[CrAzY dRiVeR]

Naturally aspirated Petrols and turbo diesels are both dying!



Modern TGDi petrol engines are offering the best of both worlds - the excellent midrange of a turbo diesel engine, with the refinement levels of a petrol. With the ever-tightening pollution norms - these engines are gaining popularity and more manufacturers are getting ready to offer such options in the market. Hyundai, Kia, Renault, Nissan, Volkswagen and Mahindra has offered TGDi options in the market - whereas Maruti could bring it back and TATA is developing their own as well.

But - technology doesn't come cheap. TGDi motors are expensive and priced quite similar to their diesel counterparts. Are you prepared to shell similar money then?

Let us first establish the question with a few figures - Below are some of the products which offer both TGDi petrol and BS6 diesel options (Compared with the variant that offers a direct comparison).



Since companies like Renault-Nissan discontinued diesels, they can only be compared to the equivalent BS6 NA petrol option.



PS: VW perhaps offers the best priced option in the market - but there is no variant in the range that offers a direct comparison between a BS6 diesel or BS6 NA petrol equivalent.

Quite simply put - companies are charging diesel-like premiums on the TGDi motors. They offer excellent performance and refinement, but won't be returning the fuel efficiency figures of a diesel. All the 'Calculate kiya kya' arguments don't work in this scenario - and it is more of a heart v/s mind decision! And these engines are not limited to performance halo variants any longer - hence you can't overlook these high-tech motors, if in the market for a higher spec variant of most modern cars.

On heavy products like the Mahindra Thar - the preference is heavily biased towards the diesel option, whereas on smaller cars - opinion seems to be divided either ways! (For example - Venue 1.0 TGDi MT seems to be favoured more than the 1.5 CRDi MT, but its the Sonet 1.5 CRDi AT that finds favour over the 1.0 TGDi DCT).

Would you prefer the petrol, given that the price difference between the turbo petrol and turbo diesel options are negligible?

[GTO]

Voted for Yes .

There used to be a difference of a lakh - say in the Swift 1.2L P vs 1.3L D - because the petrol was a simple naturally-aspirated motor, while the latter was a modern common-rail turbo diesel. But now with petrols also getting direct injection tech & turbocharging, there is simply no reason for them to be cheaper.

I will happily pay the same price because a petrol is a petrol in terms of driving pleasure. That said, my selection of petrol vs diesel will vary based on the car rather than the price. E.g. I'd buy the i10 / Aura turbo-petrols any day over their small diesels because the petrol is fun & fast. On the other hand, for big and heavy SUVs (including the Thar), I would go for the diesel. Among European cars, a diesel was a given, but their new petrols are damn good. Case in point = the 330i. Yet, with an E-Class, I'd go for the creamy 6-cylinder diesel.

Again, depends on the car, but I will happily pay the same price if the turbo-petrol is an enjoyable engine!

[turbo]

Voted no

For me, Diesel = turbo and Petrol = Naturally Aspirated

The turbo petrols have no torque below 2000 rpm, and give you the feeling that you are literally wringing the life out of the engine to get any semblance of performance.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by turbo

The turbo petrols have no torque below 2000 rpm

Can't make a sweeping statement like that. There are many turbo-petrols with good torque lower down too. Whether it has low-end torque or not depends on a lot of things (tuning, if priority was performance or efficiency, gearing, turbo type & size etc. etc.).

[adityak7]

For the majority of the middle-class folks, a car purchase is a carefully calculated one. I remember a lot of calculations being done based on usage, fuel cost and the price difference between petrol and diesel variants of the car to arrive at the breakeven time and looking at which will have a lower cost of ownership. I really don't see a reason why this will change for a majority of folks.

In fact, the decision would be more inclined towards diesel variants unless your usage of the car is really low and in the range of a few hundred km per month.

I am probably speaking from a biased view since I tend to use my bike for individual usage and take the car out only when we travel as a family and would to love to hear others opinions on this.

[AYP]

Well, I am definitely willing to pay a diesel like premium for a turbo petrol when compared to a naturally aspirated engine.

Back in 2017, I went for the Figo diesel due to the performance it offered compared to the other 1.2 naturally aspirated engines. If turbo petrols were available back then, then there is a decent chance that I would have gone for a petrol.

But if a car offers both a turbo petrol and a turbo diesel, then my choice will vary on case to case basis. For e.g. the Turbo petrol Nios and Aura are a no brainer over the 1.2 Diesel. Similar case with the Compass and the Hector.

On the other hand, the 1.4 GDi Turbo of Seltos will be my preferred choice over the 1.5 Diesel.

So since this thread only asks whether I will be willing to pay diesel like premium for a turbo petrol, my answer would be a YES.

Though if the opening post were to ask very specifically whether I will pay a diesel like premium when a competent turbo diesel option is available, my answer would be a 'maybe' but more inclined towards NO.

[srvm]

Originally Posted by turbo

Voted no

For me, Diesel = turbo and Petrol = Naturally Aspirated

The turbo petrols have no torque below 2000 rpm, and give you the feeling that you are literally wringing the life out of the engine to get any semblance of performance.

Agree with GTO on this!
It depends on how the engine is tuned plus the RPM at which the turbo kicks in.
I invite you to drive my Zest (Petrol) to see it yourself. Mind you, it is a heavy car at 1150kg, yet torquey like a diesel, allowing one to potter around town easily in 2nd/3rd gear.
Fact: 100kmph in 5th gear comes at 2200rpm for a petrol!


Regarding my vote: No. I'd rather pay the premium to buy tried and tested Turbo-Diesels.

[Reinhard]

I voted for NO.

1. I'm a die hard fan of diesel engines. The low RPM, the low operating temperature & the low end torque are just too good to ignore for me.
2. I don't like high-revving machinery. Don't know why. But I just don't.
3. Petrol engines inherently run very high temperature compared to diesels. TGDi engines will certainly be even hotter in general.
4. Such extreme heat in the engine bay all the time, plays a bit with the wiring I add in the engine bay in mods.
5. With the TGDi engine costing more or less same as the diesels - I don't see the point in opting for a petrol over a diesel. I don't live in ultra-high mountains in sub-zero temperatures. So no benefit of that sort either.
6. I'd rather pay a premium for a CLEAN burning emission compliant diesel engine for easy cruising. I don't need a fast revving drag racer anyway.
7. And if I need a fast petrol car for fun - I'd rather have a mean V6 NA. No turbo please.

[anb]

Originally Posted by turbo

Voted no

For me, Diesel = turbo and Petrol = Naturally Aspirated

The turbo petrols have no torque below 2000 rpm, and give you the feeling that you are literally wringing the life out of the engine to get any semblance of performance.

Team-bhp handle is turbo and you are against turbo
After driving GT TSi & NA petrols, I feel like na petrols have no torque through out the rev range

[turbo]

Originally Posted by anb

Team-bhp handle is turbo and you are against turbo
After driving GT TSi & NA petrols, I feel like na petrols have no torque through out the rev range

Not against Turbos, just turbo-petrols

Also in automatics, the shift points can be programmed to eliminate turbo lag entirely.

It's in manuals that you get to understand the true nature of the engine.

PS: my username was chosen after that snail "turbo".

[ynike99]

All this argument goes in vain when you consider fuel efficiency. For example, In venue thread people have reported single digit fuel efficiency in traffic. Diesels will be definitely better here. Theres a sweet spot to drive the turbo petrols. If you cross the line either ways, you are in single digit territory; and it matters here because these engines are sold to many first time users.

[CARDEEP]

Voted "YES"

However, the premium should be over equally specced naturally aspirated engine, not a bigger engine. Put it simply, I would happily pay small premium for 1 liter 120 bhp vehicle than ~ 1.5 liter naturally aspirated one. Anything over 50k would be demanding more IMO, unless the difference is substantial, basically I will pay for horses than just the turbo badge.

[jetsetgo08]

Voted No.

To me, no fun at the expense of fuel economy, irrespective of Turbo Petrol vs NA.

[CEF_Beasts]

Voted No,

A diesel is a diesel no small capacity Turbo petrol can replace it! 1.4L TGDi of the Hyundai-Kia maybe! It depends a lot on the segment the Verna CVT 1.5L is much better than the 1L turbo DCT. Hondas 1.5L i-VTEC NA is a classic engine no turbo petrol can beat it. Turbo petrols reliability is also a cause of concern when imported (eg: Ecoboost). In bigger sedans and SUVs people prefer diesels 5 to 1 over a turbo petrol. Fuel efficiency is also a concern for turbo petrols when pushing it hard.

[2000rpm]

Originally Posted by turbo

Voted no

The turbo petrols have no torque below 2000 rpm, and give you the feeling that you are literally wringing the life out of the engine to get any semblance of performance.

Thats true for NA engines as well. Try driving the 1.8 NA Petrol Civic once.

Not all NA Petrol engines give you linear acceleration from low RPMs.