[Highh5]

Originally Posted by deevee

Finally got to see my 1.6

Due to the loan formalities which are pending I might get it earliest by Sunday. It had 11.4 Kms on it. I have asked my RM to keep it in the showroom parking itself and not take it to the stockyard. I hope that's a wise decision.

Proud and happy moment!

Congratulations on your mighty acquisition. Enjoy and clock the miles.
Could you please share the on road price if possible. And did you manage to get any discount.

[jaaz]

Originally Posted by jaunthead

Proof of the pudding is in the eating then. I will wait until I get my hands on the 1.6 myself. I consider myself an "inadverent" car owner. Although I drive safe and follow rules but never deliberated on the technicalities of what the car/engine is doing under the hood until recently.

Probably my questions arise from lack of driving experience with variety of diesels in general.

Your Questions are valid and even I'm surprised. A Car with a bigger engine and enormous torque shouldn't fumble for an incline. Almost all Cars are designed for a 45 degree incline.

I'm also convinced about the inexperienced Driver, but modern Cars aid them in all aspects. For example, We used to call it as double brake in our old Amby's and Jeep's, which is now controlled by electronics and called as ABS.

[Dr.Naren]

Today, I was in mood to test FE. I wanted to get the maximum possible. I filled up diesel and reset trip, FE display. I drove for 33 KM ( Kerala 2 lane highways) . There was moderate traffic. I was driving with very light right foot and boy that was a torture .

[swiftnfurious]

Originally Posted by jaunthead

There has been some discussions in various threads as how small petrol cars zip on hilly roads without much fuss like the diesel cars(akin to S Cross 1.6) make...

...My current car is a Celerio petrol which did absolutely fine on the Nilgiris(Coonoor/Ooty) with 4 adults + 1 kid + luggage. Whether it was climbing up at a constant speed of 40-60. Even the stop-and-gos were a breeze...

....The thing that I am unable to understand(due to my ignorance) is- in most petrol cars the peak torque and bhp are attained at rather high rpms as compared to diesels. Even with SCross 1.6's turbo lag the peak torque hits around 1800rpm. Why would it then have to struggle on the hills for stop-and-gos? ...

This is not about petrol Vs diesel, it's rather how much torque is available at low rpms (stand still to 1000 rpms) or to a great extent, naturally aspirated engine Vs a turbo engine in this specific example (though there are exceptions with both type of engines).

The S-Cross may generate max torque at 1800 rpm (which may not seem too much), but you really need to revv the engine to get to that rpm from stand still on an incline - this, in most cases will lead to wheel spins as well as clutch burn. A very well tuned naturally aspirated engine will sing a song while doing the same operation.

As for the exception I told you, if you TD a 1.1L (4 cylinder) Wagon R previous gen Vs a .9L (3 cylinder) Wagon R current gen - both being naturally aspirated petrol engines, you'll understand easily. The 1.1L had beautiful low end torque that would pull you out from any stand still situations while the current 900cc engine struggles even in B2B traffic due to the lack of low end torque.

The current crop of turbo engines are better suited with the correct rpm building technique in most cases (exceptions are there in this too - Nissan K9K engines, Toyota D4D engines etc). So, in general, all engines with near zero turbo lag will be a piece of cake in the hills while the ones with turbo lag will struggle. This will be the case of turbo petrol engines as well.

[jaunthead]

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

This is not about petrol Vs diesel, it's rather how much torque is available at low rpms (stand still to 1000 rpms)

The S-Cross may generate max torque at 1800 rpm (which may not seem too much), but you really need to revv the engine to get to that rpm from stand still on an incline - this, in most cases will lead to wheel spins as well as clutch burn. A very well tuned naturally aspirated engine will sing a song while doing the same operation.

This reminds me of a previous post by @Dr.Naren where he posted a torque graph for 1.6.

Originally Posted by Dr.Naren

I will post the power-torque graph of 1.6 multijet engine.

Thanks for the img Dr.Naren.

So as per the graph 170nm torque starts to build around 1000rpm and not before that. This as per you is where the issue lies with the 1.6. Until then is the car going to be stationary even on plane land?

(exceptions are there in this too - Nissan K9K engines, Toyota D4D engines etc)

In that regard is the fiat 1.6 a lesser engine over all?

[swiftnfurious]

Originally Posted by jaunthead

...So as per the graph 170nm torque starts to build around 1000rpm and not before that. This as per you is where the issue lies with the 1.6. Until then is the car going to be stationary even on plane land?...

Unless there is sufficient torque, the car wouldn't start moving. Considering the idle rpm to be 800 (?), you'll need to raise the rpm to sufficient levels (can't really tell how much) depending on the load to haul.

Originally Posted by jaunthead

...In that regard is the fiat 1.6 a lesser engine over all?

Not at all. I have huge respect for the MJD from Fiat (I have had the 1.3 MJD for close to 80K kms). The preference / love for the engine will be based on the primary usage. For anyone who has more highway drives, they'd prefer the MJD kind of tuning. For those with more city usage, the other ones may weigh higher. The MJD has a higher output (bhp / torque) while the K9K & D4D engines mentioned above are tuned more for drive ability.

I personally like the MJD more since I love highway driving. It's a pain if you get stuck in a jam though.

PS : If you read the S-Cross thread, anyone who raves about the car are the ones who drove the 1.6 MJD. That's the best testimony for the engine. I haven't TDed it yet since I don't want to get smitten.

[arunphilip]

Originally Posted by jaunthead

So as per the graph 170nm torque starts to build around 1000rpm and not before that. This as per you is where the issue lies with the 1.6. Until then is the car going to be stationary even on plane land?

See how quickly the torque rises from 1000 rpm to 1500 rpm? You can extrapolate that to get the torque from idle rpm (usually 700-800 rpm) to 1000 rpm. Torque is not zero below 1000 rpm, but it is low.

On flat roads, the torque here is often good enough to actually move a car in first (or even second gear) at a very slow speed.

The graph shows torque only from 1000 rpm onwards because most dynos don't bother measuring (or displaying) torque below it, it doesn't mean torque/power is zero below 1000 rpm. Why they don't bother is because even the lightest touch on the accelerator will raise the torque above 1000 rpm.

Originally Posted by jaunthead

In that regard is the fiat 1.6 a lesser engine over all?

Not at all - they are utilizing different design philosophies, and making trade-offs between driveability and power. As swiftnfurious pointed out, which is the "better" engine is based on the user's needs and preferences.

Let's not compare different engines from different manufacturers. Instead, take Renault's 1.5L diesel - it comes in an 85 ps and 110 ps version. The 85 ps version has great driveability but loses on outright power at high speeds, the 110 ps version suffers from turbo-lag, but once revved up has spades of power.

The other important point to consider is gearing, and the selection of gear ratios. Its not just engine torque, but its also how the torque is harnessed from the engine to the wheels. In the graph above, you see that there's healthy torque from 1500 rpm to 3500 rpm. The vehicle designers will select the gearbox ratios to best exploit this range of engine rpm. However, what works well in this range might be less-than-perfect outside this range, particularly below.

Conversely, assume that the designers want to maximize driveability, and put in a first/second gear with a high ratio (e.g. 15 turns from the engine turns the wheel once). Then, the vehicle will be easy to drive even below 1500 rpm due to the higher torque at the wheel. However, it will result in engine rpms rising very quickly as the speed increases, requiring very frequent gear changes - this can get annoying if the vehicle is aimed at highway cruising.

This is why these are all design choices made to take best advantage of an engine's characteristics.

[jaunthead]

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

I haven't TDed it yet since I don't want to get smitten.

You should. I have been salivating for a year now. Now that I have booked it I am giving the RM a real hard time.

Originally Posted by arunphilip

This is why these are all design choices made to take best advantage of an engine's characteristics.

Thanks for the replies. I think this satisfies me a lot. Now all I need to do is wait for the car to arrive. I commit myself not to ask anymore questions related to driving on hilly roads with the 1.6 .

[Dr.Naren]

Originally Posted by jaunthead

Thanks for the img Dr.Naren.

You have posted the wrong graph, this is not for S-Cross 1.6. Also, the graph I had posted was not a real dyno graph. I have found S-Cross 1.6 dyno graph from Celtic Tuning UK.

[NPV]

After the initial launch of the S-Cross, there were several concerns on the driveability of the 1.6 in city traffic conditions due to lack of torque at lower rpms. I faintly remember this was addressed sometime last year with an update to the engine map, am I missing something or confusing it with something else ?

[Dr.Naren]

Originally Posted by NPV

After the initial launch of the S-Cross, there were several concerns on the driveability of the 1.6 in city traffic conditions due to lack to torque at lower rpms. I faintly remember this was addressed sometime last year with an update to the engine map, am I missing something or confusing it with something else ?

Maruti has not "officially" announced regarding ECU map update. But there is a clear difference between 2015 and 2016 cars. My car is April 2016 make and I could immediately find the clear difference compared to TD car. Turbo lag was reduced by big margin. Also most of the 2016 S-Cross 1.6 owners have not complained about turbo lag being a problem.

[KiloAlpha]

Originally Posted by Dr.Naren

You have posted the wrong graph, this is not for S-Cross 1.6. Also, the graph I had posted was not a real dyno graph. I have found S-Cross 1.6 dyno graph from Celtic Tuning UK.

Am I right in my reading of this dyno graph - that run 1 is stock and run 2 is remap?
If so, torque at the wheel of 240 Lb-f is equivalent to 324Nm.

[Dr.Naren]

Originally Posted by KiloAlpha

Am I right in my reading of this dyno graph - that run 1 is stock and run 2 is remap?
If so, torque at the wheel of 240 Lb-f is equivalent to 324Nm.

Yes, it is stock vs remap. Power figures are mentioned at both wheels and crank. Torque figure is at crank, I believe.

[aargee]

Originally Posted by swiftnfurious

If you read the S-Cross thread, anyone who raves about the car are the ones who drove the 1.6 MJD. That's the best testimony for the engine. I haven't TDed it yet since I don't want to get smitten.

During TD, I had 4 more adults always in the car be it Rapid, Brezza, i20 or S-Cross 1.3 & 1.6. 1.6 scared the hell out of me because I was about to ram some random vehicle in the front & that was not just because I was speeding, but was gradually releasing the clutch in bumper to bumper traffic without the gas pedal. I was reminded of some brutal beast being chained & at every opportunity the beast would kill someone & eat closer to it.

I never got such a feeling with any other car, may be Skoda , but, not at the level of releasing the clutch, I would categorize that under driving pleasure.

Whoever buys 1.6 my advice is to be a very careful & responsible driver; because 1.6 will run ahead of the driver, turn back & bite them so hard that they'll think twice before flooring the gas next time!! It's not car, it's a monster!!

[NPV]

Originally Posted by aargee

During TD, I had 4 more adults always in the car be it Rapid, Brezza, i20 or S-Cross 1.3 & 1.6.

Which one did you finally decide/buy ? I'm guessing it wasn't the S-Cross ? Would be interesting to know which among these you finally decided to buy and why