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

Hi all,
I drive a Skoda Rapid 1.0 TSI AT since December 2020. Of late, I have been thinking about about this particular engine and here are my observations after driving around 50% in city, 20% in highways and remaining 30% in mixed road conditions
-
Likes
1. Good performance.

Dislikes
1. Absurd running costs.
2. NVH is not great as a NA petrol.
3. Turbo lag in low RPMs is difficult to manage in mixed driving conditions.
4. Unknown maintenence costs.
5. Mileage is very sensitive to throttle inputs.
6. Mileage is very sensitive to outside temperature ( I get good mileage in nights, than afternoon with the same driving style).

Conclusion - My next purchase is NOT going to be a turbo-petrol. I will consider EVs, hybrids or as a simple NA petrol + AT only. So my question to all members of Team bhp will you buy a turbo petrol as a next car?

I own two turbo-petrols and am extremely happy with both of them. These are 2.0L turbo-petrols mated to ATs in the Superb & Thar.

- Fast performance

- Excellent torque & driveability

- Punchy mid-range

- DSG / AT that makes great use of the torque.

I am NEVER going back to a naturally-aspirated petrol. Once you get used to the torque & punch of turbo-petrols, NA engines feel very boring (sole exception = City 1.5L petrol). Drive the Fronx 1.0L turbo-petrol & 1.2L NA back to back and I can assure you, you won't touch the 1.2L NA with a barge pole.

Power delivery is more effortless with turbo-petrols, unlike NA petrols that you have to revv & wring the necks off, for speed.

The Superb has decent FE for its size. The Thar is a royal guzzler, but keeping its weight + bricklike aerodynamics + power + fatter tyres in mind, I guess 6 kmpl is alright. I also drive my cars with a heavy right foot, so FE has never been a priority.

Quote:

Originally Posted by 1LR-GUE (Post 5750215)

Likes
1. Good performance.

The Rapid 1.0 TSI is a w-i-l-d car!

Quote:

2. NVH is not great as a NA petrol.

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!

Quote:

3. Turbo lag in low RPMs is difficult to manage in mixed driving conditions.

Again, something specific to the VW 1.0 TSI.

Quote:

5. Mileage is very sensitive to throttle inputs.

This is the no.1 downside to turbo-petrols. Drive a turbo-diesel hard and you'll still get great FE. Drive a turbo-petrol hard and you'll get 5 - 7 kmpl. That being said, keep in mind that you are driving a torque-converter AT and 90% of torque-converter Petrol ATs offer poor efficiency.

Most of the cons you have mentioned in the Rapid 1.0 TSI AT were already mentioned in our Official Review. I think you bought the wrong car, and not the wrong engine type (i.e. turbo petrol) per se.

I drive a Turbo Petrol in my VW Tiguan.

Mine is the 2.0 TSI gem of an engine mated to the excellent 7 Speed DQ381-7A gearbox. I am extremely extremely pleased with it. Right from when I first drove it in the Octavia, one of the many other vehicles I TD'd before final purchase.

+ Explosive Power
+ Excellent fuel economy, for what it is.

- While the turbo lag is very well contained, being someone who has driven NA all his life. I do miss the instant acceleration of the NA.
- You kind of need to learn driving all over again when switching to a Turbo unit after a lifetime of NA driving, I felt.

Voted yes.

We have a 2.0 TSI Superb in the garage, and the monstrous 320 Nm of torque available from ridiculously low rpms, paired with the fast DSG makes for one effortless performer. As for fuel efficiency, we're very happy with the highway figures; we manage 14 km/l even with bursts of spirited driving involved.

It's also incredibly smooth and refined, while also sounding sporty at higher rpms, especially when the turbocharger becomes audible. Considering that most of our running is on the highway, the terrible fuel efficiency in the city doesn't bother us much.

As said above, some of your issues pertain to 3-cylinder engines in general, not turbocharging.

However, this is not to say that I've started hating NA petrols. I just enjoy our Fiesta 1.6 for different reasons: the linear power delivery, the near 7000 rpm redline and the more old-school engine note. A right-sized NA petrol (not dulled down for maximum efficiency), paired with a well-geared manual transmission can still be a blast! Keeping the engine "on the boil" to make rapid progress is fun in its own way.

For the city, NA petrols actually make more sense. We've managed a healthy 9 km/l even in the worst of conditions with the Fiesta (prior to ethanol ruining things), as compared to 5-7 km/l with the Superb.

I am very happy with the turbo-petrol engine in my Thar. It is a lovely engine, and in fact, this engine is one of the highlights of the car.

As @GTO pointed out, most of the issues OP mentioned are specific to that 1.0 TSI turbo-petrol engine. A very small displacement, 3-cylinder engine is bound to have some issues even if it is turbocharged. It is understandable to a large extent.

But in general, 4-cylinder turbo-petrols are great! I will never go back to a naturally aspirated engine now. Both my cars are turbocharged (one turbo-diesel and one turbo-petrol), and both the engines are fantastic! There is no going back to NA once you get used to a good turbo engine!

Yes, the fuel economy in turbo-petrol engines can be poor when driven hard. But that is a well-known thing and that is the price one has to pay for everything else that a turbo-petrol engine offers that is good.

Further, it is not always the case that naturally aspirated petrol engines give great mileage when pushed hard either. For example, my previous car was Maruti SX4 with 1.6L NA petrol engine with 5-speed manual. Whenever I drove that car hard on a highway or through the hills, it returned about 9km/l to 10km/l. Compared to that, my Thar (with 2.0L turbo-petrol engine and 6-speed AT) gives about 8km/l to 9km/l in similar conditions. I do not think the difference is that big.

Overall, yes, I am absolutely happy with the turbo-petrol engine in my Thar.

I have Sonet 1.0 Turbo petrol and it is gem of a car to drive in Highways, in City yes the turbo lag is there in very low speeds and bumper-to-bumper, but if you learn to drive it it is very easy to go around, even in city bumper traffic you can get 9-12 which is pretty good indeed. And highways with summer heat and high AC I still 15.5 average and even tough 17.5 during Mysore trip over last weekend.

After having driven a NA engine before, I must say this is very good, only thing is I would have liked a higher Turbo say 1.5L DCT like Seltos/Creta has.

I have a 2021 Subaru WRX STI that comes with a turbo charged 2.5L boxer engine. It is my first turbo charged car and I have mixed feelings about it. I love the punchy engine and the quick acceleration but the engine is a bit too rev happy that is not very conducive to sedate driving that I might be in the mood for occasionally :p

My other car has a naturally aspirated inline-6 cylinder engine and I love that one to bits.

This is my 3rd turbo petrol in the form of the Verna 1.5 DCT (after Linea T-Jet, Polo 1.2 TSI). And I would unhesitatingly recommend a turbo petrol if available, over an NA petrol for the sheer thrill of the ride. The average ownership duration of cars is 5-6 years or even less these days. Why deprive oneself of driving pleasure while you still can drive ably ? While some NA petrols like the Honda iVTEC are also quite good and do the job probably 100% of the time, they dont offer the thrill and effortless (ample power in reserve) drive. Of course there is a flip side to potentially less-reliable transmissions like DCT/DSG to which turbo petrols are usually paired, but again I would hark back to the ownership duration and extended warranty coverage.

So, yes, I am quite happy with the Verna turbo and feel the car just comes on its own on the open highways, where the turbo boost past 2K (especially in Sport mode) is near ballistic. Driven sanely, it gives great mileage on highway runs even with a full load of passengers (often exceeding 16-17 kmpl) . But given its power/torque profile, it is not a car for newbie/inexperienced drivers I would say. Most turbo petrol's are not in fact.

I’ve the same engine but with MT. I will always prefer turbocharged variant in a regular car. Yes the low end pick up is not as good as an NA engine but i would still take the turbo surge over NA engine’s linear and sometimes boring acceleration post 2k-3k RPM.

Talking about the 1.0 TSI, this engine requires the driver to adjust a bit. Yes the downright acceleration is absent at near 1k RPM but that is only felt when the accelerator is pushed to the floor. But If only part throttle is used, it picks up fine.

No, sadly no, not one bit.

After being used to 10kmpl in a Diesel turbo with the worst sort of hard driving (and 15-18kmpl when driving really sanely), seeing 5-6kmpl constantly on that dashboard, when you're even just starting to have a slight bit of fun is truly heart wrenching (to say the least). If I had to drive like a grandpa (no offense, there are hard driving grandpas too, as an exception) I wouldn't have taken the turbo in the first place.

I'm sure even the best of us who are financially really well to do, would be having heartaches seeing that sub 6kmpl figure on the dashboard, it's a psychological thing more than monetary, I think. Sold off the Venue SXO (Turbo-DCT) within 6 months of buying it.

With the government and our very own, dear motor-mouth Mr. Gadkari repeatedly accosting and vilifying Diesels, I do not know if I would buy anything until something that gives the same level of efficiency along with the rush that Diesels give, come up. I'm keeping my Diesel AT XUV till kingdom come or if the government puts guns to our heads to sell/scrap them off.