[adneo]

I think the Indian context makes the choice very tricky. Given the fact that even though Turbocharging hypothetically looks like an excellent engineering solution, keeping all the other variables like ambient temps, operating conditions under check can become a quite daunting task in the Indian context.

Case in point the TJet, an internationally acclaimed engine which put out silly numbers like 190 bhp out of a 1.4 block! Fiat launched it with a punny intercooler and the result was coupled with indian driving conditions and the High ambient temps, the ECU kept dumping fuel to keep the car rolling hence the low FE.

I guess having looked at this problem extensively, the mammoth challenge for manufacturers would be to tackle the IAT ranges in bumper to bumper traffic and high heat open highway runs. The turbo magic fizzles off as soon as these factors come into the picture since the ECU goes into conservation mode and retards timing and runs an even richer AFR mix. The result is the engine starts losing power and this can really turn people off.

In a similar situation, the variation in power output of a NA won't be as significant.

On the other hand the TSI implemented complex cooling techniques like water-cooled jackets etc which made the solution complicated and also resulted in reliability concerns in the initial generations.

The new generation of TSI have shown promising advancements but they still did have the initial gremlins like the hoping phenomenon reported by the 1.5 TSI owners in the UK etc.

I think since Turbo's were introduced in the Indian market at a very late stage, the complexities and the challenges faced by the engines will also get resolved in due time. Its just a transition till then is what i would say.

Honda has even played safe here since they have had a lot of challenges with their 1.5 Turbo units with oil dilution etc when operated under hot tropical condition. Hence we didn't get any of their "revolutionary" turbo tech in India yet.

While I enjoy the outright performance of the TJet and TSI, I would like to see how the latest generations of TSI and Fiat FireFly(if they launch it in India) have matured as a platform and solution and how well they sync with the Indian conditions before handing over the crown to them.

Going by numbers a NA will never be able to match the power torque curves we would come across on a Turbocharged engine and that's why the entire globe is downsizing and turbo charging for emission gains. But it's the other pieces of the puzzle which are more relevant for our climatic and operational conditions which make the choice a difficult one and the wait more interesting.

[kkstile]

After test driving most available <1.5L petrol engines in both NA and turbo guise, I still feel Honda's 1.5L iVtec slots perfectly in the sweet spot. Smooth, powerful, linear and efficient. Found 1L turbo from Hyundai to be slightly juddery and 1.2L turbos from Tata and Mahindra not as smooth or fuel efficient.

Considering reliability over long term and maintenance costs, I think NA engines will stay on and rightly so.

[self_driven]

Read the thread title and voted NO only to realise later that the poll asks "do you still enjoy naturally-aspirated petrols?" Is there any way to change my choice now?

I am a fan of linear power delivery and wide power band of NA petrol engines. Turbo diesels will be my second preference for their generous torque availability lower down the rev range and, of course, fuel economy.

My experience with turbo petrol engines, limited to 8-10 km TDs, has been underwhelming so far. VW 1.0 TSI is a genuine stonker but other 3-potters still have a long way to go in terms of refinement and fun.

[TheHelix0202]

Well, I didn't expect such a thread. Not from GTO at any rate!

Then I thought about it. Ever since I drove a Swift Dzire with the famous DDiS heart, I am a convert to diesels. Never driven a turbo petrol before but if the market's going ham on hunting diesels to extinction slowly, I'll pick the turbo petrol. The mid-range punch a turbo offers is bound to leave you grinning ear to ear in your seat.

Though, the N/A petrol will always have the best top end IMO. The way even the "boring" 1.6 MPI pulls beyond 3000 RPM is a sight to behold.

In conclusion, I voted "Yes".

[fhdowntheline]

Good petrol engines also need good transmissions to extract the best out of 'em. Having owned the following petrol cars in India till now:
1) Santro 1.1
2) Nano 0.65
3) Micra 1.2
4) Linea T Jet 1.4
5) Polo 1.2 TSI
6) Honda City 1.5.

Leaving aside the Nano, I would say that the DSG transmission complemented the engine best for the 1.2 TSI followed by the City 1.5 (CVT).Even the Santro 1.1 Epsilon felt peppier in city conditions as compared to say, the Micra CVT, which was a car BEST suited for sedate/ novice driving, although it, like the Honda was reliable to a fault.

I was somehow never able to extract the best out of the Linea 1.4 TJet, owing to the long clutch, notchy gearbox and the generally hefty chassis. But I was sold on the "thud"- that's another story.

[NT56]

Yes in the Indian market NA engines are boring. That is because most of the cars sold here with NA engines have lower power/weight figures compared to a similarly priced turbo petrol.

If power figures are similar I would pick the NA engine. While turbo petrols have a stronger mid-range they are very weak before and after that. Taking a sharp corner is more fun in a NA engine where power delivery is more linear and predictable. I have not driven the 1.0 city RS but I have a feeling that I would choose the city 1.5NA over it's 1.0 turbo petrol version.

But then again I would pick a turbo petrol if it's paired to a good automatic gearbox that masks the initial turbo lag and keeps the engine in it's good power band.

[nimishlalwani]

Call me old school, but for me a well-tuned Naturally Aspirated engine is still way more special. The NA petrols that I absolutely loved:

1. 2.4L petrol is the Camry
2. 1.5L Dragon in the Ecosport
3. 1.2L K12 in the Swift

I haven't driven the 1.5L iVTEC for long durations to make a well-judged call. The turbo petrols that I have driven are:

1. Polo GT TSI 1.2
2. Venue 1.0 GDi

The reason I mention these is to clarify my frame of reference. Here are the reasons I still love NA engines:
1. Top End power: I love to rev my engines and with almost all turbo petrols, the power starts to taper off as RPMs rise. Even if the tapering isn't much, the rate of acceleration slows down. With NA engines, the higher you rev the better they feel. Not only do they sound better, they sound happier as revs rise.
2. Joy of driving over time: I feel turbo petrols are one trick ponies. You drive them for a few hours, a few days—you'll love them. But over time the charm fades away. The power is delivered too easily and there is no learning curve to it. A NA engine teaches you how to manage gears, stay in the power band and makes you a better driver. Drive a NA engine hard for a few days and tell me which one do you prefer.

I acknowledge that the ease of driving is definitely better in turbo petrols as you can surf the torque wave and overtake slow moving traffic easily. But the joy of driving, for me, is still best delivered without forced induction.

[Jeroen]

Very interesting thread, thanks for starting it. Not surprising, my view is more based on western than Indian car/engines obviously.

Comparing NA engines to other types of engine is like the proverbial cheese and chalk comparison. In order to compare something you need to have a set of common criteria. Where do you start? Power, torque, RPM band, low, mid, high range, fuel efficiency, diesel, petrol, weight, size, emissions etc etc.

You can always compare, but the question remains what are you comparing. you tend to end up comparing just one specific thing (e.g. torque) or you tend to find yourself lost in endless generalisations.

On that point; the turbo engine, both diesel and petrol, have made huge inroads in the application towards cars in the last decade. In general terms it is a very good general solution to many inherent engine design challenges. It is the engine of choice for the masses. Because it can deliver reasonably well on most criteria. It has come a very long way from the earlier turbo engine incarnations which tended to have very narrow power bands, turbo’s that would blow up every 1000 km and so on.

For lazy, uninvolved driving, such as, lets face it, 99,99999% are doing most if not all of the time, in different conditions, from motorways to urban crawling, a turbo engine these days does really well.

In order to enjoy (modern) NA engines to the full, in most cases you, the driver needs to work much harder and accept some inherent less performance under some circumstances.

I love hight revving NA engines. I noted a remark earlier on, stating 1500-2000 RPM being mid range? Are you kidding, my gorgeous Alfa NA 2.0L engine idles at 1200RPM. Up to 3500-4500 RPM nothing happens! At 4500RPM the variable cam kicks in and you’re off like a shot! Drop below 4000RPM and you have a dull, pretty average, engine.

When I am in my Alfa cruising down a motorway, doing a very easy and lazy 100 km/h and I see a viaduct coming up; as I get under the viaduct, I will double clutch down, hear that sound, and floor it in a lower gear. The sound of a high revving NA engine, cascading round the corners of a concrete viaduct will put a huge smile on my face. Every single time. I have been doing it for more than forty years and it still makes my day! No turbo engine will do that. At best they scream at you. Which I don’t like at all.

Obviously for your daily drive having a good average performer on as many criteria as possible makes sense. Hence, if you find yourself like me, having to drive 50-75000 km a year on business, you get the best average car, a BMW, Audi or so. Boring, but predictable and perfectly adequate.

I am fortunate to be in a position to buy most of my cars, going by emotions only. A car with a NA engine is much more likely to be my choice. It is far more raw, than refined. In order to drive it fast and well, you need to be able to deal with the NA engine limitations.

Not much comments on superchargers. Not to many left of those on the modern car scene, if there ever were. But if you want across the RPM band, continuous torque, with a glorious sound track find a car with a super charger. If I’m not powering around viaduct in my Alfa, you will find me in my Jaguar with its V8 Supercharger. Different sound, but still very enjoyable.

It used to be that turbo’s were for the super car nerds initially. As nerds do, they would enjoy their new engines and their quirks immensely and just live with the (many) problems and limitations and huge cost of maintenance. Those days are long gone, turbo’s are the mainstream of car power these days. That alone is a testimony to its enormous development and acceptance by the motoring public at large. It’s also testimony to being average. It does the job pretty well, but nothing to get exited about. As soon as something becomes the norm, rather than the exception, the excitement wears off very quickly.

Jeroen

[DicKy]

Is NA petrol the most boring today?
Yes

Among the engine types, is turbo petrol the most FTD?
Yes

Would I buy or own a turbo petrol?
No, First choice would be a turbo diesel.
Next choice would be a NA petrol, but would depend on which kind.
If it is the Maruti K15 or Honda's L15, then NA petrol all the way.
But if the NA petrol choice is like Tata's 1.2l or Nissan-renault 1.0l or VAG 1.0l MPi, then the choice would be turbo petrol anyday.

All brings us back to the perpetual punching bag, our small car norms!!!

For the undivided roads in my place, always stuck in overtaking mode than cruising mode, a turbocharged engine is like an addiction.
But the problem is with a turbo petrol, the fuel pump pinch is real and hard.
Add to that, eventhough driveability has improved by leaps and bounds and turbolag is almost negligent, that 2nd gear incline/speedbump/slow traffic is still a sore point.

Here again, just like the NA petrols, turbo petrols seem to be stuck in the 1.0l range, either for small car norms or for the clinical ARAI mileage figures.

Evenly matched ones would be like the engines in the new Thar or Seltos/Creta engines or the 3 series on the other end.

So, on the mass market end, as long as the small car norms stay, have to agree.
NA petrols are boring compared to turbo petrols (unless someone does unhealthy dieting like MSIL does or our market conditions allow bigger capacity NA petrols)

[EuroMachine]

City driving = N.A engine
Highway driving = Turbo

I enjoy NA to potter around the city due to better low end and less frequent gear changes compared to a turbo engine.
Helps me drive peacefully without having to control the awakening dragon in the form of a turbo in city traffic.

On the highways it should be the turbo engine because the boost is addictive and makes overtaking and mile munching a fantastic experience.

However when it comes between the petrol vs diesel, two things made me a petrol turbo engine lover.

1. Hard clutch in the diesels
2. limited rev range

[iamahunter]

If the NA petrol has minimum 4 cylinders and is powerful enough for the car, then anytime Yes. for eg : VW Polo 1.6

But with the current engines, 3 cylinder, 1L/1.2L, nope, they are way underpowered and only tuned towards mileage, they aren't refined as well.

But currently I enjoy driving the 1.5L turbo diesel I own. Previously 1.3L turbo diesel in the Swift. Both are too good to let go for the underpowered petrol NA engines available in the Indian market today.

But going ahead, electric seems to be the future.

[clevermax]

I drive a remapped Turbo-diesel but my vote is a "Yes"!
I'll definitely enjoy driving a powerful NA petrol!

Is NA petrol boring? Yes, if you're talking about the sluggish people movers. No, if you're driving a powerful NA Petrol. That's an experience that no turbos can give.

Would I buy a Turbo Petrol? No. For me, the turbo fun comes at a higher expense than I can afford on fuel. You start driving a turbo petrol the way you want, FE drops to 7 or 8 kmpl. I'll stick with a turbo-diesel which has decent torque and power and has a lower cut-off of 10 kmpl for FE.

Originally Posted by Jeroen

When I am in my Alfa cruising down a motorway, doing a very easy and lazy 100 km/h and I see a viaduct coming up; as I get under the viaduct, I will double clutch down, hear that sound, and floor it in a lower gear. The sound of a high revving NA engine, cascading round the corners of a concrete viaduct will put a huge smile on my face. Every single time. I have been doing it for more than forty years and it still makes my day! No turbo engine will do that. At best they scream at you. Which I don’t like at all.

I was picturing this in my mind and I was smiling ear-to-ear Lucky you.

[Artyom]

A big NO for a Turbo Engine till the time NA petrol is being manufactured.
The decision of choosing an engine largely depends upon what kind of driver you are Enthusiast or laid back.
The NA engine mostly suits people like me who are not concerned with the quick response and that kick you get with the Turbos.
Saying that NA engines are boring is subjective to the point what a driver feels. For me the response of the NA engine is sufficient and I would not term it as really bad.
More than that like others said that NA engines are less stressed leading to lower maintenance is an additional benefit.

[purb_du]

Beg to differ, I drive the 1.6 L NA 2019 verna and although its not so rev happy, its responsive in any gear with good driveability and smoothness.

Just yesterday took a test drive of the 1.3L turbo Duster and it was dead untill you cross well past 2000 rpm, not the case with the verna. Its a different story once in the turbo zone but then we cant drive fast most of the time on our roads not to mention the traffic in most cities in India.

Am sure bigger displacement turbo petrols is just not economical for the mass market. Till then the 1L ones will rule but am yet to see how this tiny engine will perform with say a full load up in the hills for example.

[jacob.thomas]

I had a very basic (and maybe a very juvenile) question. My understanding is that forced induction (Turbo Chargers and Super chargers) technology came to be to get similar performance from a much smaller engine while giving a lot more efficiency. This logic seems to hold good when we see loads of turbo petrol options with the BS 6 emission norms (also the premise of the first post of this thread)

It seems to be counter intuitive that turbo petrols are known to give pitiful efficiency if driven with anything but a feather light foot. Just wanted to know if I am missing something. When we say efficiency, I am sure we must be saving on raw material weight (a 3 cylinder block and head will be significantly lighter that a 4 cylinder block and head) and as an extension saving on natural resources and other resources like elctricity, manpower etc. But in the real world are we seeing any gains (environmentally) by going the forced induction route?