[pgsagar]

Voted for N.A. Not a fan of turbos. Most turbos have this irritating trait in b-to-b traffic. When you step on it, not much happens at first, until 2000-2200 rpm. Then suddenly it bursts into a dash and you run the risk of rear-ending the car up front. It kind of reminds me of this Yosemite Sam cartoon.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hBhlQgvHmQ0

Other things associated are big turbo replacement costs, in the event of it going bust, and that irritating 60-second idle rule at the start and shut-down time.

[itwasntme]

After getting used to my 177 bhp Octavia 1.8TSI, I have not been lucky enough to find a NA engine that has similar characteristics. The other engine I really liked was the 258 bhp Twin Power G20 BMW 330i.

At the higher end, I don't think there are too options in NA-engined vehicles.

[romeomidhun]

I was not OK with the 1L Turbo engines from Maruti and Ford in the slow-speed conditions. May be because their NA counterpart has poor bottom end. (Not sure about the Ford 1L NA engine - it it is there, but Suzuki 1L K-series NA engine has poor bottom end). Will wait for the 1.2L BoosterJet from Suzuki (if it is coming) as the 1.2L NA K-Series is an excellent one for that part.

[itsashishsharma]

Originally Posted by romeomidhun

I was not OK with the 1L Turbo engines from Maruti and Ford in the slow-speed conditions. May be because their NA counterpart has poor bottom end. (Not sure about the Ford 1L NA engine - it it is there, but Suzuki 1L K-series NA engine has poor bottom end). Will wait for the 1.2L BoosterJet from Suzuki (if it is coming) as the 1.2L NA K-Series is an excellent one for that part.

It is a comparison between bigger NA engines and smaller turbo engines. Compare the 1.0L ecoboost to the 1.5L dragon and pick one.

[Brishti]

Now-a-days a linear power transfer is more of a norm in the industry. I had driven "Back to back" Compass D BS6 and Seltos D just a few day back and the main characteristic that both shared was the linear power delivery both had. This brings these turbo's to the same power curve as a NA engine.

Thats just my 2 cents.

[dhanushs]

Originally Posted by Brishti

Now-a-days a linear power transfer is more of a norm in the industry. I had driven "Back to back" Compass D BS6 and Seltos D just a few day back and the main characteristic that both shared was the linear power delivery both had. This brings these turbo's to the same power curve as a NA engine.

Thats just my 2 cents.

With context to this thread, you need to go down the rpm range below idling, like while crawling up a hill to know the difference between similar powered turbo cars and NA cars.

[84.monsoon]

A curious thing I am observing as more and more turbo petrol engines get released in our market. The mileage figures of turbo-petrol engines do not seem to differ much no mater how big or small they are:

• Polo TSI 1.0 - 18.24
• Polo TSI 1.2 DSG - 17.21
• Audi A3 1.4 TFSI DSG Auto - 19.2
• Skoda Octavia 1.4 TSI Manual - 16.7
• Skoda Octavia 1.8 DSG Auto- 15.1
• BMW 330i 2.0 Turbopetrol TC Auto - 16.13
• Hyundai Venue Turbo 1.0 MT - 18.2
• Hyundai Venue Turbo 1.0 AT - 18.15
• Ford Ecosport 1.0 Ecoboost Manual - 18.9

So the difference between and 1.0 and 2.0 litre turbo-petrols is no more than about 2-3 kpl - this is surprising. One sees a much higher variability by engine volume in NA engines.

• Desire 1.2 NA - 23.26
• City 1.5 NA Manual - 16
• Corolla 1.8 NA Manual - 13.8 KPL
• Innova 2.7 NA Petrol Auto - 10.75 KPL

In the case of NA engines, mileage seems to vary linearly and inversely with volume, i.e., a 2 litre engine delivers roughly 50% less fuel efficiency as a 1.0 litre engine and so on.