

Let me try to give my views on this.
While selecting the engine, the full load characteristics are also taken into account along with low and mid range performance. As you will see post 3000 rpm the power curve is still rising till 170ps where as in less tuned engine post 3000 rpm the power produced by the engine is getting limited till 140 ps only. This is may be due to turbocharging technology used or could be due to fuel injection or due to engine mapping etc. But the ultimate aim is to give the heart (engine) which can pull the relatively heavier vehicle in better manner at low as well as high rpm.

As far as 140ps engine is concern, this engine has to pull relatively lighter vehicle (being 5 seat) and will have satisfactory top end performance.

I hope this make sense.

[Rahul Rao]

Originally Posted by nainan

Till 2500 rpm both engines are at 315 and 330 rpm. Since most city driving will happen in this range the 140 ps version with its high starting torque and similar torque at 2500 rpm will have better low end torque reducing the need for rapid gear changes and will drive better in stop start conditions. The 170 ps engine will have better acceleration with a better mid range and top end.

Actually if you see the gearing, the 140 ps will have a better cruising too.
As per gear ratio, wheel dia and final reduction ratio, 100 will come up at about 1670 rpm, and 120 at 2000 rpm. So if you are cruising at 100 in 6th you just have to floor, as you are in beginning of the peak torque range, but for the 170 bhp engine you may have to drop to 5th floor and again come back to 6th.
This will be a pain for the left knee in the manual, but a programmed shift not noticed by any one except the driver in the automatic.
It is only when you floor in 4th and take the car to 140 in fourth that the lack of top end will be noticed.
In my opinion Tata should stick to the 140ps tune for the manual, and 170 ps tune for the automatic in both 5 and 7 seat versions.


Rahul

[Yellowphoneix]

Here i go with my first post in Team bhp, though i have been following TBhp for ages..

I am currently driving a Skoda laura & looking to replace it with Harrier.

If indeed its priced at 21 lacs, i would rather stick to skoda Octavia for few lacs more, which Harrier Just cant match in any count (other than maintenance cost in the long run). And not to Mention the Amazing drive quality.

I had been to "explore harrier" in bangalore: few things i noticed
- The so called 9 speaker JBL is no match for my 11 year Laura speakers
- Someone said, the figures on paper not necessarily translates into real world performance. so true. which i think is going to be same when compared to Laura/Octavia too. (simply comparing the power output, not class)
- all the hype of luxury/premium is just marketing gimmick. it just looks normal for a 21 lac car. but definitely good upgrade for tata. i have been using a tata car from 2001 onwards.
- The base model doesnt even have a remote lock & only white color - common.. these are as important as Roti - kapda - makaan, for a car. not that tata did lot of saving by not giving it too!!
- The footwell aint that great. the dead pedal almost not there. plus the "wall panel" was too loose, when you push to rest rest your Foot.
- Its unfortunate that the Drivers hand rest is not sliding. coming from Laura, it will make great difference. it adds to Drive comfort.
- I really dont care if the USB slot is tough to find, as its going to be "put it forget it"
- I am not too concerned about the panel gaps or anything. they dont affect fit & finish nor the quality of driving. those who are concerned are probably just doing nitpicking.

Percieved Value - Now having said this, as i am a prospective customer, if they indeed price it at 21 lacs, I would rather be happy with proven Creta or Kicks considering the Power to Weight ratio too. (or even a MG hector)

I should also consider the brand perception of TATA/Harrier & i dont think at the moment it deserves 21/22 lacs (that too for w/o Sunroof & Auto). as per service or dealership networks, most of those who type here in TBhp are in metro cities/Tier II city & its not really a issue as such (wrt MG/kicks).

Though tata has presence in most places, their service aint good either. i have been to 4-5 of them & all are same, just like skoda i must say . I am sure, this is always WIP for all manufacturers.

[nainan]

Originally Posted by Rahul Rao

Actually if you see the gearing, the 140 ps will have a better cruising too.
As per gear ratio, wheel dia and final reduction ratio, 100 will come up at about 1670 rpm, and 120 at 2000 rpm. So if you are cruising at 100 in 6th you just have to floor, as you are in beginning of the peak torque range, but for the 170 bhp engine you may have to drop to 5th floor and again come back to 6th.
This will be a pain for the left knee in the manual, but a programmed shift not noticed by any one except the driver in the automatic.
It is only when you floor in 4th and take the car to 140 in fourth that the lack of top end will be noticed.
In my opinion Tata should stick to the 140ps tune for the manual, and 170 ps tune for the automatic in both 5 and 7 seat versions.


Rahul

I had taken a Zoomcar Hexa and did about 300 Km today on the same. It was an XM with the 320 Nm engine which felt so familiar from my Safari and is such a delight once the Turbo kicks in. Made me curious enough to look up the torque curves and looking at them I just wonder what such an engine would have been on the much lighter Harrier or the H7X where the turbo lag might not have mattered much. Attaching the same here.



I agree and so does Jeep as they have the 140 PS on manual and 170 PS on auto for Compass in the UK. I just wonder how Jeep missed such an obvious opportunity by not launching the 140 PS engine on the Compass at a lower price in India which could have been a much more competitive offering.

[AirbusCapt]

Originally Posted by nainan

I had taken a Zoomcar Hexa and did about 300 Km today on the same. It was an XM with the 320 Nm engine which felt so familiar from my Safari and is such a delight once the Turbo kicks in. Made me curious enough to look up the torque curves and looking at them I just wonder what such an engine would have been on the much lighter Harrier or the H7X where the turbo lag might not have mattered much. Attaching the same here.

Attachment 1836627

I agree and so does Jeep as they have the 140 PS on manual and 170 PS on auto for Compass in the UK. I just wonder how Jeep missed such an obvious opportunity by not launching the 140 PS engine on the Compass at a lower price in India which could have been a much more competitive offering.

You must experience the Hexa with 400 nm and the autobox then. The autobox is a gem which masks all turbolag and the car offers seamless power delivery from near idle to almost redline. There is no let up of steam until above an English ton, the sixth gear kicks in (only by seeing tachometer) way past 140k. All this in the normal mode, the sports mode and racecar mode offer even more. Tata did a big mistake by not offering an automatic on the Harrier

[Aceman82]

Originally Posted by Yellowphoneix

Here i go with my first post in Team bhp, though i have been following TBhp for ages..


If indeed its priced at 21 lacs, i would rather stick to skoda Octavia for few lacs more, which Harrier Just cant match in any count (other than maintenance cost in the long run). And not to Mention the Amazing drive quality.

+1. Looking at buying an automatic to reduce the pain in left knee on long drives and to allow for dad/wife to use the vehicle in my absence. If the Harrier auto lands up at ~22-23 lakhs on-road (adding +1 lakh from Manual), I would rather pay 2 -3 lakhs extra and get the Octavia 1.8 TSI style.

I am not interested in manuals anymore but even in that scenario, at 21 Lakhs on road, it would make sense to go for manual Octavia rather than Harrier for people looking at 5 seaters.

On the other hand, if the Harrier is priced near the Creta then it would make itself a good value proposition with a good 4 lakhs savings when compared to D-Segment sedans.

Looking at the feature reduction like lack of rear disk brakes, sunroof and cost-cutting like the non-independent rear suspension, I feel that Tata should be aiming for the Creta crowd with the Harrier.