Team-BHP - Turbo-petrol owners of Team-BHP | Are you happy with your purchase?

Absolutely, my family and I decided to switch from Diesel cars to petrol due to the smoother and quieter rides that they provide. The faster acceleration is the cherry on top :Cheering:

While my Hector(CVT) doesn't have much of a kick, however, it's quite relaxing to drive. On the other hand, my Taigun GT Plus DSG packs a mean punch and gives me an adrenaline rush every time I floor the accelerator.

It is not fair to blame a Turbo Petrol for absurd running costs.
They power some of the heavy cars in today's context. So, it is essential for them to have those powerful engines, and when you use those heavy cars for In-City commute, they might show poor mileage, but I am sure no worse than their NA counterparts in the same conditions (Not more than 20%).

To me, turbo petrols are for empty roads/ highways. For city usage, electric of even a tiny S-presso would do for me.

And yes, we ARE satisfied with our 21 Octavia. These cars are best enjoyed on highways, where the power will scare cars outside, and the passengers inside. (And yes, we enjoy the safe drive too)

I got to drive a 4 month old Kia Carens 1.5 TGdi over a 800 kms trip few days ago. I haven't driven a turbo petrol this far and so it was almost like a new experience for me. I have driven few test drive vehicles for short distances and the only other highway experience I had was on a Linea Tjet for around 100-150 kms.
I must say turbo petrols are as good as their diesel counterparts now. For reference, the car I drive is a Ford Aspire diesel tuned to around 130 bhp and 290 nm. The Carens with the 1.5 engine is around 160 bhp and 250 nm if I am right and weighs much more than a Aspire which is around 1 ton. This car was an iMT and was loaded with 4 adults and luggage. The trip was part expressway and part single lane roads with traffic. Lots of inclines and slopes as well. I have done this trip multiple times on my Aspire and other cars before that and that made it easy to guage the difference in power. The Carens power delivery felt quite similar to my Aspire when it was in stock state. The low end torque across the gears and even in top gear was as good as a diesel. I never had to shift below 5th gear for an overtake. Even in 6th, I only had to floor it and it picked up speed quite fast. This was especially felt when resuming the set cruise control speed in 6th gear. All I had to was cancel/resume cruise control in 6th gear everytime I came across traffic.
Now coming to the negatives. The car gave me 12 kmpl over the 800 kms trip and costed me double in fuel expense compared to my diesel Aspire. Both the times, the speeds were around 100 kmph with just one or two bursts of high speed. The only advantage being the better NVH. But there too, my diesel NVH is quite good at 100 kmph with all the diesel and oil additives. It is only post 2.5k rpm that it shows it is a diesel engine in the front.

For now, I think I'll continue with my diesel for another few years because of how it gives me the best of both worlds.

I have both NA and a turbo petrol in my garage.

While I love the city 1.5L CVT, the moment I end a drive with my Thar 2.0 Petrol Manual, I end up being sad. While the City is great, the Thar is more fun to drive around.

Yes, FE wise Thar is a Guzzler and I am least bothered as I primarily use it for local offroad and to reach outstation offroad destinations only. On outstation drives, I set the Cruise Control to around 85 and I get decent mileage(11 kmpl) even on my 245/75R16 MT tyres

Most of the No's might be from the owners of Engine where the performance relies only on turbo range and not on displacement. Mainly the 1L 3Cyl turbos where turbo lag is evident in city driving conditions.
If the engine has proper displacement + turbo then obviously it's a bliss to drive irrespective of any traffic conditions.
I vote as Yes (from Polo 1.0L TSI) but still turbo lag in slow speeds is a discomfort that has to be accepted.

Absolutely, though I would go for an equivalent turbo-diesel if not for the regulatory uncertainty around diesel!

I was never a fan of NA petrol, and always preferred diesels, especially starting from CRDi engines, for their relaxed drive and low-RPM torque for quick overtakes. So, I really wanted to get a Diesel when I was looking for a full-size 4x4 SUV last year. After ruling out Fortuner, Gloster and Meridian (for different reasons), I settled on Hyundai Tucson Diesel - really loved the ride, handling and power delivery. But the uncertainty around how the stupid anti-Diesel regulation would evolve, finally made me try out Kodiaq and Tiguan. And wow, I was blown away by the experience - paired with the quick DSG, these vehicles provided excellent low-end torque that was pretty close to what I got on Tucson, and a wider torque band for quicker acceleration. And the NVH and ride quality were a cut above, especially on the Kodiaq.

Ended up trading off the higher fuel efficiency of the diesel for the lower uncertainty around petrol, and brought the Kodiaq home. I budgeted an additional running cost of around 50K per year based on my target mileage so that I dont feel bad every time I fill the tank. It has been a great experience, and I have enjoyed every moment behind the wheel over the last 4 months.

We bought a Nexon XE 1.2 turbo petrol in 2018. 90,000+ kilometres later, the experience has been amazing.
From day 1 we have used regular 91 octane petrol, no high octane stuff - but have got acceptable mileage of 13+ km/litre.
No reliability issues have been faced in the car, except for an electrical bug where the car refuses to crank when hot occasionally and a hole in the radiator plumbing due to stones. Neither of these issues can be attributed to the engine itself.
We did get the timing kit replaced at 85k after a suggestion to do so by the service centre as part of preventative maintenance.
The turbo power in sport mode is very fun out on the highway, and the engine is punchy enough for quick getaways from lights in city mode. Eco mode is practically useless.

Touchwood, looking forward to the next 1 lakh kilometres with the car!

I have a Verna 1.5 DCT now and while I'm not a great fan of the car, the engine is good. I'd prefer a large capacity (2000 cc and above) NA engine in petrol. Nothing comes close to the clean tractabilty of those and the effortless power and torque delivery is something that cannot be replicated.

Having said that, for lower cc engines, I.dont think anything comes close to a turbo petrol. Turbo lag notwithstanding. There is just no way I can imagine going back to a 1500 cc NA engine.

Voted a big Yes!

I have two turbo-petrols (a 1.0 Polo GT AT and a 1.0 Taigun AT) and one turbo-diesel (a Tata Hexa AT)

While I agree to the redeeming qualities of a big turbo-diesel, nothing compares to the sheer driving pleasure of a quick turbo-petrol, my Polo 1.0 being a case in point.

Though it's a small I litre mill, the switch from Dr. Jekyl to Mr. Hyde post 2000 RPM once the turbo kicks in is something to experience.

Also the ability to throw the car around corners, lightning quick-lane changes and sports-car like handing mean that mileage is something I absolutely don't track! :-)

Yes, it's got that low-end lag which is mitigated to a large extent with a Stage-1 remap along with a low restriction air filter.

This car is pretty quick to shift to 2nd gear though even at low speeds, which further exacerbates the turbo-lag, and which is why I've ordered a paddle-shift steering wheel that I can use to quickly shift down when I need the torque.

Having said all this, a turbo-petrol in a sedate driver's hands can deliver mileage similar or exceeding that of a NA petrol.

My Polo typically gives 7 kmpl when I drive it, and around 12-13 when my father-in-law drives!

Agree to the sentiment of most folks replying here. Supremely happy with our Verna 2023 1.5L Turbo Petrol DCT. This our first car so didn't feel the difficulty in switching from NA to Turbo mentioned by most.
The engine is extremely silent. One feels like being in an EV once windows are rolled up, AC is on and cruising at 60-80. The steering and throttle response in Sports mode above this is what let's us know of the engine's eager presence :)
As first time drivers, both me and my wife don't mind the slow response at lower gears as the car eases out of U-turn or a traffic signal.
Overall, very happy with the car in the 3k kms so far. Also, getting a 10-12 kmpl in city and 18-19 odd on highway drives.

I do not have a turbo-petrol, so I voted for No. And then I realised that this poll wouldn't apply to me only, since all the cars in the extended family are either NA petrol, or diesel.

For the cars in my name, both the Brezza and the Grand Vitara are used 90% of the time inside the city only. And a large majority of that also in bumper to bumper peak traffic in Chennai, where my speed doesn't exceed 20 kmph.

So a turbo petrol made zero financial sense to me. Still doesn't.

I get FE figures of maybe 9 or 10 kmpl in my mild hybrids during such peak traffic, and have made my peace with it. Maintenance has been mostly peanuts too.

On the rare occasions that I go out on the GST Road and see a Kushaq zoom past me, I do get pangs of regret. But then I look at the fuel efficiency figures once again and I console myself.

If I get a chance to have a second car in the future, I'd probably opt for a smaller turbo-petrol petrol hatchback purely for weekend fun and giggles. But for now, NA is the way.

My vote goes to "It depends on the particular car and the requirements".

Not all turbo petrols are bad (1.0 Ecoboost, 1.0 Boosterjet, 1.5 TSI, 1.2 TGDI, etc) and similarly not all NA petrols are bad (1.5 iVTEC, Maruti K series engines, AMG 6.3L, R8 V10, the latest 12Cilindri, etc).

Unfortunately, in India, even with the mass market brands, we don't have a lot of engine options as it is available in the other developed markets. So we are forced/limited to only 1-2 engine options even with respect to mass models. If not Ford, GM, Fiat would not have left India.

Personally I would always choose a 4cy Turbo than a 3cy Turbo for multiple reasons. But the availability as an offering is a limitation. Additionally there are brands who are good in petrol engines and some are good in diesel engines. Any turbo (be it petrol or diesel), will not be as good as a petrol NA in lower gears or slow speeds, especially in small CC engines. Turbos are the best for mid-range. Low end and top end depends on the type of the car.

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTO (Post 5750247)

It's a 3-cylinder turbo-petrol and is known to be full of noise, vibrations & feel. We mentioned as such in our review of the Rapid 1.0 TSI. However, you cannot paint all turbo-petrols with the same brush. The 4-cylinder turbo-petrols I have are so smooth, you can't even tell the motor is running!

Mentioning the number of cylinders would help a lot while voting. However, GTO already explained what I meant, so for me, if it's a 3-cylinder, I would probably take the advice or proper review from the owners before buying it; but if it's a 4-cylinder, I would definitely go with turbo.