[Venkatesh]

Tata Altroz Turbo DCT spotted on test in Pune







Video Link

[Napalm]

Originally Posted by Venkatesh

Tata Altroz Turbo DCT spotted on test in Pune

I must say, the new marina-BLUE colour looks stunning on the altroz.

I just hope they get the automatic ready for this turbo-petrol in next 6-8 months and launch it before Diwali.

Also, assuming DCT will only be available on turbo-petrol, what is stopping them from launching the AMT for diesel which is already available in Nexon?

Or is the DCT planned for Diesel Altroz too? Are there any examples of Diesel engines being mated to DCTs in India?

Cant they use some TC gearbox from Hyundai(like in Harrier) or others and launch it in diesel Nexon & Altroz. What is TaMo thinking and (not)doing?

[chiranjitp]

Got these photos as WhatsApp forward. It seems TATA will claim a 0-100 timing of 13 seconds, which is decent enough, but not as good as a Polo 1.0 TSi & Figo TDCi. Though as a complete package, Altroz turbo makes more sense than these two. There seems to be a few other changes as well, like a new blue colour, 2 additional tweeters (at the rear), lighter grey colored interior, leatherette seats etc .

[AYP]

I wouldn't call a 0-100 timing of 13 sec decent by any standard. If the Altroz 1.2 NA petrol would have had this timing, I would have definitely called it decent, considering the weight of the Altroz and its safety rating.

But this timing from a 1.2 Turbo petrol is disappointing. 11-11.5 seconds is what I would have considered acceptable.

Let's hope that the actual figures turn out to be different and that Hyundai introduces a manual with the i20 Turbo petrol.

[ATRONIX]

The car seems to be pretty slow considering the 0-100 timing of 13 secs. The Altroz diesel must be a 11 secs car and given its higher fuel efficiency would be a better pick in my opinion.

[RoadMonkey]

How many people utilise this 0-100 acceleration in real life? What is it's practical benefit if I may ask? I feel like we give more importance to this number than we should in daily driver cars. I drive a Polo 1.0 TSI. I love the acceleration, but I also follow safe driving practices on the road and I don't plan on taking it to a track. I do enjoy the car, but as do I the Ritz, which is noticeably slower. I used to dislike Etios for the reason - numbers. The specs weren't impressive on paper, but once I drove it, I loved just how drivable it was.

The reason with current Altroz NA is that it doesn't feel adequately drivable in normal conditions. It feels dead. I didn't like Tata's 1.2 NA in general in the way it drives and I'm hoping the turbo will make it good to drive. There's another thread going on here discussing whether a car has to be FAST to be fun, I think driving a turbo will be fun regardless of 0-100 figures. In-gear acceleration matter more on day to day usage.

Just my 2 cents.

[fhdowntheline]

Originally Posted by RoadMonkey

How many people utilise this 0-100 acceleration in real life? What is it's practical benefit if I may ask? I feel like we give more importance to this number than we should in daily driver cars. I drive a Polo 1.0 TSI. I love the acceleration, but I also follow safe driving practices on the road and I don't plan on taking it to a track. I do enjoy the car, but as do I the Ritz, which is noticeably slower. I used to dislike Etios for the reason - numbers. The specs weren't impressive on paper, but once I drove it, I loved just how drivable it was.

Just my 2 cents.

Completely agree. But atleast the marketing team should take due cognizance of other competitors performance and avoid putting these numbers. Even a Baleno 1.2 NA will do better than 13 seconds with the right gearing inputs.

[Napalm]

Originally Posted by AYP

I wouldn't call a 0-100 timing of 13 sec decent by any standard.

But this timing from a 1.2 Turbo petrol is disappointing. 11-11.5 seconds is what I would have considered acceptable.

Let's hope that the actual figures turn out to be different and that Hyundai introduces a manual with the i20 Turbo petrol.

I20 turbo-petrol has 10Bhp more Power and 30Nm more torque than Altroz turbo and no DCT. So this is not surprising.

But it is just 2 seconds slower for 0-100Kph, which is not a very relevant metric for most people in real life driving.

Also a DCT in i20 with super quick shifts will obviously be faster than a manual.

Since Altroz turbo manual will still cost much lesser than even the IMT i20 turbo, this should be worthwhile.

https://www.rushlane.com/tata-altroz...-12389373.html

Nonetheless, this also seems like a generic 2021 model refresh/update, not specific only to turbo. Many new features like new perforated leather seat, new interior, connected car tech(Finally), doodle wallpaper, new drive modes etc are available in NA petrol and diesel too.

Turbo gets the city and sports drive modes, but other engines get eco and city modes.

[PrasannaDhana]

So you say Altroz turbo petrol is slower than my 2+ tonne, tall, aerodynamic disaster Safari storme v400 to 100 kmph? That's disappointing.

I am smelling a dirty trick here by Tata. They priced the 1.5 diesel more, almost by 2 lakhs from the N/A 1.2 so that they can fit the 1.2 turbo petrol in the middle.

N/A vs turbo petrol - one lakh difference
turbo petrol vs 1.5 diesel - another lakh

This way you have a wide price range to pick from. Going by the luke warm performance figures, I am guessing Tata may flaunt a 20 ish kmpl ARAI rating for the turbo petrol.

If that happens, XZ Altroz 1.2 turbo will place just at the same price level as the polo 1.0 tsi.

[AYP]

Originally Posted by Napalm

I20 turbo-petrol has 10Bhp more Power and 30Nm more torque than Altroz turbo and no DCT. So this is not surprising.

Everyone can read the specs of the engine and its power and torque output, that is no big deal but the thing is, the Polo, the Altroz and the i20 are rivals and one rival(Altroz) is at a disadvantage when it comes to acceleration timings. This is a very average attempt at making a hot hatch by Tata.

Originally Posted by Napalm

But it is just 2 seconds slower for 0-100Kph, which is not a very relevant metric for most people in real life driving.

The Octavia 1.8 TSi is just 1.5 seconds slower to get to 100 than the VRS.

It may or may not be very relevant for you but for many people it is. By your logic, a 0-100 time of 15 sec should also be fine since it is 2 only 2 seconds slower than the Altroz Turbo. Similarly, a 0-100 time of 17 seconds should be fine since it is only 2 seconds slower than a car with a 0-100 timing of 15 seconds and so on.

In fact what is 'relevant' for daily driving is very subjective and for many people, a 800cc 3 cylinder is all what is needed to be 'relevant' when driving on the road. Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but thankfully, not everyone thinks the same way and which is why we have people who buy warm hatches like the Figo, Polo and the erstwhile Tiago JTP and not to forget cars like the VRS over the 1.8 TSi.

You may feel that 2 seconds is not relevant and you are entitled to your opinion just as I am entitled to mine.

Originally Posted by Napalm

Also a DCT in i20 with super quick shifts will obviously be faster than a manual.

I am not sure why you are always talking about i20?

Is it because I stated that I hope that Hyundai brings in the manual i20 Turbo petrol? I only mentioned i20 because I would want them to bring one to spice up the competition. Let us have a look at some other cars-

The Polo 1.0 TSi has a 0-100 timing of almost 10 sec.
The i10 Nios Turbo has a 0-100 timing of almost 10 sec.
The JTP twins had a 0-100 timing of around 10 sec.
The Figo/Aspire diesel has a 0-100 timing of around 10 sec.
Heck, the Baleno with its NA engine is faster.

Also, the i20 DCT with 'super quick shifts' is slower than the Polo AT(and MT) which has a torque converter, lesser power and more weight as well.

There is a need to do prior research before using the word 'obviously'.

Originally Posted by Napalm

Since Altroz turbo manual will still cost much lesser than even the IMT i20 turbo, this should be worthwhile.

I never mentioned anything about the cost. And even if we consider the cost, we have the Polo which is available for the same cost. There are also other options which are quicker than the Altroz Turbo if one is willing to go half/one segment lower or shift to a compact sedan.

But anyway, the point is that I never mentioned anything about pricing. I am aware of the higher price Hyundai is charging for the i20.

[cake]

I think we should cut some slack for TATA here. Sure the numbers don't seem very exciting but the iTurbo should still be an engine offering better drivability over the current NA.
If you're comparing this with the i20 turbo keep in mind the difference in weight of the 2 cars (~350kg). At the same power to weight ratio, the iTurbo could have been a 10-11s car as well.
I'd take that extra 2 secs for that extra safety rating any day.

If this engine fairs well, the Altroz would be a good all-rounder with safety and drivability in offer. The only disadvantage TATA is having against the Altroz would be the ASS experience.

Also, can we agree on the light grey interiors along with blue/black look so good!

[DriverNo.420]

Originally Posted by cake

I'd take that extra 2 secs for that extra safety rating any day.

The i20 is available with 6 airbags which the Altroz is not. Side airbags are very important for rear passengers in case of a side impact. I still don't understand why Tata does not provide a side airbag option. So I'll still take the i20 top end over Altroz top end.

[The Rationalist]

Originally Posted by DriverNo.420

The i20 is available with 6 airbags which the Altroz is not. Side airbags are very important for rear passengers in case of a side impact. I still don't understand why Tata does not provide a side airbag option. So I'll still take the i20 top end over Altroz top end.

You argument would have been valid if Indian i20 was a safe and crash tested car! An unsafe car with 9 airbags won't be safe as a 5* rated car with 2 airbags. I'm driving a car with 2 airbags and unstable body shell. I have the option to buy the same car with 6 airbags, but that won't make it any more safer than the 2 airbag version. Unless tested i20 remains an unsafe car. Given how their other cars have fared and how Kia barely managed 3*, I don't have any expectations from i20.

[DriverNo.420]

Originally Posted by The Rationalist

You argument would have been valid if Indian i20 was a safe and crash tested car!

I will agree to disagree. The i20 is not yet tested and we can't comment wether it is a safe car or not. The way I see, the rear passengers do not have anything in the Atroz to count on should the car impact sideways. If you have the option to get side airbags it will not only increase the safety for the driver, but the car will become far safer for rear passengers, again for a side impact. A car with unstable platform with 9 airbags is unsafe and a car with stable platform with 2 airbags is safe? Where is that written buddy?
And what is the meaning of Stable/Unstable body, can anyone explain ? Kia Seltos is rated unstable yet when I drove it, it felt stable/planted as any other car.

[The Rationalist]

Originally Posted by DriverNo.420

I will agree to disagree. The i20 is not yet tested and we can't comment. A car with unstable platform with 9 airbags is unsafe and a car with stable platform without 9 airbags is safe?
And what is the meaning of Stable/Unstable body, can any explain ? Kia Seltos is rated unstable yet when I drove it, it felt stable/planted as any other car.

Whether you agree or not won't change facts! As per you if not tested, we can't comment. So the best option would be to assume that a non tested car is safe? There is a reason why Tata and Mahindra voluntarily gave cars for testing and other manufacturers haven't, you don't need to be super intelligent to gauge why!

The cars are tested by a competent authority with set protocols and parameters to judge. The cars are given rating based on that, not subjective feeling of how it drives or how heavy the doors feel. Ambassador doors were the heaviest ones, but it doesn't mean anything. To give an analogy the Covid vaccines that have been approved are based on trials and it's results, not on how one feels after he gets vaccinated. One vaccine in India is being approved with shoddy data, it's like blindly believing it is safe. I won't take that vaccine, there may be people who are ready to take. As a doctor with 2 decades of experience, I will go with evidence rather than belief, I'm a proponent of science.

PS: There are umpteen videos and information on EURO NCAP, IIHS, Australian, Japanese crash testing agencies to understand stable body shell and unstable body shell.