[.anshuman]

More than the engine alone, to me its the Car + engine + gearbox combo that matters.

Voted for Hyundai Turbo petrol, because it is & will be available in relevant updated car in new generation cars that matter. Only combination I have driven is Venue Automatic, its a solid combination, my pick in the segment, just that the gearbox isn't as good as VW DSG(but I wont touch the VW DQ200 gearbox even with a barge pole, good that smaller VW cars have got rid of it already).

I am a big fan of certain VW group cars, the engine & gearbox combo is fabulous in most cars. But I did not vote for 1.0 TSI because, all the cars powered by it are outdated atleast by a decade and make no sense in today's times. Polo and Vento feel stale in today's times(glad that Fiat finally pulled the cord on Linea and Punto), other companies have moved on to newer generation cars several times now, they don't have relevant cars for our market and they don't have numbers and budget to make cars specific for our market is the reason we still have that 10+ year old Polo and its limousine stretched sedan siblings. Also, I am yet to drive a manual VW group car that is nice to drive in traffic, Laura TSI was only car I can ignore for this shortcoming because otherwise it was bomb to drive but would I suffer a manual Polo TSI for exorbitant prices in 2020, hell NO!!

[chiranjitp]

Voted for the VW 1.0 TSi, it's a gem of an engine. Have driven all these engines except the Ford 1.0 EcoBoost (ironically we have an EcoSport D in our garage).

I personally found the Maruti 1.0 Boosterjet very average, doesn't have the midrange punch I look for in a turbo petrol, doesn't rev as cleanly as the K12M. Next up was Hyundai 1.0 GDI, I took a longish TD of the Venue turbo, found the engine very refined & it had the strong mid range punch. Recently drove the Polo 1.0 TSi, a friend has booked one in white. Took a long TD, refinement wise it's decent enough. But performance is where this engine shines, mid range is very punchy, even turbo lag is well controlled. Also hits 100kmph in 2nd gear like my G13B Swift.

[VMRKarnati]

My Order of Preference

Volkswagen / Skoda 1.0 TSI - Good but still need improvements. Can manage the show. I voted here.
Ford 1.0 EcoBoost - Almost there.
Hyundai Kappa 1.0 Turbo GDI - ok but not impressive. Personally I observed, It some time behaves weird in 3 & 4 gears, goes to lazy state. we need to downshift for it to get the momentum.
Maruti Suzuki 1.0 BoosterJet - for Maruti body types it is ok. I am sure this will show difference if we put with strong body.

[adi_petrolhead]

I voted "NONE". I personally do not like micro displacement turbo petrols. India doesn't need such engines, our conditions are really against it. I find it difficult to give my car some idling time to cool off the turbos every time after a short drive. Do companies assume every single one of their consumers are going to follow the idling rule? And these smaller engines are going to be under much more load than a larger displacement NA or turbo engine. These engines are not even that much fuel efficient that it's 'economical' price and model could be justified. This is my personal experience. If the City can do with a 1.5 NA engine, why can't others follow? Our conditions with stop go traffic, long idling at traffic lights and traffic jams, intermittent braking and speeding on highways, smaller cars are better off with a larger displacement 1.5-1.8L NA petrol engines. Its not about 0-100 km/h times now, its 0-80 km/h thanks to the audible speed warnings, and an NA engine is enough for that. The costs of maintenance of a small turbo engine can be as high as a bigger one if things start to fail, if not less than that of a larger NA engine. The complexities are similar to bigger turbo engines. Somehow we must end this trend.
Companies like Suzuki, Honda, Toyota, haven't fiddled with smaller and large capacity NA engines, and their cars are some of the most reliable cars on our market.
While I'm at it, the VW 1.5 TSI with ACT also is in my bad books for the ACT. Why bother? My 1.8 TSI delivers around 17-18 km/L on the expressways at speeds of about 90-100 km/h. Do we really need more than that by complicating the engine further by adding ACT?
Throttle response on some of these turbo engines is also poor, people end up getting 'pedal tune' or alter throttle response through VCDS or OBDeleven. With good fuel, good roads and less traffic, good weather conditions (10-20 deg C) these small turbo engines work, all of which are a scarcity in India. Anything above 1.5L justifies turbo power for me.

[Doge]

I always see people dismissing the Ecoboost by saying that it is not very quick, not efficient etc.
Well, after driving one for over 4 years, I absolutely love this engine and it really adds character to the car. Very easy to drive in the city, punchy when on the highway and easily manages to get 14 or so kmp/l average.
I find it a pain to drive the Honda City now, its 1.5 4 pot feels less punchy, less refined at higher revs and is also less efficient. There is a learning curve with the Ecoboost, after you get into it, it is a fantastic engine and you can see why it was a game changer.

Not gonna vote as I have not driven the VW 1.0 in turbo form yet.

[GBX]

Originally Posted by adi_petrolhead

I find it difficult to give my car some idling time to cool off the turbos every time after a short drive. Do companies assume every single one of their consumers are going to follow the idling rule?

Not sure how many manufacturers still mandate a cool-off time. And they certain don't seem to care enough to enforce it, judging by the lack of any warranty claim denied over a customer not following this "rule".

Originally Posted by adi_petrolhead

And these smaller engines are going to be under much more load than a larger displacement NA or turbo engine.

Why does it matter how much load the engine is under, if it is engineered to handle those loads? If we truly want the engine to be under as little load as possible, we would have to stick 2L+ engines in Altos.

Originally Posted by adi_petrolhead

If the City can do with a 1.5 NA engine, why can't others follow?

The new DOHC 1.5NA in the City is getting trounced by a 1L turbo in a decade old Vento. This strategy isn't worth following, IMO.

Originally Posted by adi_petrolhead

Our conditions with stop go traffic, long idling at traffic lights and traffic jams, intermittent braking and speeding on highways, smaller cars are better off with a larger displacement 1.5-1.8L NA petrol engines.

On the contrary, these conditions would seem to suit turbos better. A 1L turbo engine is only burning almost as little fuel as a 1L NA when off-boost, and delivering almost 1.8NA worth of power when on-boost. Best of both worlds.

Originally Posted by adi_petrolhead

The costs of maintenance of a small turbo engine can be as high as a bigger one if things start to fail, if not less than that of a larger NA engine.

Less moving parts = better reliability no doubt. But when turbo petrol/diesel cars now come with 6/7 year warranties, why ignore better tech over a possibility which may never arise?

Originally Posted by adi_petrolhead

Its not about 0-100 km/h times now, its 0-80 km/h thanks to the audible speed warnings, and an NA engine is enough for that.

"Enough" 0-100 times? Am I still on Team-BHP?

Originally Posted by adi_petrolhead

Companies like Suzuki, Honda, Toyota, haven't fiddled with smaller and large capacity

It should be mentioned that just because a manufacturer hasn't embraced a certain tech, doesn't mean it's inherently bad. Honda for instance didn't get into the hybrid/electric ballgame until very late, not because it was bad tech, but because they were heavily invested in Hydrogen tech.

That said:
Suzuki: This is not a large enough manufacturer to dictate market trends, but they do have small capacity turbo engines in their Kei cars for decades now. And their 1.4L turbo swift sport has got excellent reviews.

Honda: Has entered the turbo game a few years ago. I believe the RS versions(and R-type even) of both the City and Civic are now turbo powered.

Toyota: They've ignored the performance market for so long that they're now having to borrow turbo tech from BMW and Subaru for their performance cars. Their answer to turbo fuel efficient is hybrids. But how many on this forum would want to drive one for their "sporty" characteristics?

Originally Posted by adi_petrolhead

Do we really need more than that by complicating the engine further by adding ACT?

I agree. But manufacturers have been adding cat converters, urea injection systems, EGR, mild/heavy hybrids to reduce emissions/increase mileage. ACT is no different.

Btw, ACT has been around for a very long time. I believe Cadillac has been using it on their V12/V8s for ages.

Originally Posted by adi_petrolhead

Anything above 1.5L justifies turbo power for me.

That seems quite arbitrary, IMO.

[Vid6639]

This was a difficult choice. I have to echo Anshuman in his thoughts but my vote was different.

The boosterjet 1.0L was a very nice engine to drive but it didn't drive like a turbo. It was too linear and not too different from the 1.2L NA engine. They detuned it for India to 100BHP and it just didnt feel as spirited for the premium. Driveability was good but I was sure knowing Maruti they had detuned it for efficiency vs performance. That was a big miss.

Ford was the company that started the 1.0L Ecoboost but unfortunately it got it too soon and the initial attempt was not impressive. Unfortunately this impression is what stuck and with BS6 they had to kill it. The first gen was not great in efficiency, struggled with driveability issues with a lot of turbo lag and the tall gearing made it worse. The updated S variant with the 6 speed box fixed the issue a lot but it was too late and they themselves had the Dragon 1.5L with same power and better efficiency.

I drove the Hyundai's 1.0L engine in the Venue manual and was very impressed. Performance was strong, engine was refined and it had decent drive-ability. The only chink was it was quite clinical, there was no sudden turbo whoosh, and it didn't really have a top end.

The VW/Skoda 1.0L TSI is my pick of the engines. In the Polo it was great fun. It loves to be revved, has a brilliant mid range punch and excellent driveability for a 3 pot. It's nowhere near as refined as the Hyundai 1.0L but that's part of the fun of it as it is vocal.

From the engine's the 1.0L TSI VW/Skoda is the best but as Anshuman mentioned, the engine is inside 3 cars that are way too old now. Hyundai is offering the 1.0L in their latest cars the Venue, Aura, Nios, Verna and upcoming Verna but VW/Skoda are flogging age old cars with this new engine.

[abhi_tjet]

I didn’t vote since I have driven the ones which are out of market. So, can’t say about the kappa and TSI.
However, I loved the Ecoboost. It didn’t do much good for Ecosport since it had around 1200 kg to lug. Had Ford tried to put it on some other car(Fiesta), story might have been different.
On the other hand, I drove the boosterjet but it was just another Baleno. Despite the lower weight of Baleno, it didn’t do any good to match RS tag.
Seems Maruti tuned it quite linear for better drivability and may be good fuel efficiency(no surprise).

[Pashin]

IMO the poll should've included the Tata JTP Engines although they're 200cc over the limit. Would have voted for them!

[ssenhyd]

I think the OP needs to be more specific in terms of what is meant by best 1.0L turbo petrol in India.
"Best" as a qualification is very subjective and can mean different things to different people - Most HP, Most torque at the low range, most specific power, most thermally efficient, most fuel efficient, most advanced engineering wise, most long term longevity and reliability etc. etc. or a combination of the above..

I voted for the Maruti engine simply because even if it develops engine troubles, the Maruti ASS reputation means it will be taken care of relatively quickly and and at a reasonable price.

Can't say the same about the other contenders in this list, least of all VAG group engines

[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Originally Posted by Pashin

IMO the poll should've included the Tata JTP Engines although they're 200cc over the limit. Would have voted for them!

JTP engine is also not a modern direct injection petrol unlike the others in this list.

[aniyo]

I am surprised at the limit set for 1000 cc rather than 3 cylinder engines alone. This has ensured we don't take into account Mahindra and Tata engine which are good and also have application in similar segment cars.

[shashi792]

Voted for VW/Skoda 1.0.

Back when Ford introduced their Ecoboost engine, I remember talking to my peers about it. I was surprised back then about how a small 1.0 engine can produce 120+ power, I was comparing this with our Alto's 47 BHP. Little did I know about Turbo-Charging

But like others pointed out, I would have liked it if they had continued it on their Figo with paddle shifters.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by Pashin

IMO the poll should've included the Tata JTP Engines although they're 200cc over the limit. Would have voted for them!

Originally Posted by aniyo

I am surprised at the limit set for 1000 cc rather than 3 cylinder engines alone.

Guys, we have to draw the line somewhere. If we include 1.2L, then sure the JTP & XUV300 engines will be added. Then, someone will say what about the erstwhile 1.2L TSI of the Polo?

No more off-topic posts please.

[NiInJa]

I haven't driven any of them, but if I were to consider international reviews along with Team-Bhp's, I would vote the VW engine just based on what I've read/seen on the internet.

Personally, I would not get any of them just yet ! Why ? Long term Reliability is still a big question for all these new engines. I've burnt my fingers with Chevrolet's sub 1000 cc turbo charged engine and despite taking utmost care, it still came up with some major issues before selling her off 8 years later. The compression ratios, pressure level, electronics etc just mean the engine's tolerance level must be very tight + the service guys must be competent enough to know what is going wrong. Sorry for digressing.

I've started appreciating simpler things in life, like the 1.5 Naturally Aspirated engine. We could have had some beautiful hatchbacks in 1.5 avatar if it weren't for the stupid 1200cc rule.