[SmartCat]

I've been using Honda BRV 1.5L CVT from the past 5 years and Hyundai Venue 1.0L Turbo DCT from the past 15 months or so. So I have first-hand long term experience of using cars powered by naturally aspirated engine and turbocharged engine, both as daily drivers. This is also a CVT Vs DCT comparison test so to speak, because the transmission greatly affects driveability/power delivery/fuel economy of engines.





Now the two cars (BRV and Venue) belong to different segments, but it really should not matter much because kerb weight of both cars is almost the same. The engine tech specs and acceleration figures are similar too:

Honda BRV 1.5L iVTEC CVT:

Power: 117 BHP @ 6600 RPM
Torque: 145 NM @ 4600 RPM
Kerb Weight: 1200 kgs
Power to Weight Ratio: 98 BHP/ton
Torque to Weight Ratio: 121 NM/ton
ARAI Fuel economy: 16 kmpl
Acceleration (0 to 100 kmph): 12.3 seconds

Hyundai Venue 1.0L Turbo DCT:

Power: 118 BHP @ 6000 RPM
Torque: 172 NM @ 4000 RPM
Kerb Weight: 1125 kgs
Power to Weight Ratio: 105 BHP/ton
Torque to Weight Ratio: 153 NM/ton
ARAI Fuel economy: 18.1 kmpl
Acceleration (0 to 100 kmph): 12.8 seconds

[SmartCat]

CITY DRIVEABILITY:

If you are used to driving naturally aspirated petrol engine cars and never driven turbo diesels or turbo petrols, you will be disappointed with Hyundai's 1.0L turbo engine + DCT combination. My dad felt that Venue was quite sluggish compared to his old Santro and thought things would get "better" after the first service!



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.

But with Honda 1.5L iVTEC, there is no such learning curve. Move the gear lever to D and car jumps forward instantly. Gaps in traffic can covered with a slight dab on the accelerator pedal. CVT transmission helps here too. At city speeds, it does not "feel" like the car is decelerating at all unlike in cars equipped with DCT/TC/manual/AMT transmission, which sees small 'breaks' in acceleration while changing gears.



HIGHWAY DRIVEABILITY:

Now this is where Hyundai 1.0 Turbo + DCT combination starts making sense (paisa vasool). As long as the engine is spinning over 1500 RPM, one can make rapid progress at Indian highway speeds (40 kmph to 120 kmph). The car actually "feels" powerful (with even a push-back-in-the-seat feeling). Gearshifts (both up and down) are significantly faster than what an average driver can achieve in manual transmission car. 2+2 laned highways or low traffic density single laned highways is its home ground.

As an added bonus, at highway speeds, Hyundai's (1.0L turbo engine + DCT) feels significantly more refined than its Honda counterpart. However, this could be due to better sound insulation in Venue when compared to BRV. iVTEC in Honda City might be better.



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.

If one were to describe the highway performance of Honda's iVTEC + CVT combination, two words come to mind:

- LINEAR
- NOISY

And this 1 minute video best describes its LINEARITY (note the smoothly climbing speedo & tacho needle) & NOISINESS (switch on the speakers).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o4_S5-BO-8o

However, the noisiness is not a significant problem for those who prefer to cruise. It rears its ugly head only during quick acceleration bursts (for overtaking).

FUEL ECONOMY:

From the past one week, I have been using the two cars exclusively for school runs so that driving/traffic/speed conditions are similar.

- 10 kms one-way
- 50% residential roads/50% 2+2 laned ring road
- Low to moderate traffic
- One traffic signal with 2 min wait time
- 30 kmph average speed (10 kms takes 20 to 25 mins) and 80 kmph top speed

Under these similar conditions, Hyundai 1.0L Turbo DCT showed 13.1 kmpl on Venue's MID while Honda 1.5L iVTEC CVT showed 11.9 kmpl on BRV's MID. So turbo petrol is 10% more fuel-efficient than naturally aspirated engine, with similar engine output specs

[FAIAAA]

That's a good and credible "real world" comparison from an actual user. Fellow BRV CVT owner here, couldn't agree more with your apt description of the CVT characteristics - smooth yet noisy when pulled hard and at high speeds.
CVT over DSG for me - what tilts it in CVT's favor is the reliability. On my cross country and late night drives, I don't need to worry about the transmission dying on me!
Of course it's not for the enthusiast and that's where I do hope the Japanese come with a TC paired to a turbo petrol. Wishful thinking I guess!!

[d3mon]

1.0 turbo beats the 1.5 NA all day long. It's just a more characterful engine, and turbo lag can be fun at times. But a dry clutch DCT is just a strict no, and for that reason alone it's got to be the reliable and smooth 1.5 CVT combo for me.

[AYP]

I'd take the turbo over an equivalent NA engine any day of the week. I like the push in the seat feeling which you get in the turbo even if it means dealing with turbo lag. To 'some' extent, driving a turbo is like being on a roller coaster with the initial lag(up the track slow climb) with a push as soon as the roller coaster goes down the track. A NA engine is like being in a train. A train can be fast, but it is always linear.

The mass market DCTs are tuned conservatively affecting the launch and the 0-100 timing. We saw this in the Kicks Turbo vs the Kushaq 1.5 drag race as well-

https://youtu.be/SM4fkXeJ28U

[attinder]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

But with Honda 1.5L iVTEC, there is no such learning curve. Move the gear lever to D and car jumps forward instantly. Gaps in traffic can covered with a slight dab on the accelerator pedal. CVT transmission helps here too. At city speeds, it does not "feel" like the car is decelerating at all unlike in cars equipped with DCT/TC/manual/AMT transmission, which sees small 'breaks' in acceleration while changing gears.

Coming from a Swift VDI, I disagree. City is slooowww. Stand on the accelerator and there is no instant surge. Only the engine gets louder. You have to plan your overtakes or learn to use the pedals. So indeed there is a learning curve. IMO switch from MT to DCT should have been easier.

[GTO]

Nothing beats Honda's superb 1.5L engine & smooth CVT for an urban commuter. That engine is the best naturally-aspirated motor on sale in India, while the CVT has been impressively improved upon with time. In the latest 5th-gen City, I found the rubber-band effect to be well-controlled.

For city use, yes, at lower rpms, Hyundai-Kia's 1.0L DCT does feel lethargic. Turbo lag & dual-clutch AT cons. But once the revs rise, it is something else.

Hard to make a choice on the poll. I love them both .

[asit.kulkarni93]

Although I prefer turbocharged units but the red flags for this turbo petrol are way more than the NA engine. Dry clutch and a product from Hyundai with questionable Quality control are enough reasons for me to choose the not so exciting but practical 1.5 ivtec with CVT.

[Storm2.0]

Well, one thing to see is reliability of the DCT and turbo 1.0 combo on Venue. Your BR-V, touchwood has been going strong for the last 5 years, whereas for the Venue it's still a question mark and only time will tell.

[sunikkat]

Voted for 1 turbo. It’s always turbo for me over NA engine. Only reason where I will choose City’s iVTEC is if the car is only used for city drives.

I have never driven Verna 1 Turbo and my observation is based on other VAGs 1 turbo and Hyundai 1 turbo in i20/Nline and Venue. Also I have driven City extensively.

[shancz]

Voted for the City.

Primarily because the comparison was with the iVTEC and despite the CVT its a better experience overall, my preference for the linear NAs notwithstanding.

[Shreyans_Jain]

Originally Posted by attinder

Coming from a Swift VDI, I disagree. City is slooowww. Stand on the accelerator and there is no instant surge. Only the engine gets louder. You have to plan your overtakes or learn to use the pedals. So indeed there is a learning curve. IMO switch from MT to DCT should have been easier.

Coming from the diesel Swift, you are already used to the typical behaviour of lag at low rpm, followed by the turbo surge. As such, you will find it easier to shift to another turbo engine.

The Honda CVT provides instant response at typical city speeds, but you can’t expect instant go when you floor the throttle once the speeds pick up.

Each drivetrain exhibits its typical character. Honda is better for city traffic. The turbo petrol is more suited for highway running.

[Guna]

Voted for Honda CVT even though I have not driven both the cars but based on the following data points:

• I felt that the 1.0L DCT had terrible lag when I test drove i20 N Line. 1.5 i-VTEC has so much linear power delivery.
• CVTs are excellent for city driving (especially 'stop and go' situations). I started appreciating my i20 Elite CVT more after experiencing TSI-DSG combination on my Tiguan Allspace (which is great on open roads but the initial lag makes it bit of a pain in 'stop and go' situations).

[SmartCat]

Originally Posted by attinder

City is slooowww. Stand on the accelerator and there is no instant surge. Only the engine gets louder.

Originally Posted by Shreyans_Jain

The Honda CVT provides instant response at typical city speeds, but you can’t expect instant go when you floor the throttle

Right. Also, only powerful EVs will have instant go (XXX Nm torque at 0 rpm) when you floor the accelerator pedal. It is another matter that nobody floors the accelerator pedal in the real world, unless it is an emergency overtaking maneuver.

Anyway, in all cars (including those with dual clutch), nothing happens for 0.5 to 1 second when you floor the throttle. In gear, road speeds will rise only with engine RPM. But in a CVT, when you floor the pedal, tacho will shoot to 4000 rpm instantly and then road speed picks up. There will very minor/unnoticeable difference between 0 to 40 kmph or 20 to 50 kmph acceleration timings, in identical engined cars with good CVT and normal TC/DCT transmission.

So the only difference between (CVT vs other automatic transmission, same engine) will be in noise levels (because we are at 4000 rpm in a flash), not actual speed/acceleration. Honda 1.5L iVTec CVT is not slow at any speeds - this can be easily proved with acceleration data (0 to 10/20/30/40 kmph, 30 to 80 kmph, 40 to 100 kmph etc) that Autocar India frequently publishes.

[Guna]

Originally Posted by SmartCat

But in a CVT, when you floor the pedal, tacho will shoot to 4000 rpm instantly and then road speed picks up.

There is a trick I am discovering and trying master it with the CVT. If you simply slam the A pedal, engine revs go up and there is no immediate increase in the vehicle speed because the gear system is working simultaneously to slot it o the lowest ratio. But instead of this sudden kick down, if you gradually depress the A pedal initially and then floor it, it holds on to the ratio (instead of slipping down to the lower ratio) and the resultant acceleration is more predictable. This requires great control and patience and the behaviour may differ slightly from car to car depending on the tuning.