[sjain2054]

Originally Posted by d_payne

My opinion is simple: it depends on where you are driving.
Within a typical Indian city, a turbo is a godsend, and an NA will frustrate you.
But out on an open road, or on country roads, or the ghats, an NA will satisfy you like no other.

I thought that someone who drives primarily in the city should drive the NA engine or an EV because turbos need time to spool up. The heavy traffic conditions of our cities is not suitable for turbo engines.

Quoting some other BHPians on this thread who felt the same. Can someone please clarify this? I feel a person's usage should determine engine type. I do not think one should blindly go for turbo engines. Example, for someone with 95% city usage, I feel that a second hand 2022 or newer Honda City ZX 1.5L NA CVT for about ~11 lacs is a better bet than a brand new C3 1.0 turbo automatic for ~11 lacs or a Magnite turbo for 11 lacs. I mean, if someone has about 11-12lacs and wants to buy a car for primary city use, then the used Honda City is better because of the simpler NA engine. Turbos need another kind of environment to fully thrive and survive in the long run.

Originally Posted by EuroMachine

City driving = N.A engine
Highway driving = Turbo

Originally Posted by chautob0t

From the experience of test drives of Ecosport 1.5L NA (twice) vs Venue and Sonet with their turbos, I will definitely go for NA in Indian city driving conditions.

The Sonet was absolutely dead after every speed breaker, no throttle response at crawling speeds and post speed-breaker/pot-holes. Venue seemed a tiny bit better but the turbo lag is very evident. While the mid-range felt very satisfying in an open stretch of road but that open stretch is rarely available in metro during office hours. (I have lived in Delhi, Mumbai, Bangalore - same experience everywhere)

While I agree that highway speeds at lower RPMs will be relaxed in these petrol turbos but in my household's usage, city dynamics take the highest priority hence, I'd prefer a NA petrol any day.

Originally Posted by Nav-i-gator

I don't see why a good NA petrol should fade away (4-pot ones I am taking about. NA 3 cylinder ones should definitely go away). Absolute refinement of a K12, K15, Hyundai or Honda NA engines is surreal. I drive a rather poorly maintain Chevy Beat 2010 model. While the motor is not something to talk about in terms of power as well as "revvability", the idling motor is still hardly perceptible.

In our city traffic, NA engine is better than the turbo one as turbo engines can get jerky with constant throttle inputs (and subsequent turbo push), NA ones are butter smooth. Most of the NA engines have good low end torque as well (Dragon 1.5, Verna 1.5, K15) so filling traffic gaps is easier as well.

On the highway, one can compensate for the lack of mid range push to the seat feeling of turbo engines with just revving the nuts out of NA engines.

Not to mention the idling rule we have to follow while starting and stopping.

I will pick a proper 4 pot NA engine just for the brilliant refinement and silent, non-vibrating cabin itself. Having said that, turbo-petrol engines with proper 4 pots would just be the best of both worlds I think.

Originally Posted by sou_3749

But there are certain issues with turbo engines.

1. Lower down the rev range, the turbo engine becomes a NA engine. So in order to extract power you need to raise the RPM in that small engine. The saving grace for diesel that it's more fuel efficient by nature which offsets the high revs.

2. You need to change gears frequently in city conditions in order to be in correct power band. More gear changes equals less FE. This is true for both petrol and diesel. Both petrol and diesel turbo engines when mated with manual transmission is bound to be jerky for most as sudden surge of power needs your left foot to be more precise while working on the clutch pedal.

3. NHV will be a little more as there are some extra components in the engine bay doing the job of missing cylinder or capacity plus the natural imbalance in 3 cylinder engine. It's easier/cost effective to put a bigger turbo with a 3 cylinder and extract similar performance than putting a smaller turbo with a 4 cylinder. That's the reason we see mostly 1.0 L turbos rather than 1.2/1.5 L.

The solution - petrol turbo with auto gearbox. This takes out the struggle in lower down the rev range. You drive sane, it's bound to give you better driving pleasure with better FE vis-a-vis NA petrol. You want to drive the nuts out of that engine, there are race tracks out there. Then don't expect good FE whether turbo or NA. Once you drive a turbo, there is no coming back to NA.

There is no way the best NA petrol (Vtec 1.5) beats the best small turbo (1.2/1.0 TSI).

Yeah, I remember someone mentioning that the Rapid 1.0TSi will leave Honda City 1.5L in the dust. Can anyone, with more experience on this, elaborate/narrate their experiences?

Originally Posted by Durango Dude

Give me a clear road, rid of speed breakers, pot holes and sparse traffic then may be turbo petrol's would be entertaining. For all other scenarios there's always a NA engine.

[shankar.balan]

I still love the NA engines. Small or large capacity doesn't matter. Im not really into this new manufacturer fad of sticking a Turbo onto any car.

Turbo engines especially Turbo Diesels are nice on highways and on those long runs, but they take time to spool up and aren’t really the best for our crowded city conditions.

I enjoy my Jimny’s NA engine and manual gearbox in the city much more than I did my Thar’s big Turbo Petrol and AT Gearbox.

Even when driving in the hills, each time one attacks a hairpin bend in a car with a turbo engine, one has to ensure one keeps up one’s momentum and revs else it will spool back down. This is not the most efficient way of driving.

On the other hand one can keep up a steady pace relatively more easily in a Naturally aspirated engine.

Truth be told, I enjoyed driving my Gypsy up and down the Nilgiri Hills much more than I enjoyed my Thar. The reason is in the Gypsy I could take the engine revs up nicely in each gear and do a bit of blipping while downshifting too.

I also enjoyed the old original chain drive turbo of the Scorpio 2.6 more than the Crde 2.6 when climbing the hills. Both engines were powerful and torquey. But the Crde engine somehow had a more palpable spool up and spool down feel compared to the older engine. And thats why I preferred the feel of the older engine.

The Cooper S and its well tuned 1.6 litre Turbo and 6 speed TC AT also is a joy to drive but on the tight switch-backs I prefer to hold a lower gear for longer and charge up the hills while manipulating the paddle shifters as needed, and here also the Turbo spooling up and back down is palpable though much more ‘linear’ and I think its ‘growl’ and handling add a lot to the ‘feel’ of the car, which makes one overlook the Turbo spooling thing.

On the downhill stretches I just shove it in Sports Mode and fiddle with the paddles and I do not accelerate unnecessarily, preferring to enjoy the growly exhaust burble on the over-run.

But if someone were to let me drive an old Triumph TR6 or a 1960’s Alfa Giulietta with their lovely naturally aspirated engines, convertible tops and deep exhaust burble (brrm brrm!) up and down the hills on a sunny day with those white puffball clouds in the blue blue sky, I would jump at the chance any day, every day, in preference to these modern cars. (My Mini comes very close to that ‘elusively joyous’ feel. And I shall have to be content with that I suppose.)

Maybe Im just slightly more an ‘old car’ guy when it comes to ICE vehicles. But then, that’s me.