[Lambydude]

Voted NO! After living with 1.8 TSI for the past 2 years, I fail to understand why anyone would want to go back to a NA petrol engine of similar or lower size. NAs being rev happy or giving out pure engine sound does not matter in my opinion. What I want in the engine I drive is pure exhilarating performance which the turbo engines give.

Counter questions seen so far
1. Why not buy a diesel?
A: diesels pollute more, NGT ban threat in some states

2. Honda city 1.5, 1.2 L Suzuki etc are good to drive..
A: Of course, there are a couple of examples for a good NA petrol engine. So what? There are multiple such examples for good turbo petrol also

3. Some NA 1.5s are better than the puny 1 litre turbo petrols
A: why only bring 1 litre turbo in all comparisons. There are other turbos like 1.8 TSI, 1.4 TSI etc from VW group which are much ahead in performance compared to similar displacement NA engines

4. Turbo petrols gives abysmal fuel efficiency when driven Enhusiastically.
A: Come on! it's not like the NA engine gives double the fuel efficiency. The real life difference will be at max 2-3 kmpl. However, many NA petrols in India is not even meant to be enthusiastically driven maybe another reason for their higher fuel efficiency claims.

[Guru_GPS]

Voted for YES.

I enjoy my 1.6 NA Petrol Rapid, just for its creamy pickup and an absence of turbo lag. Being the largest displacement engine with 'proper 4 cylinder' arrangement among the 'affordable' petrol cars also helps. The Hyundai 1.6 was also in consideration while I was shopping for my first car, but rejected it due to few other reasons. Least I can say is I have been enjoying its linear pickup and respectable FE in city and highway [crossed 22 KMpL regularly for single rider, and easily crosses 15 KMpL for 4-5 occupants].

[the.shivaraj]

I still prefer the NA with a sufficient displacement engine as opposed to turbo petrol.

Reasons:
1) High revving nature of NA engines.
2)They are almost at the end of the lifespan as most of the manufacturers are moving to forced induction. The best time to enjoy them is now.
3)An aftermarket exhaust adds to the driving pleasure. I am a sucker for deep bass sound.
4)Although the midrange punch is missing, the high revving nature of NA makes up for the lost power.
5)Forced induction engines have high engine temperature which leads to wear and tear.

[knrn]

The views expressed are my own from whatever little experience I have.

First response- Whoa!!! What a thread!!!
Second response- Yayyy!!!! Still petrolheads live out here.
Third response- Hmmm!!! Reading GTO s opening comment. Whew.. I wasn't expecting that from him at least. But then he is the expert. I would blindly follow his recommendation.

Been driving since 2003. Have driven most of the cars this side of 40 grand.

The Maruti 800 was what I learned driving on. Boy it was a hoot to drive. That 3 cylinder thrum was very sporty. Come the zen with the one litre engine. Again a nice drive. The esteem 1.3 l was in a class of its own. Enter the santro first with the 1 litre and then with the 1.1 engine. ( still my current drive). While it is fun to drive on the hills and a hoot in the city, runs out of breath when loaded or after 90.

Driving a Honda the second Gen, with that gem of an engine was a revelation. No other car even came close till I experienced the diesel rocket Chevy cruze. It showed what a turbo diesel could do. More later.

Swifts, balenos, other hondas and the tens and twenty cars hmm ok.

Current scenario. After becoming a member and going through various reviews, I became more knowledgeable.

Enter turbo petrols. As others have mentioned, stonking mid range. Dead below it. Try driving a manual rapid or venue on the ghats or starting off from a speed breaker. First comes the wait then the shove. While the wait is painful the shove does compensate. More like a Jekyll and Hyde character. While it may suit the taste of some I absolutely abhor this dual nature. One cannot keep the car in the powerband all the time so after some time it becomes cumbersome.

Point is in the longer run and if one is going to have a single car to do everything, small turbo petrols don't make sense to me. Fully loaded one struggles to reach the power band although it is fine after that.

10 years ago I would have bought these pocket rockets eyes closed.
Now since beginning to have a few gray hair, and with the start of appreciation of a fine scotch rather than a shot of tequila
I will say yes. I love NA petrol engines. Silky smooth to drive, power when you floor it.

The best fun I have had was when I drove the BMW X3. Diesel.

The brutality of power that the crysta brings in the power mode is something to be experienced.

Long story short. Nothing can beat a large capacity NA engine petrol for being able to play the role of jack of all trades.

Turbo power for me will have to be a large bore diesel.

The k 15 engines of Maruti are right up there. May not be as peppy as the k12 but still damn good.

PS- I wish that the option to vote was also available in the team bhp mobile app.

[ChrisTJ]

I voted NO.

Naturally aspirated is fun until you drive a turbo petrol.

Edit: Also love the turbo spool up sound.

[arighna.dutta]

Not clear if the subject is not well defined or few of the respected members have gone astray with the discussion.

Since, the subject is "do you still enjoy NA petrol or not", and not if it is better than non NA - I have voted yes.

If I have to share my views on which one feels better; for performance, I like the turbo petrol more. For the drama and high revs fun while not doing very fast, I like NA. On hill climbs, mostly like NA. But all of this might change, if I get to experience, more expensive turbo setups, so all of it is relative and bit subjective w.r.t the exposure each of the member has.

[Horizon85]

Voted for naturally aspirated petrol. Reasons to still like them - overall refinement, no turbo lag to manage. And I'm biased as I haven't spent a lot of time with a turbo petrol engine yet.
For me if I can have a fast revving NA petrol, I'd prefer it over turbo as of now. This opinion may change as I'm considering Skoda Rapid 1.0 TSI.

[rags.singh]

Voted yes. I have a 1.2l petrol Skoda Fabia (Mar 2010 manufactured). Though quick overtaking situations may force you to think that the engine lacks grunt, but on highway stretches, the linear power delivery keeps moving the speedometer needle without blinking. I also like the fact that there is decent drivability at lower gears, I can easily start the car (from 0) in 2nd gear.

Having said that, is it possible to remap the ECU to extract more power/torque from this engine? Or remap only possible on turbo engines?

[devildriver]

I drive a Ford Fiesta 1.6 NA. I am still in love with the car after all these years and 80k km. The way the car spins in wheels in the first n second gears when I dump the clutch n accelerate moderately hard on low traction surfaces like gravel, dust or cement is just so much fun. Low end is where big NAs will trump FIs. And yes, I love the 1.8 TSI mill in the Laura which is so widely used across VW group. I drove the Punto Abarth and loved the car to bits. But for purity and simplicity of mechanics and for the predictability in power delivery at speeds and in corners in different traction conditions, I vote for NA. Also, aural pleasure is a freebie that comes with NAs as quoted by many members in this very thread.
PS: The last model of the Murcielago was a NA and the next Aventador is going be a NA.

[armaan_singh]

I've picked NA, primarily because I'm a sedate driver and rarely cross 1500 rpm so I'm pretty much always in that zone where the turbo motor is begging me to revv but I just don't.

But here are two reasons why NA engines still sell like hot cakes :

1. More than 70% of our population don't even read power and torque figures and are only interested in the cubic volume of the engine, for example a relative recently bought the Nissan Kicks, and even though he had no budget constraints, he insisted on buying the 1.5, as he felt the 1.3(Turbo) wasn't a good enough upgrade from his 1.2 Tata Tiago.

2. We need past examples of success stories to look at and then plonk our hard earned money on something as expensive as a car, and turbo engine powered cars simply don't have that lineage just yet at least in the sub 15 lac bracket, one of the best examples of that is the Honda City with the tried and tested gorgeous 1.5 NA engine which a lot of people would pick over the Turbo Verna/Rapid.
IMO the reliability issues will only clear after atleast 10 years of success.

[mkaysaw]

Ofcourse YES, still drive one of the last N/A V8s by MB, and boy does it deliver. More than enough torque to breeze through without downshifting in traffic and still get butterflies when its going all the way to 7k rpm!

[qaqa]

Definitely prefer turbo petrols.

In normal driving I never get to access the top end - given this, for me the low and mid range of the engine are the most important.

Yes many turbo petrols have a relatively weak low end. But a good AT can mask the low end quite well. in my wife's Vento 1.2 TSI , the DSG hides the low end very well ,for instance.

When I went car shopping two years ago, I had very few turbo petrol options. I "settled" for the 1.5 Dragon. Mind you, it's a nice engine but nowhere as much fun as a turbo.

[hkborah]

Voted yes
A 2.4L iVtec MT is any day better than a 1.0 GDi
That being said, if I could reliably bolt on a turbocharger to my accord, without compromising even a little bit on reliability, I'd take the plunge.

[shibujp]

Frankly no. Simply because NA petrols are bound to the fundamental adäge "No replacement for displacement". So the only way to make them torquey and powerful is to increase their capacity.

To make a decently powerful car, the formula is to plong a higer displacment engine into a smaller or lighter car. The wonderful 1.6 litre Ford ikon and the 1.6 litre engine of the old Baleno are classic examples. Or the 1.3 litre engine in the Esteem. The 1.1 litre Alto Vxi.

However the downside was mileage and regulations now ensure that it's counter-productive for manufacturers to provide higher displacement NA engines. Which has lead to a bunch of NA engines that just about do the job of powering various models with the enjoyment factor being far less.

Turbo petrols have taken the game far forward and to me are much more enjoyable. Ever since the arrival of the 1.3 DDiS Swift and the amazing CRDI Hyundai's I think the balance of power has shifted in favour of turbo diesel and now by extension turbo petrols.

Drive on,
Shibu

[Alisiddiqui]

Having kept both, I’m a convert to large capacity NAs now.

Drove a Polo TSI for 4 years and loved it.

Driving a Crysta 2.7 for past year. Loving it too. My 2 cents:

1. It’s unfair to compare same capacity NA and Turbos. Any day the Laura 1.8 TSI would beat the shit out of Civic. My rule says 1.5:1 is the ratio for capacity between NA:Turbo
2 many small capacity turbos are now available in market and I feel pushing them vs a larger engine is not good. They will break in the long term. Reliability is an issue
3. Turbo has more parts and thus reliability and longevity will always be an issue. In today’s time unless you have money to waste, doesn’t make sense to change cars frequently and thus need something that will last

Owing to these I feel a large capacity NA is better. Just that you don’t find many in India. I’m happy with the Crysta 2.7 right now and am really happy with Toyota’s decision since it’s needed to move the heavy vehicle even though it comes at cost of efficiency but am fine with it. The CRV with 2.0 or Hyundai’s with 2.0 can’t hold a candle to this or the VAG TSIs.

Peace of mind is what makes me go for NA