[LEOMAN]

Guys, a little off topic . I like turbos only in case of diesels due to better torque.Petrol turbos are less efficient.I like my 2020 ecosport dragon petrol automatic which does 0-100 in 11.23 seconds and its a NA 3 pot 1.5 dragon engine mated to a sweet torque convertor. Rest all my armoury is diesel biased.I used to have a linea in Tjet guise but it was manual.It was build like a tank and needed no description.
Not in favour of DSGs as my skoda rapid 1.5 tdi automatic gave only after 24000 kms on the odometer. If its DQ200 it has to fail , no matter what skoda says. In my case it was the mechatronic which went bad.

[akshaysehgal]

I would prefer a Turbo-charged DCT engine without a doubt.

> Mid-range power is insane and brings a smile on your face when you get pushed back into the seat
> DCT engine shifts are stealthy and quick with almost 0 jerk
> The non-linear power (explosive/exponential power) makes the car driving fun.
> The turbo lag is big, but it gives you the flexibility to drive the same car in two ways -

1. Enthu mode - Lots of short sprints and turns through traffic with good bursts of acceleration (1500 - 4000 rpm)
2. Grandpa mode - Gentle foot on the throttle moving with low acceleration and smooth turns (1000 - 2000 rpm). The turbo lag is not very noticeable here even when it kicks in. I use this when I have my parents in the car.

At low city speeds, 1.0L turbo engine feels like it is 'held back' by an invisible force. And when the turbo wakes up, it feels like the invisible force is now pushing the car faster and faster. So this non-linear driveability takes getting used to. However, do note that our mind will eventually get used to the engine's driving characteristics and this issue fades away after a month or two with the car. Your right foot will automatically "learn" when and how much to press the throttle for smooth progress.

I disagree with this. I have not driven a Venue but the same engine in i20 N Line works very differently as you have described. Yes the turbo wakes up at 1500-2000 rpm, but there is no feeling of 'held back' at lower RPM. It does take a bit of getting used to but it's not that big a deal, and in fact, adds a bit of versatility to your driving.

However, turbolag in Hyundai 1.0L makes it unsuitable for heavy traffic single-laned highways or heavy traffic ghat roads. There is simply no "getting used to" this because overtaking opportunities on such roads can be fleeting.

Strongly disagree with this as well. I drive in Delhi traffic which is a great example of heavy traffic with a lot of difficult overtaking. The Hyundai engine does a great job in this traffic if driven correctly. Like before, it takes a bit of getting used to, but once you do, you have a bag of explosive power that you can open whenever you need it.

The video linked in the initial post(s) for the acceleration for BRV actually starts its "linear" acceleration from 2000 RPM, which in the case of the Hyundai 1.0L T-GDi is also the rpm range post-Turbo lag. And in this range, Hyundai delivers more torque as compared to the Honda 1.5 naturally aspirated.

Clearly, there must be something missing in the NA engine, when the same L engine variants aboard have been turbo charged by Honda

So, in essence, this poll is essentially made of 2 biases -

1. Do you prefer a gradual power delivery or non-linear one in mid-high rpm range?



2. Do you prefer Honda or Hyundai brand?

The reason for the second question I ask is the fact that a similar poll already exists on team BHP comparing Naturally aspirated engines vs Turbocharged engines (Naturally-aspirated vs turbo-charged petrol engine! What's your pick?). And the poll is so much closer than this one which mentions Hyundai and Honda in its poll options!




I have seen such biases in data very regularly in my decade of experience in the data science space, which is why I kept asking myself the question - what was this poll really comparing, the brand, the engine technology, or the disparity in the number of people who have significant experience on both cars/engines you used to derive observations for your findings/opinions?

[autobahnjpr]

I drive a 3rd gen Honda City with 1.5L ivtech engine and CVT gearbox. It is ok at city speeds but not so at highway overtaking. There is a pause before the your throttle response gets registered by the gearbox. The work around is to use sports mode with paddle shifters and keep the engine in higher revs. Then you get good power and overtaking is easier. Otherwise you have to plan your overtaking very carefully in auto mode.

But once you have acclimatized yourself to the use of paddle shifters, then the high revving petrol engine will bring smile on your face on the highways.

[VikramCS]

Originally Posted by autobahnjpr

I drive a 3rd gen Honda City with 1.5L ivtech engine and CVT gearbox.

Thanks for sharing. I had assumed that 3rd Gen City is equipped with a TC gearbox, it's a CVT is it?

[Livnletcarsliv]

Is this an apple to apple comparison ? I dont think so.

If its a Turbo vs NA, It depends on the use case and where I drive.
If its a Honda vs Hyundai, I like both. It depends on the segment and vehicle comparison. In this case BRV vs Venue, its the Venue for me.
If its a DCT vs CVT, again it depends on the use case. City vs Highway, Performance vs reliability, etc.
If its a 1.5 iVTEC vs 1.0 Turbo, its always 1.5 iVTEC for me. 1.5 iVTEC manual combo is one of the best engines in the world let alone India. (in this segment).

[attinder]

Originally Posted by akshaysehgal

Clearly, there must be something missing in the NA engine, when the same L engine variants aboard have been turbo charged by Honda

Just cost cutting. Smaller engine with less pots.

Personally I don't trust small turbo engines. Its like force feeding a donkey to run as fast as a horse.

[Guna]

Originally Posted by VikramCS

Thanks for sharing. I had assumed that 3rd Gen City is equipped with a TC gearbox, it's a CVT is it?

3rd generation City (2008-14)came a TC gear box but they went back to CVT from 4th generation (2015) onwards.

[akshaysehgal]

Originally Posted by attinder

Just cost cutting. Smaller engine with less pots.

Personally I don't trust small turbo engines. Its like force feeding a donkey to run as fast as a horse.

Well, the goal was actually to get the "donkey" into the horse stable (passing the BS6 emission norms), but it ended up making the "donkey" run as fast as the horses as well!

Sadly, in India, for a realistic budget, a donkey is the best you can get. Hoping that changes soon. India has a big market for "potential" car enthusiasts. It would take just a little nudge (reducing taxes and car prices) to turn a practical family man into a car enthusiast

[sunikkat]

Originally Posted by akshaysehgal

I have seen such biases in data very regularly in my decade of experience in the data science space, which is why I kept asking myself the question - what was this poll really comparing, the brand, the engine technology, or the disparity in the number of people who have significant experience on both cars/engines you used to derive observations for your findings/opinions?

Well the previous poll was in general with the engines - NA vs. Turbo. So many people are in favour of turbo as they might be comparing NA engines with better performing Turbo motors. Say in a comparison of 2 NA engine in Elantra vs. a 2 Turbo petrol engine in Octavia, almost everyone might choose 2 Turbo (just engine comparison, not talking about service quality or other things). There is actually no comparison in terms of performance.

Here in this poll, it’s between smallest turbo engine vs. one among the best NA engine in Indian market. So obviously a lot many people choose 1.5 NA. Here the turbo does not have very clear advantage, atleast if we compare Verna vs. City.

So the poll result is not surprising.

[fhdowntheline]

Having owned the City 1.5 CVT and the Polo GT TSI, I can say that the DCT equipped Polo is a sprinter, whereas the City is a marathon runner. I must however also say, that from standstill, the 1.5 CVT felt decently or even deceptively fast owing to linear response. I am intrigued that @SmartCat felt the Venue DCT was a bit below par in ghat/single lane highway conditions. Surely one can overcome that with a quick flick to the Sport/manual mode?

In my view, the 20-60, 20-80,30-100 speed regimes are the single biggest drawback of the 1.5 CVT. If you want to overtake that truck or tempo which is doing a steady but annoying 50kph, you will be frustrated with the CVT response. In fact, I feel an equivalent size diesel motor is far better in this aspect. My current 1.5 CRDI is certainly a league ahead because of its fat torque and a more responsive TC gearbox, even in D mode.

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by akshaysehgal

I disagree with this. I have not driven a Venue but the same engine in i20 N Line works very differently as you have described. Strongly disagree with this as well.

Originally Posted by fhdowntheline

I am intrigued that @SmartCat felt the Venue DCT was a bit below par in ghat/single lane highway conditions.

Relax gents, put your guns back into the holster. Please check what I've voted for.

When I'm making a comment, I'm comparing 1.0L Turbo DCT with 1.5L ivtec CVT under the exact same conditions (traffic+single lane highway, traffic+ghat road). You might not "get" what I'm saying unless you drive these two cars under similar conditions.

Surely one can overcome that with a quick flick to the Sport/manual mode?

Sports mode? What is that?

We have a +/- manual mode though.

[sasmit]

I have driven the City 1.5 ZX CVT quite a lot in the city, power delivery and refinement are absolutely fine in the city. In fact with light throttle inputs it feels more like an electric car! Next to no noise. Only if you mash the pedal it gets loud and rubber band shows up.
I have not driven the Skoda/VW automatics, but from my drive in the manual 1 liter I could not digest the peaky power delivery nature of the engine, even if you ignore the 3 cylinder thrum.

Reliability of direct injection turbo engines is another big issue. We must remember all the new generation down sized turbo engines are not "only turbo" engines. They are "direct injected" only.
All direct injected petrol engines have issue with excessive deposits on intake valves and valve seats. Long term reliability in comparison with a NA port injected petrol is definitely questionable.

[kaushikduttajsr]

For the same power figure, I'll always choose the NA engine.

Why? It is the same reason why I'll prefer my monthly salary to be ctc/12 and not ctc/14 with 2 months of pay as bonus.

It was the same salary in both cases. Feeling happier with a turbo version of 2 engines of the same power is akin to feeling happier on getting the bonus at the end of the year instead of every month. No points to guess why organizations keep a part of your salary blocked as bonus.

To think logically, should you feel happier getting something late that you could have invested and grown if you'd received it earlier? I guess not.

On the other hand, I'll always choose more pay for the same work; i.e. I'll always choose a turbo when choosing between 2 engines with the same displacement.

[akshaysehgal]

Originally Posted by sunikkat

Here in this poll, it’s between smallest turbo engine vs. one among the best NA engine in Indian market.

Completely agree. Infact @Livnletcarsliv asked this very question in his post.

Originally Posted by Livnletcarsliv

Is this an apple to apple comparison? I dont think so.

The question then remains, how do you actually get a good "poll" on what people truly prefer. I don't have an answer for this, but there is a reason why surveys ask the same question in multiple ways repeatedly. It's a way for them to de-bias the opinions of the end-user answering the survey.

Originally Posted by kaushikduttajsr

For the same power figure, I'll always choose the NA engine.

Why? It is the same reason why I'll prefer my monthly salary to be ctc/12 and not ctc/14 with 2 months of pay as bonus.

By your logic, the complete loan industry would fall apart.

It's better to have an immediate chunk of money to make smarter investments, rather than not have enough money.

That is why smart people with a lot of money take massive loans from banks instead of collating money in a bank and then investing. They can earn better interest on the money from the loan through their better investments (property, etc), than the cost of paying the interest rate of the loan itself.

Exactly by your logic - why have so much power wasted at higher RPMs when you could loan it at lower RPMs earlier

A better analogy than the one you used is to not get same salary with bonus at the end, but get 2 months of salary at joining which you can put into stocks/mutual funds and then earn the remaining salary over 12 months. This actually makes more sense than getting the whole salary over 12 months with barely any interest rate sitting in the bank and a tax over that

This graph summarizes what I mean.



Food for thought

[kaushikduttajsr]

Originally Posted by akshaysehgal

A better analogy than the one you used is to not get same salary with bonus at the end, but get 2 months of salary at joining which you can put into stocks/mutual funds and then earn the remaining salary over 12 months. This actually makes more sense than getting the whole salary over 12 months with barely any interest rate sitting in the bank and a tax over that

Pure physics, same power = same rate of work done. Some like more torque at lower revs, some like it at higher revs. At the end, we all get to the same top speed. It's also a personal choice. Please don't ask such tough questions on a public forum.