[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.

[Mynameis]

Voted for NA engine.

Saw this thread just now, thanks to my recent drives of latest gen I20 turbo DCT and Polo tsi AT. While Polo's engine lag was manageable to an extent, i20 had a lot of turbo lag initially, and when the turbo spools, it tends to jump forward. I hate this kind of behaviour as it affects a lot when it comes to driving in stop-go traffic and hills.

I currently drive 2010 Honda civic AT and there is zero lag which is so easy to drive in traffic. I recently had a 1000 km drive, most of which was on the hills, and it was so relaxing to drive in the Civic AT. At times, I needed to come to a complete stop on steep inclines, still the car pulled with ease once I accelerated. Zero turbo lag helped greatly in such situations. Would have definitely struggled in an I20 or cars with similar turbo engine.

My ideal car remains the one with a big displacement NA engine mated to a competent TC gearbox.

[Lalitha Venkat]

I have voted for turbo based on my experience in driving 1.6 L NA engine in Polo and 1.2 TSI in Vento each producing 105 bhp. The auto gear box drives better with the TSI engine and given that we all love the convivence of the auto box, I like the TSI engine both in relation to the city and high way run. I feel that power boost in the initial stages works seamlessly with DSG and the car is slotted and reaches 80 kms in a whiff.

[Balaji31582]

Originally Posted by 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.

Hi 84.monsoon, could this be due to the amount of torque achieved in certain rpms and the gearing ratios associated ?
My understanding with very less or no auto knowledge (yes just an avg joe who is curious to understand machines )is that in NA engines we will not get that flat torque band whereas in turbo charged within a range of rpm we get the peak torque attained (due to turbo kicking in ), meaning we don't need to stamp the accelerator always as we attain peak torque in minimal rpm and hence it might pave way for fuel efficiency.

[born_free]

I was hoping to get a Turbo Petrol Automatic as my next car.

Since my driving style revolves around keeping engine between 1.5K to 3k rpm, I liked the fact that power is available easily when needed due to high torque.

I don't really like revving engine too much which becomes necessity in a NA engine if you want to accelerate faster.

My previous car was 1.6L diesal creta automatic and car feels nice to drive with power available at low rpms.

But all options under 20L were not suitable for my requirements. They either come with unreliable dual clutch or uninspiring CVT.

So I chose Alacazar even though I did not need third row seat.
2.0L NA engine producing 159Ps of power with TC auto box was the ideal compromise.

[kvsneela]

I am not eligible for voting. So I give my observations here:

Engine design: NA ( Naturally Aspired)engine is simple to design in which air- fuel is mixed in the ratio of about 14:1 for maximum efficiency. Here the air is forced into the engine by natural means. In TC (Turbo Charged)engine,in addition to natural air, air is forced into the engine by means of a compressor which is run by exhaust gases. This extra air allows more fuel( by ECU) which increases power. So for the same power TC engine can be smaller than NA engine
Engine reliability: NA engine is simple design so chances of mechanical failures are minimum. TC engine has additional components like compressor, cooler etc , which inreases chances of failure.
Drivability: NA engine ( most of them) has linear power delivery which is good for city driving. Where as TC engine has sudden surge in power once turbo starts pumping more air which may be problematic in city condition. In highway TC engine is different beast.Below the Turbo band , TC engine will be dull( almost dead).
Mileage: NA engine mileage can be controlled by reducing the speed in top gear. Whereas it is difficult in TC engine as once the RPM reaches Turbo band ,it may suck more fuel .
Cost: As TC engine has more components, it costs more ( more than a lakh).
My personal Choice is NA Engine, as I am all for simple designs and thus less chance of failures.

[sbansal]

Which one is more suitable for Bangalore traffic?
1.5 L advanced k-series dual jet or 1.0 L turbo booster jet engine
basically Brezza AT or Fronx AT

[drsachin]

I like to keep my cars for long and my average monthly run is around 2000kms , a lot of which might be late night or early morning driving. Due to odd hours driving i like to drive cars which are reliable. All these new age technologies such as Direct Injection/Forced induction/Turbocharging used in petrol engines is a big no for me. Yes I have driven diesel cars with these technologies but not comfortable with there petrol counterpart. I feel when it comes to diesel, turbocharging is essential but when it comes to petrol it's overdone , especially when NA engines have served us well with great driving dynamics.
Turbo charger do fail if not maintained well, or despite maintenance they will definitely fail after some time. I feel many of modern turbopetrols are in beta testing phase, they may have been derived straight from the NA engines. On the other hand Most Modern diesels are designed to be turbo charged from grounds up since development stage, they have been around for quite a long time and are pretty reliable but despite that turbo still fail in them.
Also these smallish engines (less than 1.5 litres)with Turbochargers are not expected to be long lasting while we have seen NA engines from Toyota and others easily outlasting the life of the car(>3-5 LAC kms)

[FireBlade]

Turbo Petrol all the way based upon my own personal experience. I don't find my Nexon that hard to drive in bumper to bumper traffic than my V2 Xeta. And when push comes to shove, Nexon in sports mode has the power to put a smile on your face.

I also enjoyed my Nexon more than a relative's petrol Dzire. So my pick will be turbo petrol over Naturally Aspirated petrol engine.