[Dr.Naren]

Originally Posted by greatmana2000

After having driven the S-cross for over 6000km , I am not satisfied with the car . First , the suspension is too bad for me , the rear is a virtual springboard on bad roads and then the power . While 320NM on paper looks good and in the leagues of skoda , audi , merc , bmw the engine is a pure irritant if one needs to do spirited driving on high traffic highways . The gear shifting is constant and you just feel that the 320 NM is at a particular narrow power band RPM and the engine drops too much of power before and after the band . The power delivery is just at 2000 -3000 RPM . The highways that I frequent ,the gear changing is constant .

I do not agree about the suspension part. 1.6 just pulls even with slight throttle when RPM is above 1800. Yes, if you are below 1500 RPM : the struggle starts. I slot into 6 th gear at 100 KMPH. Overtaking is a breeze, just tap the pedal and you are done. (even in 6 th gear, above 100 KMPH).

I agree about sudden drop in peak torque. I will post the power-torque graph of 1.6 multijet engine. 320 NM torque drops steeply post peak. But if you observe, 1.6 makes much more torque than 1.3 multijet. 1.6 produces 200 NM even at 4000 RPM (200 NM is the peak torque for 1.3). 1.6 engine is a gem, but it could have been made much more better by holding the peak torque for longer revv band. I am planning to do the same through remap.

[greatmana2000]

Originally Posted by Dr.Naren

I do not agree about the suspension part. 1.6 just pulls even with slight throttle when RPM is above 1800. Yes, if you are below 1500 RPM : the struggle starts. .........., but it could have been made much more better by holding the peak torque for longer revv band. I am planning to do the same through remap.

As you said , the 100 -120 comes up pretty soon on the 1.6 . After that it takes long enough . As long as it takes for a punto with 200 NM torque . What I have realised is that the 1.3 and the 1.6 do not have much of a difference except for a hint of higher torque at a narrow power band .

Originally Posted by ajay_satpute

I agree that turbo lag of 1.6 has been discussed at length on the forum.
.....hence the surprise.

Turbo lag is manageable on the highways . I tend to do gearshifts without straining the engine . I tend to floor the accelerator only when I am in the the top gear and not in the lower gears . I hate redlining the engine ..especially when it is a diesel engine .
I do not think that the suspension setup is the best ..period . The suspension set up is in a no-mans land . Neither here nor there . My Mom would be a better person as a judge . She just dreads sitting in the back seat of the S-cross . She is happy sitting in the backseat of a wagon R /Punto /Figo /Etios . I am not comparing Creta . Creta is not a benchmark . I would say Figo or a punto /linea /vento rapid would be the benchmark .

Originally Posted by KiloAlpha

I own a 1.6 Alpha, done 5000km in 4 months. About half my running is on highways..........

However, my enthusiasm for the S-Cross 1.6 is because I love the car enough to learn its sweet spots. That is not everybody's cup of tea, however.

I tend to agree with your observations . What i believe is that the S-cross suspension can be good on gravel or loose sand . The scross loses on roads which are uneven , have pot holes and cracks . That is when the suspension loses track and that is precisely what I am talking about .


My reasons for buying the S-cross were as follows

1. VFM compared to an I20 hyundai . I get more power , bigger car /better features and the 1.3 S-cross is very closely priced to an I20 . I never had the creta as a comparision .

2. My drives are mainly during the night times . Unfortunately , after the S-cross was bought I have been doing day time trips . I prefer driving at nights when there is less of traffic so that I can maintain my mental equillibrium , else I end up screaming at each driver who drives irrational .

3 . The peak torque on my other cars is 200 NM max on the punto . It is lower on the figo , etios . I tend to do speeds over 100 km/hr, so that I have a good average speed and I do not feel like an idiot for not taking the volvo bus to reach earlier .

4. The other smaller cars tend to return a very low fuel efficiency if they are driven at higher speeds . At 80-90 they return much better fuel averages . On the 1.6 I guessed that the maximum efficiency would be at 100+ KM /Hr due to a 6 speed gearbox . It seems that it is true . I still get 18-19 while for the same speed on a figo /punto I would be getting around 15 Km/hr .

[Dr.Naren]

Originally Posted by greatmana2000

As you said , the 100 -120 comes up pretty soon on the 1.6 . After that it takes long enough . As long as it takes a punto with 200 NM torque

120+ is possible in 4th, 5 th and 6 th gear in 1.6 S-Cross. Even in 6 th gear, I found the car picking up speeds very well. Slot into 4 th and floor the pedal from 100 KMPH, it would hit illegal speeds in no time. I have 1.3 SX4 (remapped ). My stock S-Cross 1.6 is way faster above 100 KMPH, be it 4 th or 5 th or 6 th gear. I seriously don't believe in similar timing for 1.3 Punto and 1.6 S-Cross to accelerate from 120+ KMPH.

I am not encouraging high speed driving. I had just tested the car under safe conditions (Road closed for public)

[sou_3749]

Originally Posted by greatmana2000

My reasons for buying the S-cross were as follows

1. VFM compared to an I20 hyundai . I get more power , bigger car /better features and the 1.3 S-cross is very closely priced to an I20 . I never had the creta as a comparision .

2. My drives are mainly during the night times . Unfortunately , after the S-cross was bought I have been doing day time trips . I prefer driving at nights when there is less of traffic so that I can maintain my mental equillibrium , else I end up screaming at each driver who drives irrational .

3 . The peak torque on my other cars is 200 NM max on the punto . It is lower on the figo , etios . I tend to do speeds over 100 km/hr, so that I have a good average speed and I do not feel like an idiot for not taking the volvo bus to reach earlier .

4. The other smaller cars tend to return a very low fuel efficiency if they are driven at higher speeds . At 80-90 they return much better fuel averages . On the 1.6 I guessed that the maximum efficiency would be at 100+ KM /Hr due to a 6 speed gearbox . It seems that it is true . I still get 18-19 while for the same speed on a figo /punto I would be getting around 15 Km/hr .

I do agree to some of your observations/opinions and I respect that. But, why are we talking about 120+ kmph? Is it not unsafe to self or others? Well that argument is for a different day as we all know the intention is not to endorse racing/unsafe driving. Talking about speeds, yesterday I was driving along with a punto 90hp for sometime and the dude being very aggressive couldn't get passed a 1.3 s-cross. Having a bigger engine or better engine doesn't mean how far you can push it. To me it's how comfortable is the machine doing good speeds if not illegal. The 1.6 s-cross does it pretty effectively and that's what everybody is impressed with.

As you mentioned earlier, I too observed fishtailing. But, when I saw the needle, I was not surprised. At that point I was unhappy with my car cursing the tyres and suspension, but then I realized the purpose of this car. To each his own. If you are really not happy with so many things, then look for other options or rather try to adopt or somehow try to make it better. If you ask me, I would say 6000 km is a very low mileage to come to a conclusion. Give it some more time, work with Maruti guys to solve issues and things will get better.

This time on bangalore-chennai highway I marked large boards mentioning the speed limits for all vehicles and the fine for not adhering to them. For cars the max legal speed is 100 kmph and the fine starts from 2000 rupees

[akshatmangal]

Hello friends. Just back from treacherous drive on Mumbai-Alibaug route over long weekend. Trust me even small villages roads might be better. We were 5 people in car and loaded with luggage of 3 days.

It is quite smooth on potholes even in deep potholes as per my experience. 5 hours for 110 kms and yet I was perfectly fine with not even iota of backache. Average of 15 on such roads was commendable. Over all very happy and pleasant experience on most unpleasant roads.

[greatmana2000]

Originally Posted by Dr.Naren

120+ KMPH is possible in 4th, 5 th and 6 th gear in 1.6 S-Cross. Even in 6 th gear, I found the car picking up speeds very well. Slot into 4 th and floor the pedal from 100 KMPH, it would hit illegal speeds in no time. I have 1.3 SX4 (remapped ). My stock S-Cross 1.6 is way faster above 100 KMPH, be it 4 th or 5 th or 6 th gear. I seriously don't believe in similar timing for 1.3 Punto and 1.6 S-Cross to accelerate from 120-160 KMPH.

I am not encouraging high speed driving. I had just tested the car under safe conditions (Road closed for public)

I was not talking about racing or unsafe conditions . For an experienced driver , 80km or 100km /hr on a car with good steering , driving dynamics , engine and brakes is no big deal . Below 100 km/hr one would tend to sleep off especially on NH . Another point is you have buses which would ideally be doing 100 km/hr on NH Roads . Accidents can happen at any speeds and no one can for sure tell what would be the safest speed on any vehicle . 80 Km/hr would be unsafe on a high traffic road with multiple side roads where motorcyclists or pedestrians would just dart out onto the main road . Once on a NH I was a calf lying down and I was doing 50km/hr . While the car got nearer to the calf , it suddenly jumped on to the main road . On the NH there are dividers with grass patches and lot of cattle graze on it . It was so sudden and even though I braked , I still hit the calf at 20-25km/hr . I had to spend 35000 on my Alto to get it repaired . On a diesel engine , the driver would just make use of the torque and dropping gears and accelerating is not what I meant . Though 120-160 might be possible on the 4th gear or the 5th gear , effectively the torque in the 4th has dropped considerably and the car would not accelerate as much as it would in the 5th or the 6th . That is what i tried to point out .When you look at the graph that you posted , the peak 320NM happens at a point .. not even a narrow RPM range . Mostly it is at the 220 -250 NM torque . Probably if we took an average of the torque produced we can for sure say that the torque produced is not so much as 320NM .

Originally Posted by sou_3749

I do agree to some of your observations/opinions and I respect that. But, why are we talking about 120+ kmph? Is it not unsafe to self or others? Well that argument is for a different day as we all know the intention is not to endorse racing/unsafe driving. Talking about speeds, yesterday I was driving along with a punto 90hp for sometime and the dude being very aggressive couldn't get passed a 1.3 s-cross. Having a bigger engine or better engine doesn't mean how far you can push it. To me it's how comfortable is the machine doing good speeds if not illegal. The 1.6 s-cross does it pretty effectively and that's what everybody is impressed with.

As you mentioned earlier, I too observed fishtailing. But, when I saw the needle, I was not surprised. At that point I was unhappy with my car cursing the tyres and suspension, but then I realized the purpose of this car. To each his own. If you are really not happy with so many things, then look for other options or rather try to adopt or somehow try to make it better. If you ask me, I would say 6000 km is a very low mileage to come to a conclusion. Give it some more time, work with Maruti guys to solve issues and things will get better.

This time on bangalore-chennai highway I marked large boards mentioning the speed limits for all vehicles and the fine for not adhering to them. For cars the max legal speed is 100 kmph and the fine starts from 2000 rupees

On a hilly twisty road with patches of straight roads , I am sure one would experience more than frequent gearshifts .As far as I am concerned , there is nothing to die for in the S-cross or the 1.6 engine . If one is interested in the S-cross then it has to be the 1.6 and not the 1.3 for sure . As I mentioned earlier with regard to suspension or steering feedback or engine performance , we need to take cars below 12-15 lakhs under consideration . For example the Tata Safari storme has more space , 4 wheel disc brakes and it costs similar to the S-cross . I think people are just comparing the S-cross to Creta and coming up with the rosy side of S-cross and on paper 320NM .

Yes, I am trying to get the suspension issue resolved . If you go through my previous posts I have been looking up at suspension parts of the S-cross from other countries . I strongly believe at this point of time that the suspension components that are made in India are the cause of the issue . I have searched the internet for the past 2-3 months to get the part nos and I think I finally have the parts codes . Why am i raising it here ?because I do not want someone to believe that the suspension is really good and have a huge surprise in the form of an accident . Many previous posts from others have confirmed that there is fishtailing and I am trying to get to the root of the problem .

The max legal speed of 100km/hr is ambiguous again . For a santro ,nano , alto , it definitely is not safe . Especially with cars that still have tubes in the tyres . So it all boils down to what car , road , traffic , visibility ,response time and brakes .

[Dr.Naren]

Originally Posted by greatmana2000

Though 120+ might be possible on the 4th gear or the 5th gear , effectively the torque in the 4th has dropped considerably and the car would not accelerate as much as it would in the 5th or the 6th . That is what i tried to point out .When you look at the graph that you posted , the peak 320NM happens at a point .. not even a narrow RPM range . Mostly it is at the 220 -250 NM torque . Probably if we took an average of the torque produced we can for sure say that the torque produced is not so much as 320NM .

Yes, I understand about peak torque of 320 NM for a very short revv band. If that peak torque was held for longer revv band, car would be more faster. But I won't complain about lack of power in stock map. Hyundai/VW 1.6 peak torque is way lower than 1.6 multijet. If you see the graph of 1.6 multijet, it's producing 250 NM torque even at 3500 RPM (which is peak torque of 1.6 VW). 1.6 multijet has more torque across the revv band compared to other 1.6 engines. Forget 1.3 multijet, it's nowhere close.

As far as I am concerned , there is nothing to die for in the S-cross or the 1.6 engine . If one is interested in the S-cross then it has to be the 1.6 and not the 1.3. I think people are just comparing the S-cross to Creta and coming up with the rosy side of S-cross and on paper 320NM .

1.6 multijet engine is a gem. It produces more torque at any RPM than the competition . Peak torque of 320 NM could have been held longer which would have added few extra horses too.

Also no manufacturer would give peak torque across the revv band. When they claim power and torque figures, it's the peak power and torque. Few engines maintain peak torque for longer revv band like my grand i10.

Posting the pic!!

[sou_3749]

Originally Posted by greatmana2000

On a hilly twisty road with patches of straight roads , I am sure one would experience more than frequent gearshifts .As far as I am concerned , there is nothing to die for in the S-cross or the 1.6 engine . If one is interested in the S-cross then it has to be the 1.6 and not the 1.3 for sure . As I mentioned earlier with regard to suspension or steering feedback or engine performance , we need to take cars below 12-15 lakhs under consideration . For example the Tata Safari storme has more space , 4 wheel disc brakes and it costs similar to the S-cross . I think people are just comparing the S-cross to Creta and coming up with the rosy side of S-cross and on paper 320NM .

The max legal speed of 100km/hr is ambiguous again . For a santro ,nano , alto , it definitely is not safe . Especially with cars that still have tubes in the tyres . So it all boils down to what car , road , traffic , visibility ,response time and brakes .

Well we are not comparing apples to jack fruit here. As far as form factor and power goes it's justified to compare s-cross with creta or duster and not any full size SUV although people consider them while making a decision. In all possibility the s-cross is a much modern and superior car than the safari. And there is definitely something novel about the car in the form of space, interior quality , dynamics, engine which not many cars provide in that price range. If you think s-cross is so bad, then name a competitor which is miles ahead of it. The low numbers of s-cross is only due to the looks and nothing else. I am sure Maruti will work on improving it's drawbacks.

Coming to the speed limit, well there is a rationale behind this. Even in USA it's mostly 100-110 kmph at max and even lower at nights. What you are saying is it's better to smoke and die with heart attack , because you might also get a heart attack even without smoking

No offense intended.

[greatmana2000]

Originally Posted by sou_3749

Well we are not comparing apples to jack fruit here. As far as form factor and power goes it's justified to compare s-cross with creta or duster and not any full size SUV although people consider them while making a decision. In all possibility the s-cross is a much modern and superior car than the safari. And there is definitely something novel about the car in the form of space, interior quality , dynamics, engine which not many cars provide in that price range. If you think s-cross is so bad, then name a competitor which is miles ahead of it. The low numbers of s-cross is only due to the looks and nothing else. I am sure Maruti will work on improving it's drawbacks.

Coming to the speed limit, well there is a rationale behind this. Even in USA it's mostly 100-110 kmph at max and even lower at nights. What you are saying is it's better to smoke and die with heart attack , because you might also get a heart attack even without smoking

No offense intended.

While I agree comparison should always be with the cars in the same league , I see no reason why we should not compare an apple to an orange if we are getting the apple at a lower price point than the orange . I never said that the S-cross was bad . I was just pointing out that the S-cross is not so perfect and does have a lot of short comings which I have pointed out .With regard to the maximum speed of 100 on highways , what I meant was for a better built car a higher speed is much safer than a car which is built to price . A BMW at 100 km/hr would definitely be safer to drive than an alto at 100 km /hr .

Originally Posted by Dr.Naren

Yes, I understand about peak torque of 320 NM for a very short revv band. If that peak torque was held for longer revv band, car would be more faster. But I won't complain about lack of power in stock map. Hyundai/VW 1.6 peak torque is way lower than 1.6 multijet. If you see the graph of 1.6 multijet, it's producing 250 NM torque even at 3500 RPM (which is peak torque of 1.6 VW). 1.6 multijet has more torque across the revv band compared to other 1.6 engines. Forget 1.3 multijet, it's nowhere close.



1.6 multijet engine is a gem. It produces more torque at any RPM than the competition . Peak torque of 320 NM could have been held longer which would have added few extra horses too.

Also no manufacturer would give peak torque across the revv band. When they claim power and torque figures, it's the peak power and torque. Few engines maintain peak torque for longer revv band like my grand i10.

Posting the pic!!

Peak torque is ambiguous . The hyundai /VW have a more flatter curve than the 1.6 and trust me , it really helps in the overall characteristics /drive-ability of the car . A vento with 250NM or a creta with 250NM torque is much more relaxing to drive than a 320Nm S-cross .You do not need 6 gears . You just need 5 gears if the torque is flatter . You do not need to frequently shift gears to keep the car in the power band . At least that is what I think it is .Peak torque depends on a no. of parameters . I think the manufacturers have found an easy way to claim /advertise about how powerful their engines are . To point out the obvious the 1.6 makes peak torque at 1700-2000 Rpm . After that the torque drops . Looking at the graph that you have posted it is like someone throwing a stone up in the air and the stone falling down . Beyond 2500 RPM there is not much power left . Could you try to get the hyundai 1.6 engine , VW 1.6 engine graph and the Renault 1.5 250 NM engine graphs ? A comparison should put to rest as to which engine has a flatter torque curve .

My older elantra with 250NM torque is infinitely more driveable , more relaxing . Blame it on the 2.0 liter engine . The torque curve is a lot flatter and power delivery is much much better .

[ank.nsit]

Originally Posted by KiloAlpha

...
As far as turbo lag is concerned - lets say you are driving on a 6-lane highway (just came back from a trip, remember?)...

However, my enthusiasm for the S-Cross 1.6 is because I love the car enough to learn its sweet spots. That is not everybody's cup of tea, however...

Basically, you work your gears to keep the car in power band on highways. This is exactly what I do with my Dzire 1.3 MJD and have never felt the lag to be troublesome on highways.
But it is the hills/sudden acceleration and deceleration traffic situation that is bothersome. I guess it's not my cup of tea to find a sweet spot in such a situation.

Let's take a scenario on hilly roads. Suppose the maximum speed you can reach is 35-40 km/hr. And due to erratic traffic on single lane curvy roads you are supposed to bring the car to near 0 speed many a times.

How do you find the sweet spot in such a situation especially when the steep inclines always need you to be in power band? Keep revving the car in 2nd gear?

Your answer might help me resolve a huge pain point. Thanks in advance.

[Dr.Naren]

@greatmana2000:

I am not arguing 1.6 has flat torque curve. I too agree that peak torque falls very steeply. What I am trying to highlight is even with steep drop in torque, it produces 250 NM at 3500 RPM. Peak torque of other 1.6 engines is just 250 NM in turbo zone.

From the 1.6 multijet engine graph,

320 NM : 1700 to 2000 RPM
275 NM : 3000 RPM
250 NM : 3500 RPM
200 NM : 4000 RPM

1.6 is way ahead of competition in terms of torque. It's just a psychological feeling about power drop. Torque builds up very quickly and falls down steeply in 1.6. But my point is you can't term 1.6 underpowered/slow because of this. Also 1.3 Punto won't accelerate faster than 1.6 S-Cross for sure.

[greatmana2000]

Originally Posted by ank.nsit

Basically, you work your gears to keep the car in power band on highways. This is exactly what I do with my Dzire 1.3 MJD and have never felt the lag to be troublesome on highways.
But it is the hills/sudden acceleration and deceleration traffic situation that is bothersome. I guess it's not my cup of tea to find a sweet spot in such a situation.

Let's take a scenario on hilly roads. Suppose the maximum speed you can reach is 35-40 km/hr. And due to erratic traffic on single lane curvy roads you are supposed to bring the car to near 0 speed many a times.

How do you find the sweet spot in such a situation especially when the steep inclines always need you to be in power band? Keep revving the car in 2nd gear?

Your answer might help me resolve a huge pain point. Thanks in advance.

I met with an accident last year precisely because of what you have posted . I was doing around 30-40 kms and the car was in 3 rd gear . I had to do a sudden stop and go , even though I had downshifted to the 1st gear , the car would still not accelerate since technically it was not in the power band and I had to go through a corner . I was left with no time to maneuver the car and the jeep coming opposite crashed on my car . It was a 1.3 punto MJD .
One such single lane traffic road is the notorious Banglore - chittor -chennai road . It is got some hills en route as well . At one point of time you are doing 100 km/hr and the next instant you are at near 0 . Given the huge no of turns and the single lane , for most of the journey one ends up working the gears for the whole length of the journey . It gets pretty tiresome .

Originally Posted by Dr.Naren

@greatmana2000:

I am not arguing 1.6 has flat torque curve. I too agree that peak torque falls very steeply. What I am trying to highlight is even with steep drop in torque, it produces 250 NM at 3500 RPM. Peak torque of other 1.6 engines is just 250 NM in turbo zone.

From the 1.6 multijet engine graph,

320 NM : 1700 to 2000 RPM
275 NM : 3000 RPM
250 NM : 3500 RPM
200 NM : 4000 RPM

1.6 is way ahead of competition in terms of torque. It's just a psychological feeling about power drop. Torque builds up very quickly and falls down steeply in 1.6. But my point is you can't term 1.6 underpowered/slow because of this. Also 1.3 Punto won't accelerate faster than 1.6 S-Cross for sure.

Dr. Naren , What I am trying to point out is apart from a very very momentary 320NM of torque the car is making more of 250NM torque in most of its usable power band . In real world conditions a flatter torque curve producing 250Nm car over a larger part of the RPM band would be much faster as the pull is constant rather than low-high-low torque . So for each gear instead of a constant torque what you get is low torque -high torque and then low torque . With a better power delivery one could technically stay for a much much longer time in any gear than on the 1.6 . The 1.3 wont accelerate faster than a 1.6 for sure . But , when you are doing 120 in both the time taken to reach 160 is not really different . It takes ages in both . To get the car to reach higher speeds is agony on both .
Also , 900 RPM to 1700 RPM is the most used torque band as well as 1700 -3000 RPM . A competent driver has to make sure that the car is in between those power bands and that is real hard work for a relaxed cruising vehicle .

Mod Note : Please use the EDIT or MULTI-QUOTE buttons instead of typing one post after another on the SAME THREAD!

[Sree73]

Originally Posted by greatmana2000

Could you try to get the hyundai 1.6 engine , VW 1.6 engine graph and the Renault 1.5 250 NM engine graphs ? A comparison should put to rest as to which engine has a flatter torque curve .

Here goes with the Speed - Torque graphs of Hyundai1.6 / VW1.6 and Renault1.5.

Let the discussion continue.

Edit : VW 1.6 is Petrol one.

[Dr.Naren]

Originally Posted by greatmana2000

Dr. Naren , What I am trying to point out is apart from a very very momentary 320NM of torque the car is making more of 250NM torque in most of its usable power band . In real world conditions a flatter torque curve producing 250Nm car over a larger part of the RPM band would be much faster as the pull is constant rather than low-high-low torque . So for each gear instead of a constant torque what you get is low torque -high torque and then low torque . With a better power delivery one could technically stay for a much much longer time in any gear than on the 1.6 . The 1.3 wont accelerate faster than a 1.6 for sure . But , when you are doing 120 in both the time taken to reach 160 is not really different . It takes ages in both . To get the car to reach higher speeds is agony on both .
Also , 900 RPM to 1700 RPM is the most used torque band as well as 1700 -3000 RPM . A competent driver has to make sure that the car is in between those power bands and that is real hard work for a relaxed cruising vehicle .

I fully agree that flat torque curve is better. That's what I am planning to do with remap for 1.6 S-Cross. When you hold the peak torque for longer revv band, you get extra horses too.

At the same time, I am saying that 1.6 has lots of torque across the revv band compared to competition.

I dont agree about both 1.3 and 1.6 taking long time to accelerate from 120+. I drive a remapped 1.3 and stock 1.6. My S-Cross feels way faster than remapped 1.3 SX4. It picks up speed effortlessly. Just make sure you are above 1700 RPM, 1.6 would pull very sweetly with just a tap on accelerator pedal.

Originally Posted by Sree73

Here goes with the Speed - Torque graphs of Hyundai1.6 / VW1.6 and Renault1.5.

Let the discussion continue.

Hyundai 1.6 graph posted is European version which has slightly more power and torque. Anyways, the graph might look same for Indian 1.6. Most of the manufacturers give flat torque curve in turbo zone. 1.6 S-Cross would have been just brutal if it had flat torque of 320 NM for longer revv band(I would get it done by remap ). Even in stock map, 1.6 can't be termed as underpowered /difficult to accelerate post 120 etc.

I have driven many diesel cars and few engines which were really addictive were in

1. BMW 530 D
2. BMW 320 D
3. Cruze (Old)
4. 1.6 S-Cross
5. 1.6 Vento/Rapid

[IshaanIan]

I believe it is widely accepted that the 1.6 DDiS 320 is not the most tractable of motors out there. No one is arguing otherwise and there is thus no point in concluding so. What Dr.Naren points out however, is interesting. While the motor might produce significantly less torque post peak delivery, it is still producing more than its competition. Therefore, when someone says that post 100kph their S-Cross takes the same time to accelerate as their Punto 1.3, I have no qualms in calling BS; either that person is not experienced enough to distinguish between outright acceleration and in-gear acceleration, or they are allowing the psychological effect of the moody torque delivery, to get in the way of the actual truth.

Originally Posted by greatmana2000

Dr. Naren , What I am trying to point out is apart from a very very momentary 320NM of torque the car is making more of 250NM torque in most of its usable power band . In real world conditions a flatter torque curve producing 250Nm car over a larger part of the RPM band would be much faster as the pull is constant rather than low-high-low torque . So for each gear instead of a constant torque what you get is low torque -high torque and then low torque .

Very true it is not as tractable. However what you really mean is that it is low-high-still higher than most. Outright acceleration is still a strength.

Originally Posted by greatmana2000

With a better power delivery one could technically stay for a much much longer time in any gear than on the 1.6 . The 1.3 wont accelerate faster than a 1.6 for sure . But , when you are doing 120 in both the time taken to reach 160 is not really different . It takes ages in both . To get the car to reach higher speeds is agony on both .

Time it and get back to us please

Originally Posted by greatmana2000

Also , 900 RPM to 1700 RPM is the most used torque band as well as 1700 -3000 RPM . A competent driver has to make sure that the car is in between those power bands and that is real hard work for a relaxed cruising vehicle .

Most used rev-band for Uber drivers maybe A competent driver will be flexible and find the right rev-band depending on the drivetrain to suit his/her driving style