[wheelguy]

Speaking to Autocar India, CV Raman, senior executive director, Maruti Suzuki, spoke of the carmaker’s challenge of marketing small turbo-petrol engines in India. “What we understood from the customer is that he perceives a 1.0-litre engine as a 1.0-litre engine, and he perceives a 1.5-litre engine as a 1.5-litre engine, that is, as a bigger engine. He is not so clued onto whether it is a turbo-petrol or not. Of course, there are connoisseurs and there are enthusiasts out there, but there is a bigger audience which looks at the size of the engine as 1.0-litre, 1.2-litre or 1.5-litre. So, if a 1.0-litre turbocharged is also there, he will consider it to be a smaller engine and not having the necessary torque or the power to propel a bigger vehicle. So he will feel like that. So our analysis shows that he would much rather prefer a 1.5-litre compared to a 1.0-litre.”

The choice of petrol engine to use on the upcoming petrol version of the Vitara Brezza compact SUV is sure to have been a point of contention within Maruti. The carmaker’s decision to launch the Brezza petrol with the naturally-aspirated, 1.5-litre K15 engine means the Brezza won’t qualify for ‘small car’ excise benefits available to models under 4m in length and with petrol engines smaller than 1,200cc. In a sense, the only other engine for the job would have been the high-tech 1.0 Boosterjet. For perspective, the 1.0 Boosterjet’s 102hp peak power is down on the K15’s 105hp figure, but the turbo-petrol is marginally torquier delivers 150Nm at 1,700-4,500rpm versus the K15’s 138Nm at 4,400rpm.

Opting for the larger engine will have its implications on pricing, Raman concedes, “From a concept perspective and from a drivability perspective, the 1.5-litre does the duty of a 1.0-litre (turbo) engine. So, from that aspect, there is no issue. From a cost perspective, from a fiscal perspective or from a GST perspective, yes there are challenges. But we will see how to manage that and that is part of the challenge for the engineering team.”

IMO, it's just that they don't want to sell turbo petrols for various reasons and they are trying to justify themselves, nothing else. Maruti shouldn't forget that the Chinese are here and Maruti doesn't anymore have the luxury of doing the things the way they are doing all these days, their laurels won't help. Chinese will take on segment by segment, they will make it difficult for Maruti to move to segments above Brezza and S-Cross, and they might also challenge Vitara Brezza in future.

Interestingly, all of the Vitara Brezza’s competitors come with the option of a sub-1,200cc turbo-petrol engine option. Also of note is the fact that the Hyundai Venue’s 1.0 turbo-petrol and the Tata Nexon’s 1.2 turbo-petrol versions outsell the larger-hearted diesel versions comprehensively. The Mahindra XUV300’s 1.2 turbo-petrol isn’t quite as popular as the diesel, however, while Ford will pull the plug on the slow-selling 1.0 EcoBoost engine before BS6 norms come into effect next year.

More at: Autocar India

[GTO]

Pain is on the left hand, but Maruti wants to apply balm on the right hand? Such a long article, but no real focus on the real issue = PRICE. When the Baleno RS was launched, it wanted a stiff 1.5 lakh rupee premium over the 1.2L petrol variant. Was destined to fail.

Of course, I will agree that the average car buyer does pay attention to engine size, but it's not a make-it-or-break-it factor at all.

Hell, forget the average car buyer, even I will pick a large naturally-aspirated engine over a smaller turbo one. Case in point, Ford's 1.5L Dragon over the 1.0 EcoBoost, and Maruti's own 1.5L petrol over the 1.0L. Reasons:

- Cheaper to buy
- Cheaper to maintain (far less complex, no turbo etc)
- Usually more fuel efficient (EcoBoost fell flat on its face in FE)
- A superior bottom-end that makes city driveability better
- The triple-cylinders are less refined than their 4-cylinder counterparts

Of course, there are excellent small turbo-petrols which have won over my heart (VW 1.2 TSI, Mahindra's 1.2L in the XUV300, Tiago JTP etc.), so maybe Maruti should take a closer look at their positioning. Maruti's 1.0 turbo-petrol is nice, but it was overpriced in the Baleno.

[Shreyans_Jain]

I think this is just corporate speak for

1. The benefits under excise duty for small cars were overrated and milked by car manufacturers. It actually doesn't make that much of a difference to the final price.

2. Maruti still refuses to learn from it's BS6 diesel fiasco . In face of falling marking share, it still wants to play the 'premium positioning' game for the Boosterjet turbo petrol. Ergo, the failure of the Baleno RS was the market's fault. The over optimistic price had nothing to do with it.

I refuse to buy the argument that customers think lesser of smaller turbo petrols. Had that been the case, nobody would have bought a VW car their TSi engines. For God's sake, MSIL, eat the humble pie and treat your lifeline market with respect before you become obsolete in face of newer technologies and changing trends.

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by GTO

Hell, forget the average car buyer, even I will pick a large naturally-aspirated engine over a smaller turbo one. Case in point, Ford's 1.5L Dragon over the 1.0 EcoBoost, and Maruti's own 1.5L petrol over the 1.0L. Reasons:

- Usually more fuel efficient (EcoBoost fell flat on its face in FE)
- A superior bottom-end that makes city driveability better

Your post reminded me of a video I saw just last week. It is so apt that I have to put it here. The video is a must watch:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=P8UNwd4OLXI

Of course, there are excellent small turbo-petrols which have won over my heart (VW 1.2 TSI, Mahindra's 1.2L in the XUV300, Tiago JTP etc.), so maybe Maruti should take a closer look at their positioning. Maruti's 1.0 turbo-petrol is nice, but it was overpriced in the Baleno.

A small observation here. All 3 engines you mentioned here are 1.2L engines. So in a way the extra 200cc actually makes a difference.

The other engines are the 1.0L Ecoboost, 1.0L boosterjet and the Hyundai 1.0L T-GDI. All 3 have similar issues of low end torque and drivability in the city.

Skoda/VW have gone and replaced the 1.2L 4 cylinder TSI with a 1.0L TSI. Bad move imo.

The 1.2L 3 cylinder is a much better compromise. Infact they can keep 1.2L NA for lower variants and turbo for higher variants. With a 1.0L you can't do that. Ford is doing the 1.2L 3 cylinder NA Dragon in the Freestyle and it is not that bad. It does lack torque but it's still a nice motor to drive.

[DrANTO]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Your post reminded me of a video I saw just last week. It is so apt that I have to put it here. The video is a must watch:

Skoda/VW have gone and replaced the 1.2L 4 cylinder TSI with a 1.0L TSI. Bad move imo.

Awesome video I am a big fan of Jason Camissa and he just nails it in his trademark fashion. I vaguely remember Jeremy Clarkson [during old top gear days] proving the exact point by demonstrating that BMW M5 [with NA 5.0 Litre V10] is more fuel efficient than Toyota Prius while doing fast laps in a race circuit. So the primary level thinking of small engine+turbo combination is not as efficient as it claims to be.

In fact I am very disappointed with the fact that 1.2 TSI won't be in VW lineup post March 2020. That is a gem of an engine and coupled with DSG it has no competition in sub 15 lakh petrol engine category. From the international reviews I have read, it seems that 1.0 3 cylinder TSI is no match to 1.2 TSI. I wonder why there are phasing out it 1.2 TSI which is the sole reason why POLO GT TSI has some takers even now

[Mohan Mathew A]

Originally Posted by Vid6639

Your post reminded me of a video I saw just last week. It is so apt that I have to put it here. The video is a must watch:

Interesting.

So why is the whole world moving towards smaller capacity turbo engines?

Is it supposed to be true only for petrol engines? Because diesel turbo engines definitely are more efficient than diesel NA engines (Is there even a diesel NA car anymore).

I would really appreciate if the experts can throw some light on this

[VKumar]

Originally Posted by GTO

Hell, forget the average car buyer, even I will pick a large naturally-aspirated engine over a smaller turbo one. Case in point, Ford's 1.5L Dragon over the 1.0 EcoBoost, and Maruti's own 1.5L petrol over the 1.0L. Reasons:

- Cheaper to buy
- Cheaper to maintain (far less complex, no turbo etc)
- Usually more fuel efficient (EcoBoost fell flat on its face in FE)
- A superior bottom-end that makes city driveability better
- The triple-cylinders are less refined than their 4-cylinder counterparts

If there is a possibility of being more than a hundred percent correct, please apply that here. Word to word - the words of wisdom!

I belong to the same league, instead of a 1.2l turbo petrol motor pulling a 1.3 tonne car, give me a 1.5l N/A motor with similar power figures.

• Turbo petrols are guzzlers if driven with a heavy foot
• If driven with a light foot, they don't perform like their larger displacement N/A counterparts with similar peak power and torque figures

In reality, the point is not the peak power or torque; but a few thousand RPM before you reach there is what makes the real difference IMO.

[Brishti]

Solution = Bigass turbo engine "1.8TSI++"

[Vid6639]

Originally Posted by Mohan Mathew A

Interesting.

So why is the whole world moving towards smaller capacity turbo engines?

Is it supposed to be true only for petrol engines? Because diesel turbo engines definitely are more efficient than diesel NA engines (Is there even a diesel NA car anymore).

I would really appreciate if the experts can throw some light on this

It's true for petrol mainly. The thing is with diesel you have to go Turbo else you can't get performance out of it at all. Not true in petrol. You can get performance at high rpm's (not possible in diesel)

Secondly, the reason the world is moving to downsized turbo petrol engines is because of emissions and economy. The turbo petrol can give mileage and lower emission when driven sedately and not in too much traffic.

Minute you drive enthusiastically or use in traffic, the turbo petrol fails. In traffic you struggle with lack of low end torque and when driven enthusiastically it guzzles a lot more gas.

Drive at 80-100 on the highway and you will see amazing efficiency figures.

Downsized turbo petrol engines are just the fad right now but it's difficult to be a fan of this trend.

[VJ05]

Ours is the largest market for Suzuki. Why not invest in a 1.2 L Turbo Petrol by upgrading the existing 1.0 turbo or build a new one? It can do duty in many cars from Ignis to Breeza. This will solve two problems - excise duty benefit for <4 M cars and low torque/power of 1.0 turbo unit.

[DrCar]

I actually agree with Maruti's explanation.

I will give you few example:

I have a diesel Etios which has a 1500cc engine. Previously I had a Swift diesel which had 1300cc engine. My friend's first reaction when I got Etios home was "Wow, nice... You got a car with bigger engine. " I got Etios because I needed a bigger car and only I know which was more fun to drive between the two. Just to add upon this, my friend has a Royal Enfield Himalaya and drives a petrol Ritz, so he knows a thing or two about automobiles.

My own cousin brother drives a Baleno petrol now. He had a K10 Alto before. He still rues the fact that he sold off his K10. He upgraded to Baleno thinking that it will be more fun to drive due to larger engine. I suggested to go for diesel options in the same budget if he still wants to have similar fun as his previous K10. Turbo petrol was out of his budget for sure. He wasn't into Germans and Fords.

So, in the end its the engine size which attracts customer towards the showroom.

Turbo petrols will be successful if manufacturers plonk it in a newly launched model. Hyundai and Kia tasted succes with Venue and Seltos respectively. Why don't they put the same engine in i20 and replace the current boring petrol? Because buyers will feel that the engine size has downgraded. People are used to the car which are in market for a long term and they don't want any engine changes in it. A 1 litre car will feel like a downgrade to the 1.2 litre for majority of buyers. They will just ignore the thing that is present inside which we call as 'Turbo.'

Pulsar 220 is still successful inspite of 200NS being around is another example. We all know what is the reason behind it.

In brief:
- Don't tinker around with already successful model.
- Launch turbo petrols in a newly launch car.
- Start with a smaller engine and upgrade later to attract more buyer. Example: Kwid.

[Manoj2268]

Off late, maruti seems to have problems with everything under the sun. The other day, they were whining about the inability to develop standalone CNG engines and now this.

They can bring the beautiful K10A 4 banger that is doing duty in europe in addition to the K12 and K14 lineups.

That ensures a homogeneous architecture is maintained.

[carenthusiast]

I agree with GTO. Higher capacity and 4 cylinder does appeal to many compared to its smaller capacity and 3 cylinder turbo engines.

When Baleno RS and Ecosport Ecoboost were launched, I was wondering why the hell did they cut a cylinder and downgraded the capacity by 200CC compared to the market accepted capacity of 1.2L to 1.5L engines for that category. My initial thoughts were of increased vibrations and engine sound that is typically associated with the 3 cylinder ones.

I think manufactures should make a 4 cylinder 1.2L unit of its existing 1.0L engines (or their mass production cars to justify its cost) for India. In that way, they get the tax benefits (good for marketing), no compromise on refinement and more power that substantially differentiates it from its larger NA engines.

[autoholic]

Originally Posted by Brishti

Solution = Bigass turbo engine "1.8TSI++"

Not exactly the solution brother.

Have you driven a 1.8 Turbo Petrol Octavia MT.

I owned one. The turbo lag killed the city driving experience. During initial ownership I stalled the engine quite a few times in stop-n-go traffic. To get a decent fuel economy, I had to drive it thinking I had an egg balancing on a spoon in my mouth and it will fall if I accelerated too quickly. Then also the max I got was 8.5kmpl. If I wanted to hear the turbo whistle then I got 5kmpl.

Test drove the MG Hector AT Turbo Petrol for my BIL. It had loads of turbo lag. It was only driveable coz it was an AT car.

IMO turbo petrols are more suitable to low-medium traffic conditions. AND turbo petrol with MT in choc-a-bloc traffic is any time a deal breaker. We have to wait for VGT/VNT for petrol cars to become common to have them enjoy a reasonable degree of success in our market. Currently you can find VGTs in only a handful of exotic petrol cars. Alternatively, the electrified hybrid turbo currently in development by Garrett may be the answer to our turbo petrol problems. Link HERE

[fhdowntheline]

The 1.2 TSI from VW is effective also because of the brilliant DSG. Most drivers, particulalry who are first timers or graduating from a K10 type engine to a turbo petrol, will struggle to master the turbo lag. Its this audience that Maruti is probably worried about.