[arindambasu13]

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

As I have mentioned in other posts, between the experience of the Linea T-Jet and the Honda City, it was a delight to handle the Linea at high speeds as compared to the City, but the City itself is deceptively fast.

Spot on. The 1.5 iVTEC is a sleeper of sorts with a dual character. Lower down the rev range it is smooth and responsive, and very calming to drive. Cross 2500 RPM and you are playing a different ball game. Before you know it, the tacho is kissing 4500-6000 RPMs and you are well into triple digit territory.

[kutlee]

Depends on the engine. But for mass produced engines, small capacity 4 cylinder turbos make a good choice.

https://youtu.be/9aO2vC_iMTI

[WhiteKnight]

I'm sorry, I am not voting, as I do not see a competent 1.5L engine outside Honda. Mitsubishi's 1.5 in lancer was an insult to themselves.

Had it been 1.6,I'd have chosen that, as I am so addicted to 1.6s in Baleno, Ford Ikon and the Fiesta. While I've not used much, palio/petra 1.6 was also very accomplished. In fact there was a time, when you come to tbhp as owner of any of the above, you get immediate respect.

A key differentiator to choose 1.6, especially the G16BB, is the long stroke construction, leading to very usable low end torque. This approach won't be appropriate for 3 cylinder small size, as it will lead to more imbalance.

[Sutripta]

Talking of petrols, not diesels.
Though the 1.2 TSi + DSG was a hoot, everything else being apples to apples, I'd choose the larger 1.5.
The Ecoboost - over hyped underdeliverer.
That covers the limits of my exposure to small TC petrols.

A small TC petrol + fast shifting auto GB + hybrid power while the turbo spools up should do the trick. It is also going to be quite expensive.

Sutripta


I guess a small

[Aravind_M92]

Would go with the NA engine for a daily car! Turbo sure does give more torque and more power for less displacement but the engine components sure have their thresholds! More compression and pressure sure aren't good for a long time! In the end of the day we all drive just for getting from point A to point B. It's best done enjoying the drive rather than trying to be the first at the Next signal. Nor do the Indian roads permit us to enjoy such short bursts of torque! (Actually the free stretch where you feel like stretching might end before the turbo kicks in!)
We don't see performance cars do daily tasks. Life always need a beater to get the routine work done

[jassi_jeeper]

The thread brings back memories of the automatic vs manual and the hydraulic vs electric steering debates of yore.
Although I voted for bigger NA, yet I know the future is small turbos

[giri1.8]

Have been enjoying 1.5L with AT box and I must say more cars need to have such options. Power and torque is always available and makes the drive effortless. FE is great too even when pushed hard. Turbo petrol engines give better efficiency on sedate driving, but takes a hit when pushed hard.

[androdev]

People used to swear by manual transmission - but ATs are becoming equally enjoyable so many people have crossed over to ATs. Similar transition has been happening with turbo vs NA. Turbos are getting better at eliminating the turbo lag, with more linear power delivery, etc. Manufacturers are forced to adopt Turbos and ATs to comply with emission regulations and over a period of time they are bound to perfect these new technologies. Very soon all these will be replaced by an EV - a self driving one. Personally I like NA engines. Apart from a personal preference of how they drive, they are also simple, robust and can tolerate Indian conditions better (incl fuel quality).

[vshankarhere]

I have voted for the Naturally Aspirated engine as I had recently chosen to put my money on the Skoda Rapid Style 1.6 MPI even though I knew a 1.0L TSi was in the pipeline.

Having been exposed to quite a number of turbo diesel cars, I realised the 1.6 MPI in the Skoda, while not a street scorcher, is a good, peppy performer which has its own character. While it might get a bit vocal in its higher revs, it does move eagerly. In fact, it is one of the torquiest 1.5-1.6L petrol engines with 153 Nm pulling power.

The most important aspect of the NA engine is its old school mechanicals which are simple and robust. I need not worry about turbo failing or leaking, fins breaking because hey it does not have one. I need not worry about the injectors failing because again it is not there. While the new TSI and GDI engines might definitely be technologically advanced, we need to see over a longer time how they cope up with the tough Indian conditions.

And finally, "There is no replacement for displacement" argument. So, this time I have chosen the big hearted NA.

[pganapathy]

As a rule of thumb I prefer a turbo over a non-turbo engine. And I definitely prefer petrol to diesel. All I really ask of an engine is that it lets me rev the nuts off it and have performance higher up the rev range, which makes me a fan of variable valve engines. The other reason I like smaller engines is weight and consequently handling are improved. It also bugs me when I see massive engines putting out low power, and being matched by a smaller turbo/supercharged engine.

[TwistOfFate!]

If the comparison is strictly between a 1.0L Turbo and a 1.5L NA, I'd definitely opt in for a 1.5L NA as the Power & Torque figures would almost be identical.

While Turbo Petrol engines do offer better performance, the reliability and longevity of a NA is way superior than a Turbo as the exhaust gases after combustion do not re-enter the (non-existent) Turbo chamber which is said to impact the engine life.

[SS-Traveller]

If it is a small displacement engine on offer in a heavy car, I'd like my car to be a hybrid / PHEV.

If there's no hybrid on offer, can I please have a bigger displacement engine?

After all, no farmer used a dog (or 3) to plough his field - bullocks have always done the job. I much prefer not to replace oxen with dogs-on-anabolic-steroids.

[nikhilarni]

Hi Fury and T-Bhpians,

Sorry. I didn't vote yet, but this topic has been lingering on my mind for a while now. Though it is not specific to the 1.5L or the 1L turbo engine.

I did try to look up some youtube videos and read literature ( compare numbers) but I am just not able to make sense of it.

Now, I have a 2016 2.4L CVT Honda Accord. The newer versions are a 2L TC Accord, and have a 2.0L TC GLC 300.

The question I have are:

1. The GLC which is bigger and heavier than the Accord had a smaller engine. Is that not going to put additional stress on the engine ?

2. Will this extra load on the TC engine reflect on the engine life and components wear and tear ? Though I am not really tracking fuel efficiency, will the TC have an impact on the fuel efficiency.

3. What is the real reason for this trend ? By moving to smaller engine size and then trying to fit it with a TC to get additional power. Case in point is the 2.4 L Honda Accord and the 2L Turbo for the newer ones. Just to think of it, Its quite a big and heavy car for a small 2.0L engine. In my mind, thats Civic / Elantra / Corolla territory

4. For a fairly sedate driver like me, I am not really gunning the engine or trying to do a rapid acceleration of sorts or anything like that, what bearing will this NA or TC engine have in terms of Life of engine, fuel efficiency . I accelerate gently to the speed limit of the road and on highways, it is pretty much the cruise control all the way.

Thanks in advance to all the gurus on the forum for the responses.

[buntee90]

Voted for 1.0 Turbo
It was really exciting to read reviews of Hyundai's 1.0 Gdi performance in Aura and initial impressions of VW 1.0 Tsi. They have a great midrange, produce their peak torque around 1750-2000 rpm, and since we mostly drive in midrange fuel efficiency would also go up. Overdrive in their initial impressions of Polo 1.0 Tsi mentions fuel efficiency figures of above 19 Kmpl on highway. With the Mahindra mstallion engines and Renault 1.3 Turbo on the horizon its Exciting times for petrol heads !!
As far as maintenance and reliability are concerned the market has completely moved to Turbo diesels and quality turbo diesels run 2-3 Lakh Kms easily, I don't see why a quality petrol won't run the same amount !

[ankitsharma]

Voted for 1.5 NA. Having driven both NA as well as turbo, I am of the belief that the tuning of the turbo matters. 1.3 DDIS was very laggy but same cannot be said about Ford 1.5 TDCI. Similarly 1.5 Ivtech is smooth & punchy but same cannot be said about 1.6 MPI from VW and older 1.5 Petrol from Ford. Apart from the NVH , vibrations is another thing with , if not all , most of the 3 cylinders.
So I believe it is the overall tuning of the engine , no matter turbo or NA , along with steering, suspension, seat comfort, Seat positioning and much more that makes or breaks the experience of driving it.

But even after those thoughts, NA with 4 cylinder is always a better choice against 3 mill turbos these days. And every manufacturer , except Maruti (Thanks to them for this) , is moving to smaller turbos these days.

I am on the look out for a FTD petrol but except Honda and Maruti do not see any NA, 1.5 engines.