[arindambasu13]

Originally Posted by karan85

Voted to Turbo-charged engines. I don't red line my cars too often so 95% of the drives see the max RPM of 3K-3.5K. Hence would love to have the meat of the torque come in at that range. I do own a 1.2 Gt TSi POLO which I redline when I get the opportunity but I'd still prefer the torque to come in early.

Sadly we don't get to see too many NA Petrol engines with a nice low end anymore - maybe someone can suggest a current car that has such an engine and I would love to try it out.

On the contrary, in my view - the Honda 1.5 iVTEC has very good low and mid range, at least for an average driver like me. I have hardly ever redlined or even top-ended my previous cars, let alone my current car, and I have never found the low and mid range power to be lacking in the 1.5 iVTEC. I am sure that the power delivery is much more strong in the top end, but for my requirements, anything above 1500RPM on the tachometer and I am assured of great punch along with free-revving refinement during my daily drives. Best part : the power delivery just gets from already good to better and better as the revs rise.

In fact, I have never needed to high rev the City beyond 3-3500 RPM even in those situations where I need a super quick overtake or very quick acceleration. Even in those instances, revving the engine beyond 2000 RPM provides enough power in almost all of the situations in which I find myself on a regular basis. At 3500 RPM, the iVTEC is really singing and well within the meaty mid range - with enough and more power to ensure fast overtakes or pretty brutal acceleration, as the need of the moment may be.

[karan85]

Originally Posted by arindambasu13

I am sure that the power delivery is much more strong in the top end, but for my requirements, anything above 1500RPM on the tachometer and I am assured of great punch along with free-revving refinement during my daily drives. Best part : the power delivery just gets from already good to better and better as the revs rise.

Maybe I need to have another go at it. I drove the City for a fair distance but never really enjoyed my drive as much I did on the VW 1.2 (no offence meant). I tried my hands on the Verna petrol as well and didn't enjoy it as much as I both the Ford motors I mentioned. My cousin has the City will definitely give it a try again. Thanks.

[ts1506]

A large NA petrol any day for me. A big free revving NA engine really is a wonderful feeling. This comparison evoked memories of a Challenger Scat Pack I rented for a week earlier this year (6.4L Hemi), the instant torque response from the get go is amazing.

I’ve had the chance to own cars with some highly regarded engine options (Ford 1.6 Zetec, Fiat 1.4, Ford 1.5 Dragon) and I would choose any of these over the small turbo options any day.

The 1.2ltr rule has ruined the NA petrol landscape for smaller/mid cars significantly, in my opinion.

[adimicra]

Originally Posted by vibbs

I feel that an Apples to apples comparison is when we compare similar engines in NA and Turboed Avatar. When you downsize the engine and bolt a turbocharger to up the power and torque output you are bound to have different characteristics. Is it not?

So the poor low end is not a Turbo feature, though it is accentuated by the boost that kicks in once the turbo pools. The poor low end is because you are comparing a smaller engine (in its non turbo zone) with a larger NA engine.
So what will be answer if you consider similar displacement engines with or without turbo. Or even same engines with or without turbo?

For eg Honda's 1.5 Ivtec with and without a turbo. Or say Volkswagon 1.2 with and without turbo.

But then the answer would be too obvious is it not? Or am I missing something?

+1.

Talking about the current engines available in the same segment, I think the 1.2 TSI + DSG is hands-down the best performing automatic in the 15 lakh or 20 lakh price range (OTR). Since there is no 1.2 TSI manual, can't compare it with the other NA petrol manual engines but I won't be surprised if the 1.2 TSI manual will trump the other NA counterparts. Also, I enjoy the way the TSi pushes you back in the seat when you floor the pedal, puts a big grin on my face every time

I test drove a few other turbo-petrols as well -
1.0 Ecoboost - suffers from poor low-end performance
1.4 Turbo petrol in Compass - poor low-end performance, pronounced turbo lag, lacks refinement at high rpms
1.4 TGDI in Kia Seltos - Good performance and refinement, little lag is there but not an issue
1.8 TSI - Stonker of an engine

So, as usual with all polls, the answer is not black and white and it depends on the particular engines being compared. Also, the turbo petrol motors are more expensive than the NA counterparts which is an important point to consider. Having said that, I believe the future is bright for turbo petrols as they offer best of both worlds - refinement and torquey performance. Yes, some manufacturers have got it right and some haven't but I think turbo petrols are going to become better in the future

[GeeTee TSI]

Voted for turbo charged petrol engine.

I feel a turbo petrol engine of 1.2L easily delivers the performance of a 1.6 naturally aspirated petrol. Had there been more choice in naturally aspirated petrols in the 1.5L to 2.0L range within the same category of cars, the arguments against turbo petrols would have been more compelling.

[TorqueKnight]

My vote goes to Naturally Aspirated Petrol Engine for the following reasons.
1. Easy to maintain
2. Free revving
3. Fuel efficient than turbo petrol
4. I sold my heart to two fun loving petrol cars already (Fiesta 1.6 & City 1.5)

[TheHelix0202]

Chose turbo for the sole reason that we've only had pretty good NA cars till now. The next gen Octavia might catch my interest (that lovely VW TSi is to die for).

[THE_DRIFTER]

Not saying that one can't live without a turbo in small engines, but if an engine is 3 cylinders and less than, say 1.2l, then turbo is preferred, example - VW's 1.2 TSI.

Though, in cars (particularly engines) like the 1.5 Vtec Honda City , the real fun of driving comes. As GTO said, there is really no replacement for displacement.

[fhdowntheline]

I have owned the Linea TJet, currently drive both the Polo 1.2 Tsi and the City Zx cvt. I would say the following from my experience :
1) the turbo petrol is best for overtaking and keeping it on the boil on flat straights.
2) The NA engine from City feels like it has longer legs in the top end. It is also deceptively fast in initial acceleration. It also feels tad faster on the ghats.
3) The Linea TJet felt like it worked out a lot for the same output as compared to the VW/ Honda engines. Perhaps the body weight was a factor.
Having said this, i agree that the big NA V6s of the US cars felt considerably powerful. Still remember my first rental driving experience in a Pontiac Bonneville V6 , 2000 model. Quite an incredible car it was!

[Guru_GPS]

Originally Posted by suhaas307

Well, I'm going to keep it quite simple.

If it's 4 cylinders or fewer: Turbocharged all the way..

However, anything more than 4 cylinders has to be naturally aspirated!

A naturally aspirated straight six or a flat six mill makes just the most sinful exhaust note, with the right modifications. And if I could ever lay my hands on naturally aspirated V8, that would hit the sweet spot.

Frankly, NA six/eight pot engines make enough / more power than you'd ever need, and will be the ideal weekend cars while you can drive a smaller capacity turbocharged car during the weekdays.

I totally agree. My 4-Cyl 1.6 MPI Rapid is already putting out enough power and being a mid-size sedan, has enough juice to carry 4-5 ppl within the city, picking up speed comfortably.

The other reason is, I was able to purchase the top-end style variant at 12.5 lacs on road in Karnataka. I cannot imaging paying 1-1.5 lac more for the same variant with a smaller turbo charged engine 1.2 TSI]. It would have been an altogether different issue if it were just the TURBO-CHARGED VERSION OF THE SAME 1.6 MILL, WHICH WILL NEVER HAPPEN [1.6 TSI top-end at 12.5 lac on road].

By giving my example, I would just want to state few of the various factors that might decide a purchase [happened in my case].
Budget - 1.2 TSI cannot deliver the linear torque/power like the 1.6 and cannot come in the same budget.
Maintenance - General perception of the high maintenance, mainly true with the complexity added.

[gopal.nishant89]

Voted for Naturally Aspirated Petrol Engine. My only experience with a Turbo engine was my Skoda Rapid TDI and it was fun on the highways, no doubt but in city, the need to manage clutch was that much high. This might be because i was too used to NA petrol engines but in the 3 years i owned it, i never fully got used to it.

On the flip side, whenever i drove the 1.4L Ciaz back home, i always felt the ease of driving in city (which is where i spend most of my time driving) so when i was looking for an automatic car last year, my requirement was clear:
1. NA Petrol Engine (responsive and smooth for city, adequate for highways)
2. Automatic (preferably TC)
3. Simpler to maintain

In the end, out of the 2 cars i finalized, i went ahead with the new Ciaz 1.5L TC. I would have gladly gone with Verna had they not discontinued the automatic variant on EX model, which for me was a big bummer. That said, i feel that my car satisfies 80% of my driving needs and doesn't make me miss my Rapid too much, except for the occasional unplanned highway overtakes.

[84.monsoon]

Voted Turbocharged, after driving the 2.0 litre 30i turbo petrol engine on the BMW, my previous Honda 2.4 NA engine pales in comparison, on both acceleration and fuel economy. However, the Honda did manage a good low-end punch, atypical of NA engines.

[84.monsoon]

Originally Posted by TorqueKnight

My vote goes to Naturally Aspirated Petrol Engine for the following reasons.

3. Fuel efficient than turbo petrol

Don’t quite agree with that. World over, manufacturers are moving to smaller Turbo petrols from NA engines, exactly to improve average fuel economy of their fleet. The new 1.0 TSI from VW of equivalent power output tune as an older 1.6 MPI will be at least 15-20% more fuel efficient.

[Vipin Kumar]

I don't get to drive petrols most of the time. I have owned only diesels. However I have driven both the 1.6 MPI of the VW group and the i-Vtec of the Honda City. Since these were shorter drives, couldn't notice much.

Since our world is fast moving towards a petrol dominant context, I would like to know how the noise levels work comparatively between the NA petrols and turbo petrols. Is there a great difference in noise levels between, say, the 1.6 MPI and the 1.2 TSI?

I have voted for the "other" because I feel that it might differ from engine to engine, as my friends say in the case of i-Vtec and Ecoboost.

[McLaren Rulez]

In this day and age with emissions regulations and fuel efficiency priorities, naturally aspirated engines are a bit of a dinosaur. They'll go the way hydraulic steerings went. Apart from the simplicity and hence, reliability, there really isn't a good reason not to slap a turbo on.

I like that I still have one but I'm pretty sure my next car won't.