[Chhanda Das]

Originally Posted by Aaditto

Thank you so much, for sharing your "car buying experience" - I thoroughly enjoyed the read!

You are welcome

Originally Posted by Aaditto

Regarding the Creta... I am really eager to understand why you specifically mention that I should, "consider a used 1st generation petrol 1.6 Creta (not the current one)?" - as in, what do you think is wrong with the current one??
Since, of late, I have been pondering about the Creta - but I am not comfortable with buying a used-car (will detail further on that down below).

There is nothing specifically wrong with the 2nd generation (new) Creta, at least not that I know of. However, the newer cars are more equipped with electronics and hence there are more chances of things going wrong. Additionally, the new cars depreciate a lot, especially in the initial years and I do not want you to spend your money unnecessarily. And there is also the fact that the 2nd generation (new) Creta has not been crash-tested yet. The maintenance costs are also higher compared to the previous generation ones. I hope that I was able to explain myself

[Dry Ice]

Originally Posted by Aaditto

Having said that, I guess all of you have already figured this out - I am an obstinate old bugger! To 'put me in my place' will require more than just a statement.
…
In a word - it was a total pleasure driving the Tiago - albeit only through city traffic!
…
Up to this point, the Ignis had been the top contender (in spite of my dislike for it's styling)

Since you have analysed the turbo and NA engines so extensively and concluded that NA >> TC engine, really curious to know your thoughts on 3cyl vs 4cyl engines. Which one has fewer parts, better balance and higher reliability over the long term?

[Kosfactor]

Originally Posted by Aaditto

In a word - it was a total pleasure driving the Tiago - albeit only through city traffic!
Whereas, it had been just as disappointing driving both the Punch and the Altros, with the same engine.

This situation with Tiago ruling over Altroz and Punch reminds me of the phrase - In the land of the blind, the .... ! I think that suffices.

Tiago makes a good first car for someone who is new to driving, it's also a decent city car at the expense of fuel efficiency , refinement and performance - aka - you'd be happy but not for long.

[shancz]

Originally Posted by Aaditto

Did the TD with Tiago - MT (XZ) today - and was completely blown away by how remarkably different the same 1.2L Revotron behaved in this car!

Glad you liked it, good observations.
No need to thank, its what we all do here and you will too.

I had driven a 2017 XZ for a short drive only but was impressed by the suspension, steering, poise and that Harman system.

Few observations were the engine which as per the owner "feels and sounds like a diesel" who also owned the DZire K12B
I also felt that on releasing the throttle the deceleration felt a bit delayed as compared to the K10B on the wagonR but that was a characteristic not a flaw.

IMO it seems like a good highway cruiser too but haven't driven it as such. The XZ steel wheels look quite good with the wheelcaps. Personally I prefer the older analogue instruments with the newer exteriors but it is what it is.

Without a doubt the Ignis is the more refined of the two but looks are a deal breaker usually hence I had a feeling you won't go for the Ignis.

Tiago is a good upgrade coming from the M800 and I felt the same coming from the wagonR.
The Tiago drives and feels like a larger car, its USP, IMHO.
The general caution against TML's hit/miss service is still valid though.

Now that your new car is almost finalized please do read through our forum rules and especially the replies (How to MULTI-QUOTE (when replying to a thread) on Team-BHP), else the notifications aren't sent.
Focus especially on the "dotty style" mentioned in the rules

Let us know how different the NRG felt(never driven), if any and clear out any pending TDs.
I hope that they haven't stiffened the suspension on the NRG because the one on the Tiago is quite comfortable, watch out for that.

Looking forward to your experiences.

[Aaditto]

Originally Posted by Dry Ice

Since you have analysed the turbo and NA engines so extensively and concluded that NA >> TC engine, really curious to know your thoughts on 3cyl vs 4cyl engines. Which one has fewer parts, better balance and higher reliability over the long term?

To begin with, I never said "NA - is-better-than - Turbo" - if that is what has been communicated so far, that's unfortunate.

My impression is that the Turbo mechanism - which essentially rides-over a base piston engine very similar to an NA mechanism - complicates the combustion process in such a way that it would/ should be bringing on more scope for failure/ malfunction. Of course it brings out more power/efficiency from the engine! It is essentially recycling/ reusing - which is one of the catch-phrases in environment-friendliness circle today!

My point was that a Turbo-boost delivers a sudden spurt of power. Which, by my books, is a great plus on a race track, but not necessarily so for a car that is meant essentially for daily commute.
Every mechanism has a PLUS and a MINUS. The turbo mechanism isn't any different. And, given my specific situation, living in a hot and dusty environment, and my driving style - I don't really feel comfortable with the the MINUSES that I am sensing for the Turbo, and I am not really that excited about it's PLUSES.

Is that a bit of sarcasm I sense in that comment of yours, @Dry Ice?
If so, I don't see why that maybe required.

I had just put forth my personal take on the NA vs Turbo question - more of a gut feel, really - after working with tools and being with machines for some 40-odd years... It was meant more to instigate all of you experts to share your wisdom and enrich my understanding of the matter.

Also, I had not really 'researched' the NA vs Turbo matter in any real detail, till I read @Rajeevraj's response on the thread -

Answering this point- Yes your understanding of the turbo factor and its supposed complications are flawed. There is absolutely no long term issue with any Turbo Petrol engine and it should not even be consideration at all. I myself have been driving a turbo petrol car for the last 9 years.

Previously, I had only done perfunctory research on what 'Turbo' engines were - i.e. their basic structure. My 'gut feel' was originally based on just that.

But when @Rajeevraj summarily discarded that gut-feel of mine - without any substantiation, other than the fact that he has been using one for 9 years - I actually started searching for Turbo vs NA comparisons. And evidently, there exists a lot of debate/ views in the matter. A part of which I brought onto the thread here - again, hoping for further healthy debate on the matter.

I am no engineer (I am an artist/ sculptor/ teacher) - however, I don't think a Turbo vs NA comparison is the same as a 4 cyl. vs 3 cyl. discussion. These are two very different qualities of differences. Again, primarily because a Turbo is essentially an addition riding on an NA - an 'upgrade', in that sense, of 'quantity' within similar qualities. While 3 cyl. engines with their 120-degree vs 4 cyl. engines with their 90-degree rotation of the crankshaft - are two completely different systems (qualities) altogether!

[SLK]

Originally Posted by Aaditto

To begin with, I never said "NA - is-better-than - Turbo" - if that is what has been communicated so far, that's unfortunate.

My impression is that the Turbo mechanism - which essentially rides-over a base piston engine very similar to an NA mechanism - complicates the combustion process in such a way that it would/ should be bringing on more scope for failure/ malfunction. Of course it brings out more power/efficiency from the engine! It is essentially recycling/ reusing - which is one of the catch-phrases in environment-friendliness circle today!

My point was that a Turbo-boost delivers a sudden spurt of power. Which, by my books, is a great plus on a race track, but not necessarily so for a car that is meant essentially for daily commute.

With all due respect, you are jumping to premature conclusions based on internet searches?

I'll not get into turbo vs NA debate here, but I can assure you, your usage is not of the nature where turbo charged car could be considered less reliable.

If you want minimal complications to avoid reliability issues/ niggles, I would sincerely suggest you buy the base version of a car, even without a power steering. The gadgetry is far far more troublesome than a turbo, so the entire debate on turbo reliability seems unfounded, uninformed and out of place here.

PS: I'm no race car or race track driver but about 12 years back when I bought my first turbo charged car, I vowed never to buy one without it and I didn't.

[lapis_lazuli]

Aaditto babu, almost all modern cars that you are looking at, are fairly competent and reliable. The way this discussion is heading, it will be difficult for you to make a choice. Are you reading too much into the technicalities? I can understand it is going to be your last car, but IMHO, don't think over it, more than what the procedure warrants. There is no way you could gain complete expertise on a vehicle and then make the perfect choice. Trust your forum mates, look around, there's a million cars running with turbos, and just get the one that strikes a chord overall. Don't sweat over every nut bolt screw spring and gasket! You will always feel short changed after that!

[locusjag]

"Your mileage may vary". This maxim applies when you're trying to forecast the long-term reliability of turbocharged ("TC") cars versus naturally aspirated ("NA") ones. There'd be car owners who've owned turbocharged cars trouble-free over a decade or more, just as likely there'd be turbocharged car owners with totally the opposite experience.

But you can't argue with the empirical power of minimalism and simplicity. Doesn't everyone compare the sheer lesser number of moving parts in electric cars versus ICE engine'd cars, when arguing for the former's superior reliability? So yes, I also subscribe to the view that NA >> TC in terms of reliability. My uncle, who recently retired after 38 years in an automotive OEM as an engineer, also subscribes to that same view; he bought a Toyota Urban Cruiser (manual transmission) and its NA engine was a huge plus point that worked in its favor. After his retirement, he just didn't want a car with a turbo that could go wrong; not when he had naturally aspirated engine options to pick from.

Are we being cynical in this school of thought, that all things fail and hence it is better - solely from a reliability perspective - to have lesser numbers of the said things in a product? Absolutely and unashamedly.

[Kosfactor]

Originally Posted by Aaditto

My point was that a Turbo-boost delivers a sudden spurt of power. Which, by my books, is a great plus on a race track, but not necessarily so for a car that is meant essentially for daily commute.

Your concerns are valid dear Sir.

The turbo engines that we see now (for the most part) are not of this type. Infact a turbo starts to spin even while you are just cranking the engine over. The good turbo petrol engines develop good amount of power just ahead of idle RPM, so you can comfortably cross a speed breaker in second gear and pull away. A 1.2L Turbo engine can pull away as effortlessly as a 1.8L NA engine. Not all turbo engines are made the same way and not all gear boxes are designed for our traffic, you'd know it when you drive it, just make sure to include your daily route for a realistic experience.

The development of ECU means that fueling can be correctly controlled for each gear as per load to ensure that you get smooth progression.

So what about longevity?

Turbo is part of emissions system which is regulatory, it would be very bad for the OEM if there are too many turbo failures , so as long as you keep up with the service schedule, it should do just fine - use OEM engine oil of course.

[Rajeevraj]

Originally Posted by Aaditto

But when @Rajeevraj summarily discarded that gut-feel of mine - without any substantiation, other than the fact that he has been using one for 9 years

While I did not substantiate my point through any technical documentation or stuff online, my comment was based on not just my experience with a turbo car. It is also based on the countless discussions had with car enthusiasts over the last several years and also based on all the information and knowledge I have gained by reading threads/posts/articles in the Team-Bhp forum over the last 15 years.

So while I don't deny the fact that a turbo engine is more complex, I still stand by the point that it should not be a core consideration to accept or reject a vehicle.

Modern cars are complex machines but have mostly proven to be very reliable, but there is no perfect car out there and a quest for perfection will be in vain. Pick the car that ticks all your core requirements and tugs at your heart and make sure it is backed up with a good service center in your primary location. With this you will be set for a positive ownership experience.

[graaja]

Originally Posted by Aaditto

My impression is that the Turbo mechanism - which essentially rides-over a base piston engine very similar to an NA mechanism - complicates the combustion process in such a way that it would/ should be bringing on more scope for failure/ malfunction...

Yes. A turbo petrol has more components compared to an NA engine. But modern turbo petrols are quite reliable. In modern cars, failures of components like electronics, ABS sensors, headlights, touch screens etc. will be more often than engine related failures.

Originally Posted by Aaditto

My point was that a Turbo-boost delivers a sudden spurt of power. Which, by my books, is a great plus on a race track, but not necessarily so for a car that is meant essentially for daily commute.

On the contrary. Turbo engines usually have a flatter torque curve over a wide range of RPM which make them very useful in day to day driving without having to downshift often in both city traffic while slowing down and in highway while overtaking. So I would definitely not rule out a turbo petrol for normal commute.

BTW, I believe (I might be wrong here) NA engines are mostly preferred in race cars due to their high revving nature where they can be revved to 10000+ RPM.

On reliability:
Compared to purely mechanical cars from two or three decades before, modern cars have lots of electronics which can fail once the age of the car is 7+ years - sometimes even before (that is why extended warranty is a mush). If one can expect a Maruti 800 to run even after 25 years with minimum maintenance cost, the same cannot be expected of modern cars be it S-Cross, or Tiago or Punch or Creta and so on.

In this forum you can find so many threads on pre-mature failures of everything from brakes to headlights to AMT gear boxes in all cars.

If you were to look for that perfect car that can run without trouble for the next 20+ years, I don't think such a car exists in today's market. Even today's Toyotas may not run 20+ years without any failures.

So, like others have suggested, go for the car that pulls your heart's strings (it is even possible that none of them pull the heart's strings), has good service support in your area, get the maximum possible extended warranty (this is very important), be ready for the occasional high cost failures post warranty and have enough financial cushion for these failures, and enjoy the car.

All the best

[vikas2211]

I think you have made it too complex already and now this thread is full of knowledge, reviews and point of views, but a decision is nowhere near.

If I was in your place, I would have filtered by:

• Budget < 12L OTR
• Body type = Compact SUV, gives you the ground clearance, space, and actual feeling of an upgrade.

Please do not venture into Hatch category to add more confusion. Remember you need an upgrade.

• Fuel = Petrol
• Brand = Tata/ Mahindra, both companies will exist in India for next many years, will have good network of service centers and are building good reliable cars from many years.

Please do not consider brands with fewer service centers and spare part challenges.

Based on it, I would have chosen something between a TATA Nexon OR Mahindra XUV300.

[DeepakS]

Originally Posted by Aaditto

[b]Just a quick update

BTY - I did the TD with a Petrol-MT - as opposed to the Diesel variant you suggested. I am just not comfortable with diesel cars. Call it irrational, if you must, but I am a petrol-person - and I can't help it! And in that context, I am wondering whether your crisp description of the car as "Simple, frugal, robust and a great mile-muncher" holds true with the petrol variant as well?!
--------------------------------------------------------------

PS: Other TD's expected over the next few days (again in Kolkata, alas!) - following a number of your expert advise to do as many TD's as the heart desires(!) -

• i20
• i10 Nios
• Tiago
• Baleno (facelift 2022) - whenever that is finally available!

I'm glad you considered the Creta again.
There are many people, including my relatives, who loathe diesel powered cars. This is, most of the times, due to the fact that the diesel passenger cars of the past, pre Maruti Swift era, were very crude, noisy, polluting(visibly) and just very unpleasant. Ambassador, Tata Indica, Tata Safari, etc etc. The smooth and pleasant experience of owning a car was quite difficult to associate with those diesel cars, where on the other hand there were Japanese Marutis, Hondas, Toyotas and a few other Hyundais which were silent, smooth, refined and quite easy to maintain. In those days the maintenance of diesel cars was also one of the major fears in Indian consumers' minds. But since the dawn of new age diesel crdi passenger cars, and companies investing heavily into refining the tech, making the cabins silent and overall giving consumers a good, happy and pleasant experience, owning a diesel car has been 99%, if not 100%, as good as owning a petrol car. And especially with Hyundai leading the NVH brigade, Creta is quite a great diesel car. My 1st sedan was a diesel Fluidic Verna SX, 2011. It's 1.6 crdi engine was imported from Korea back then and it was a marvellous piece of engineering. I don't know whether the 1.5 diesel currently offered is also imported or not, but even if isn't, it's surely a good one.

Now coming to your specific question:
Simple: YES!
Robust: YES!
Greta mile-muncher: YES!
Frugal: NO, as far as the fuel efficiency goes. Hyundais are infamous of their low fuel efficiency Petrol engines. I also happen to own an i20 Petrol CVT, and it's fuel efficiency is dismal, so i speak from person experience. The Kappa 1.2, and the Petrol 1.6 are both below-average in fuel efficiency. If a 1.2 Maruti Baleno returns 16kmpl in city, then a 1.2 i20 will return 10-12 in similar conditions, give or take.


I'm a simple and straight-forward man who brooks no bullshit. So all these companies who are selling their cars at exorbitant prices and selling us unreliable products, don't really sit well with me. Hyundai, off late, has also become one of those companies whose products i just cannot justify at the prices they're being sold at. But Creta base model is one of those vehicles which punches above it's weight and is actually a fair priced car, if not a bargain(considering the same car with extra features, but same engine, chassis, gearbox, etc sells for 20 lacs on road too).

[GTO]

I think this topic has been discussed enough. Closing it. @ Aaditto, request to please spend time reading up existing threads. All your queries & doubts will be answered.

Thank you.