[sidhegde]

Voted for turbo charged petrol engine. This is entirely based on my driving experience only. Currently I drive a Seltos GTK turbo petrol and I love the way it drives and the way the turbo kicks in. I have previously driven a 2006 Swift Petrol, 2012 Fluidic Verna 1.6L petrol and also test drove the Seltos 1.5 NA Petrol.

[Kosfactor]

I wonder if anyone would have bothered with all this complexity if government regulations were not there.

A 1.6 NA would have done just fine instead of a 1.2 with Turbo, Intercooler, variable valve timing, direct injection and the works.

Do we need such complexity? Does the material cost and environment cost justify this downsized engine?

I love the NA engines, I would prefer them without variable valve timing as well, I find iVtec a bit busy to drive in the city (what an irony), there are other engines with VVT but they don't need as many throttle inputs to stay alive in traffic.

[tharian]

It is confusing for sure with a variety of engines available now against a decade ago.

I don't remember which was the first turbo engined car I drove and I haven't driven too many either. I prefer a turbo diesel compared to a turbo petrol. I feel on a petrol engine, the fun is to rev its nuts off which is more fun with a NA engine.
On a turbo diesel which has less lag, the torque is addictive and I prefer that in city and traffic. Out on a highway, when I drive my diesel, I always miss a NA petrol.

[Added_flavor]

I have driven a turbocharged diesel for 8 years and a lakh km and then jumped to a 1.2 NA petrol.

Anyway, not comparing diesel and petrol cars and simply comparing an NA petrol car and a turbocharged petrol car, I'd prefer the latter simply because of the mid-range performance available. In my opinion, mid-range and in-gear acceleration are what matter the most in real-world driving.

With the NA petrol, I'd have to work a LOT with the gearbox especially during overtakes which adds fatigue to driving. So in spite of the turbo-lag which can be worked around with slight changes to driving style, I'd prefer the turbo-petrol any day.

[coolkurt]

Naturally aspirated engine any day. Love the free revving nature of my 1.8 Civic. Add to that, a lower maintenance cost and it's a win win. The new City is a prime example of how sticking to a tried and tested formula is better than following a trend for the sake of it.

[VVN]

NA for me. One of the reasons I went for the City over the Verna last year. TD'ed the City and that was it. No looking back.

[Jeroen]

To me this sounds a bit as the proverbial apple to pear comparison. They are designed differently, for different reasons and requirements.

So you end up with engines that perform differently. How can you compare two different engines? Other than stating the obvious differences?

Let me add an orange to the equation. I prefer supercharged engines. If anything if the supercharger packs up, you are left with a NA engine and it will still run fine.

Other than that, I like my engines BIG. NA, turbo-, or supercharged, the bigger the better!

Jeroen

[Romeo_Mike]

Voted for others.

While I am not averse to turbocharging (or supercharging for that matter) an existing NA design to get more out of it, I am surely not a fan of the tiny turbo'ed engines that are merely paper warriors while it comes to matching performance of bigger NA engines.

[G-One]

turbo petrol for me. Love the 'taking off' feeling.

[Radiator]

Natural aspiration always. Never liked how turbocharged engines respond at low RPMs. Accelerator pedal acts like a mere on-off switch in these engines. Slam it hard and you're flying, press it lightly and you will be crawling. Almost no sense of control over acceleration.

[Aqua]

I will opt for as following:


1. A 4 cylinder Turbo charged engine
2. A 4 cylinder-NA engine, simply because the turbo kicks in quite late, and in the city bumper to bumper traffic, the car lags the torque. Eg.: Hyundai Venue.

[NiInJa]

It all boils down to the weight of the car against the power/torque it has at lower or mid level of rpms. I find the 1.5 NA petrol much better to drive in cities and uphill roads than a 1.3 turbocharged car. I am betting same would be the case with 1.0 TC petrol on say, the Ecosport.

At-least in India where the terrain is not flat and we have so many ghats, its important to have better mid range and low range torque. If I were to be driving on the roads of Dubai, I would not mind going for a turbocharged small cc engine. So in Indian context, I would vote Yes for a bigger capacity NA over a smaller capacity Turbo-charged engine.

[dragracer567]

I prefer turbos due to the low end punch. It's the best of NA petrols and Turbo diesels (minus the fuel efficiency).

Also turbos tend to have lower emissions, so in these days of strict emissions, we need turbos if we want ICEs to survive.

[bronco]

Voted for Naturally Aspirated Petrol Engine. Most of the Turbo's have a lag in city speed(low) which I don't like.

[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.

My favourite petrol engines (mass market) remain the Ford Ikon 1.3 and 1.6 that had amazing low end torques coupled with good gearing ratios. When it comes to diesel engines the previous gen Superb and Jetta's engine remain my favourite.

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.