[GTO]

Was speaking to an industry analyst on Monday and he said naturally-aspirated petrols are reaching the end of the road. Sure, they will always exist because of cost reasons in entry-level cars (like the Alto to Swift) & base variants (as we’re seeing in the Hyundai Venue), but the 10+ lakh cars & more expensive variants are surely moving to turbo-petrols in a big way. God bless BS6 .

From the 4 types of powertrains today (n/a petrol, turbo-petrol, turbo-diesel, electric), n/a petrols rank the lowest IMHO. They offer the lowest torque rating too. Am personally signing off naturally-aspirated petrols for good because the game has moved on and I find them too B-O-R-I-N-G. I drive about 30 – 40 different cars every year & the turbo-petrols have made me a convert, as much as n/a petrols have begun putting me off. Truth is, n/a petrols feel terribly outdated today. Hell, their last big "technological change" was MPFI & catalytic converters back in the 1990s.

Of course, at one time, n/a petrols were awesome (e.g. 1st-gen City Vtec’s 1.5L) and even today, there are a few exceptions that stand out. Such as the new City’s mad rev-happy 1.5L Vtec, Ford’s triple-cylinder 1.5L Dragon and Maruti’s still competent 1.2L K-Series. But these are few and far between. The majority of the n/a petrols are completely overshadowed either by their competitors' turbo-petrols or their own parents' offerings.

Whatever the segment or whatever the car, I would pick the turbo-petrol replacement over the n/a petrol. Be it the Creta-Seltos’ fast 1.4T over the old 1.6L petrol, Skoda-VW’s enthusiastic 1.0 TSI over the 1.6L n/a (and even the competitors' engines), Hyundai’s 1.0T over the 1.2L Kappa…the list goes on. Drive these engines and you’ll have a permanent grin plastered on your face – it’s like a souped up vRS version of the car. The Triber's 1.0 n/a is so boring that it'll put you to sleep, but the turbo version (seen in the Magnite) is far superior.

Truth is, I'm simply not enjoying naturally-aspirated petrols anymore. All petrol engines have a healthy top-end, be it the n/a motors or the turbos. But where the turbo-petrols absolutely annihilate their n/a counterparts is in the mid-range. That punch once the turbocharger is singing becomes an addiction – you can literally fly past slower cars using the mid-range! This isn't the case with half the n/a petrols which have a weak / mediocre midrange. Naturally-aspirated petrol engines feel so FLAT in the mid revs - so boring - you have to wring them hard. The “punch” is missing and I end up feeling like I ate a pizza without any cheese. Access to power simply isn’t as effortless as in the turbo-petrols & the n/a engines just don’t feel as enthusiastic. In my mind, I have decided that I’m NEVER buying a naturally-aspirated petrol car again.

Of course, there are downsides to turbo-petrols. A majority of them don’t rev as high as the n/a engines. Second, a few of them suffer lag, but frankly, almost all manufacturers are handling the driveability aspect really well and just a handful of models (e.g. Duster 1.3T) will leave you complaining. There is also the price premium as turbo-petrols usually cost a whopping 1-lakh rupees more. And of course, the increased complexity which will lead to bigger maintenance bills in the long run (turbos, intercoolers, more complicated fuelling systems).

Still, for the sheer joy of driving, I’m switching loyalties to turbo-petrols. They’re coming in all segments, including the mass market (e.g. Magnite, Grand i10), mid-market (Thar, Seltos) and pretty much the entire luxury segment. The German marques have moved exclusively to turbo-charging & don't sell n/a petrols anymore. Manufacturers are also smartly pushing turbo-petrols through their variant planning:

Originally Posted by Venkatesh

Hyundai Venue 1.0 turbo GDI proves most popular engine option and accounted for 40% of Hyundai Venue FY20 sales. Of the 93,624 Venue customers in FY2020, 44,073 opted for the turbo-petrol powertrain. Demand for turbo-petrols outpaced diesel sales of Venue in FY20.

Related Threads:

Your favourite 1.0 turbo-petrol

Hyundai's turbo-petrol sells in large volumes

Would you pay the hefty premium for a turbo-petrol?

Small turbo petrol vs large n/a petrol

Poor Maruti. They had a turbo-petrol, but discontinued it (Baleno RS). They recently invested heavily in a 1.5L n/a petrol (which is good), but they're missing out on the turbo craze. They brought out a lovely BS4 diesel, then had to pull it off the market as they couldn't get it BS6-ready in time. Not to mention, the market leader is completely unprepared for the EV segment (that's why it sold stake to big daddy Toyota). Maruti doesn't have a modern torque-converter available, leave aside a dual-clutch AT. Technologically, Maruti is stuck in the 90s.

[GTO]

Thread moved out from the Assembly Line (The "Assembly Line" Forum section)!

[Shreyans_Jain]

The problem with NA petrols is their implementation. When you think of the NA petrol, you think weedy, underpowered 1.2 units of 3 or 4 cylinders. Tata, Honda and Hyundai motors are perfect examples. The only reason Maruti’s K Series petrol escapes scrutiny is because it powers featherweight cars. All these engines are either decades old or are based designs of such vintage.


Nobody minds a modern and bigger NA that actually delivers decent torque in real world conditions. Ford’s 1.5 Dragon is case to point: a modern, right sized NA petrol powering a well built car and is universally appreciated on all counts. If manufacturers can make engines like this, the NA petrol will thrive. Otherwise, it will be limited to ultra basic cars or base variants while turbo petrols with their higher margins take over.

There is no reason for the NA petrol to get the bad name it is getting nowadays. It is only a deliberate call by our car makers to not keep them up with times.

[CEF_Beasts]

Naturally Aspirated still holds a special place for me, they may lack the mid range punch but are a joy to take right upto the redline!

The maximum turbo petrols today in the market are 1L 3 cylinder ones, they still have that odd vibrations in them and can be pretty expensive to replace if some part goes bad eg: EcoBoost. Also the local mechanics are still not completely familiarised with the turbo petrols.

There are still some wonderful Naturally Aspirated motors in India; 1.5L i-vtec is still the revving monster it was, Ford’s 1.5L 3 cyl Dragon engine with an excellent bottom-end, Maruti’s 1.2L 4 cyl K12 motor the smoothest motor.

The biggest grouse I found with 1L turbo motors is the bottom-end every time where a NA car can pick up in 2nd gear at speed-breaker speeds the turbo (only 1L ones) requires the 1st gear for sure! This was the exact reason we picked up the 1.5L NA manual EcoSport and not the 1L EcoBoost (even though everyone was pushing for the turbo, our usage was in the city so the NA was a better choice).

But turbo petrols will definitely pick up no doubt, they have serious power and torque for a small capacity motor. If only we get more larger turbo petrol motors like Hyundai-Kia’s 1.4L turbo and Renault-Nissan’-Daimler’s 1.3L turbo petrol other than numerous 1L ones. I would love to pick up a turbo petrol SUV with a large capacity motor but none have them! Tucson has a lame 2L NA motor and Toyota uses a 15 year old 2.7L NA engine in both Innova and fortuner.

Another important point is that today we have to be thankful to naturally aspirated motors for the prices of entry level cars otherwise with turbo petrols they would have sky rocketed! All turbo petrol motors today have naturally aspirated counterparts to keep costs low! Be it the Polo, Creta, Seltos, Venue, Sonet, Magnite, Verna, Kicks, Duster, the list goes on!

[deetjohn]

This notion might be true for India, but not in the developed markets. NA engines are anything but boring!

The main issue is the lack of displacement and number of cylinders - which is what works against NA engines here in this country.

But with sufficient displacement and cylinder count, NA engines are in a class of its own - especially when it comes to instant response and most importantly the purity of the sound from the engine. The latter will become even more important in this new age of EVs.

Incidentally, I was watching the sneak preview of the new GT3 with the brilliant Henry and nothing could beat the drum for NA engines more.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4bBZSJ5ollc&

[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.

[GTO]

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

The problem with NA petrols is their implementation. When you think of the NA petrol, you think weedy, underpowered 1.2 units of 3 or 4 cylinders.

True, but it is these that are most prevalent in India.

Nobody minds a modern and bigger NA that actually delivers decent torque in real world conditions.

Agreed on the Ford & Honda 1.5s of which I am a big fan. But the same is applicable to turbo-petrols too = the larger ones offer even more stunning performance & the gap (from n/a) becomes even wider.

[anb]

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.

Isn’t it exactly opposite ? Turbo engine performs well from 1500-2000 rpm since it has good torque at mid rpms. For extracting a significant progress in NA petrol engine, you have to rev it hard, which requires a clear road and sparse traffic. I found NA petrols to be slow in regular driving conditions. In fact in gear acceleration figures reflect it.

[Abhi_abarth]

I haven't driven a single Turbo petrol till today so have no idea how they perform from an enthusiast's perspective. But I should say I have started getting bored with my Baleno 1.2 petrol. Maybe these Turbo engines should satisfy my urge of that power surge.
Yet, I am going to vote as 'No'

[Tachyonites]

As mentioned above, the problems with Naturally aspirated Petrol engine is the implementation.

However, one must never forget that bomb of an engine (I am leaving this up to the BHPians to guess the engine I am talking about).
That's right, Honda's own VTEC engine that comes with dual-overhead camshafts in the new City which boosts up the power by around 5 HP.

The characteristic of a NA engine is exactly opposite to the working of a small capacity turbo-petrol.

While the NA engine feels peppy lower down in the revv range, it feels almost lifeless in the mid range making it a bit responsive-less to drive. Once you cross the mid-range you would be wowed by the sheer grunt offered by the engine. It feels like the engine has gotten a second life where it wakes up again post ~5,000 RPM.

Talking about small capacity Turbos -
They feel dead below 1.8k RPM but the meaty mid range offers great drivability on both highways and in the city. Power starts to taper around the top.

I still love the characteristics of Naturally aspirated engines and I would happily buy it over a Turbo Petrol

[WhiteSierra]

Nothing beats big displacement naturally aspirated engines. The Mark 4 Toyota Supra with a 2JZ-GE 6 cylinder, naturally aspirated 3 litre engine with 220 horsepower and 285 nm of torque is extremely mod friendly and is extremely reliable and bulletproof. I drove both twin turbo Mk4 supra and an NA Supra, although I enjoyed the turbo more, I don't think there will be much difference during everyday city drive in states like California.

Sure, NA engines might be boring, but they are very reliable than the turbocharged / supercharged ones. Now that we have new 1.0L turbo engines in our market, we should wait and see for the next 3-5 years how good and how reliable these engines will be. It is too early to comment now. But I'm sure they don't offer the peace of mind of a NA engine. People should seriously follow that strict 1-2 minutes of idling on their turbocharged cars after a long drive or if driven in city with a heavy foot. https://www.team-bhp.com/forum/techn...rged-cars.html (Why you must practice the "Idling Rule" with Turbo-Charged Cars)

I would any day pick a NA engine rather than a turbo charged DCT vehicles because of the added complexity and expensive repairs of turbo components and engines. Also note the same engine when added a turbo will go through lot of strain, not just the turbo waste gate, but the internal components like combustion chamber will take that extra stress.


In India, I'd prefer a turbo diesel to turbo petrol for better fuel efficiency. Also I did not see any NA runaway diesel engine car so far, but I've seen plenty of runaway turbo diesel engines.

[greenhorn]

I currently drive a Civic with a 2.4 litre VTEC engine that revs to 7000+ rpm. Compared to my Indica's 1.4l turbodiesel, it's a hoot ( something that cannot be said of the R18 on the regular Civic). If course it's an exception, and the current gen civic 1.5 turbo is a lot more torquey, but the drama of VTEC kicking in has to be felt (and more precisely heard) to be believed. To draw a parallel, driving a turbo is like watching a high def video without sound. Objectively it should be better. Driving a VTEC is like watching an sd video with sound. That sound triggers a response in a way it has no right to. At least I've become a believer. A NA petrol done right is a sinful pleasure.

Of course that doesn't hold for the 1.2 vanilla NA petrols in your average econohatch, but to answer the question in the thread, yes, every day of it.

[francisvellara]

Voted Yes. We have a City at home, so it was the obvious answer. However, like GTO said, given a choice of an N/A and a Turbo petrol in the same car, I'd go for the turbo. While naturally aspirated engines are rewarding when you revv them hard, turbos give their best punch with considerable less effort. A turbo is just so much more enjoyable on a regular drive where you have passengers who you don't want to scare with 7000 rpm engine notes. We recently took delivery of the Karoq and boy, is it so much more fun without the drama of high RPMs.

[aaggoswami]

Originally Posted by GTO

The “punch” is missing and I end up feeling like I ate a pizza without any cheese. Access to power simply isn’t as effortless as in the turbo-petrols & the n/a engines just don’t feel as enthusiastic. In my mind, I have decided that I’m NEVER buying a naturally-aspirated petrol car again.

The easier access to power is felt more on Indian highways where the traffic has gone up considerably while infrastructure hasn't even remotely kept up with increase in traffic density. This is one practical advantage of turbo petrol engines. Not all highways are access restricted unlike expressways. The repeated task of braking and accelerating is also easier in turbo petrols and more effortless. But naturally aspirated engines aren't done yet. Reason is rightly mentioned by Deetjohn.

Originally Posted by deetjohn

The main issue is the lack of displacement and number of cylinders - which is what works against NA engines here in this country.

Harsh reality. Toyota preferred to stick with Naturally Aspirated engines. Camry in USA is available with 2.5 litre NA engine, while Accord now has 1.5 litre turbo. The "Down-sizing" is something Toyota went against and I feel they are right. Larger displacement will certainly result in more accessible torque. Also, larger displacement motors will be more load resistant than smaller turbo petrol. Ideal comparison is NA vs Turbo engines with power and torque output at par with each other.

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

The only reason Maruti’s K Series petrol escapes scrutiny is because it powers featherweight cars. All these engines are either decades old or are based designs of such vintage.

Maruti's K12M also found home under the hood first generation Swift Dzire, which wasn't exactly featherweight. A 1.2 litre NA engine powering kerb weight of 1,000 kg plus is certainly not bad.

For its simplicity, NA engines are better. I had K12M motor powered Swift and now traded that in for Honda City Petrol. The 1.5 mill makes driving less stressful with more or less similar highway efficiency with high speed cruising. Unfortunately, fuel prices and the compact car rule in our country wont allow us to have large capacity NA engines, so eventually the turbo charged engines will take over. Maruti Suzuki simply have lost the forced induction game. They have 1.0 and 1.4 turbo in their arsenal, and they need them there. Imagine a 1.4 turbo Ciaz or S-Cross or even Brezza for that matter. Or a 1.0 turbo Swift/Dzire. Another thing I wonder is why Suzuki hasn't bothered to turbo charge 1.2 litre mill.

[Rahul Bhalgat]

I will still prefer NA engine with adequate displacement.

Reasons:

1. Better expected reliability of NA.
2. Turbo petrols giving higher torque / power with smaller cylinder are expected to have less life or interval before overhaul.
3. Cost, obviously.

Once I buy a car, I keep and use it for very long periods. Hence voted for NA keeping in mind the above points.

For my highway drives at 80-100 kmph, I find the NA adequate, even for a quick overtaking (which is very rare). I shift down and rev upto 3000 (rarely upto 3500) rpm. That serves the purpose with the 1.6 NA in my SX4 VVT.

I don't mind turbo petrol of adequate displacement and good reliability and don't mind paying up to Rs. 35,000 - 50,000 extra for it.