[GeeTee TSI]

I feel the small capacity turbo petrols (1.0L even) quite outclass the 1.5 NA engines as far as torque output is concerned while matching the horsepower figures.

Maybe we ought to compare larger NA engines to get a true balance of priorities

Voted for the turbo as I have no first hand experience of NA motors larger than 1.5L

[evilmessiah]

Originally Posted by CrAzY dRiVeR

[*]Skoda/ VW 1.0 TSi replacing the earlier lame 1.6 MPi.

Originally Posted by GTO

- VW: 1.2 TSI over the 1.6 n/a any which day. Can't comment on the new 1.0 turbo until I drive it.

Why is the VW/ Skoda 1.6 so disliked? I haven't driven a car with this engine, but it looks healthy enough on paper- 104 bhp, 153 NM torque as opposed to 105 bhp and 175 NM torque of the 1.2 TSI (if I remember correctly). Sure, the turbo 1.2 would have a great midrange and coupled with quick DSG, should be fun, but shouldn't the bigger hearted 1.6 be more linear, have better throttle response, lighter and thus be more reliable?

Completely different appeals for both engines, but I wonder why this 1.6 isn't revered like the old Fiat (the one in the Palio GTX), Ford Rocam (Ikon) and Baleno 1.6 (G16B) engines.

[46TheDoctor]

I hate turbo lag, so i really like those turbo charged engines only when paired with AT (and I am talking about non AMT automatic). If manual transmission then always N.A.

[Raghav96]

Views based on driving honda city petrol for 54k kms.

For city driving: 1.5 NA for the predictable power delivery.

For highway driving: turbo petrol for the lower rpm at highway speed. City is too noisy at 100-110kmph(may be i expect too much from my car).

6 speed gearbox would have made the car perfect for both city and highway duty.

[hydraulicsteer]

Voted for NA engine for the same reason i chose a Creta 1.6 NA over a Seltos 1.4 TGDi. I found that during city usage both of them behave similarly until your wish to make a mad overtake every now and then which many sensible drivers dont make in city. On highway both are capable of doing cruise speeds whole day just the TGDi felt a little quicker there. But then the whole reliability issue cropping up regarding that carbon deposit on the intake valves, poor quality fuel available in the country and always stressful operation of a small motor doesn’t justify a turbo petrol yet. Companies are doing it in the interest of profits, meeting emission norms and satisfying the power number appetite of the customer on paper. I still prefer big displacement petrols( loved the Toyota 2.7 on a test drive). But again to each his own. Cheers!

[NiInJa]

One thing to note is that the comparison is strictly about 1.0 Turbo vs 1.5 NA . 1.0 Litre engines are 3 cylinder vs 1.5 mostly are 4 cylinder (except some like Ford) and the power figures are almost same (except torque, obviously). So comparing 1.2 Tsi vs 1.5 NA would not be fair.

For me, I would pick the 1.5 NA over 1.0L Turbo petrol any day. They are very smooth and less noisy and you revv them like anything. They are simple to maintain too. Sure, Turbos are fun but ultimately its the combination of handling, engine and suspension that matters to me.

[Rocketscience]

Have been daily driving turbo diesels for better past of this decade and can always vouch for turbo any which day as compared to NA, turbos are the future, although they have been around from quite some time, Take any engine even the 1.5 Honda and Turbo will boost the hell out of it, will work wonders in increasing the power but more importantly the low and mid range torque.

Now i'am a very practical enthusiast and i don't want anything which i won't use on a regular basis and revving away NA engines which have little grunt lower down and gutless in the mid range can be fun sometimes but is not practical at all 9/10 times, not to say non economical as well, Venue's Turbo petrol which i have driven quite extensively solves this problem, it has very good midrange and has power you can use all the time, almost whenever you want.
I however prefer 1.2 4 cylinder turbo petrols as the perfect upgrade to 1.5/1.6 NA engines as they have the same level of refinement as well and more power in the entire rev range so it is a win win, the unit in the Venue or any 3 cylinder 1.0 engine does not have nearly as much refinement as a Honda 1.5 so although i would still pick the turbo, it is not entirely a true upgrade.

[GipsyDanger]

Would've easily gone for the "no replacement for displacement" in case of bigger cars that need bigger engines. In such cases, smaller turbos wouldn't work due to poor fuel economy, low end, and noticable lag; so it's a no-no to smaller turbos in case of luxury cars, big SUVs or sports cars.

Since we're choosing between a 1.0 and a 1.5, it's obviously for the mainstream segment; in this case, would be the battle between the upcoming City and Verna.

I believe pursuing bigger engines in smaller cars is a lost cause, and carmakers do agree. The pollution norms all over the world are stringent on bigger displacement engines. With cars being built to (not much in India) higher safety standards, they weigh much heavier, and putting a big engine will push it's price away from its target audience.

Sure they have their faults, and reliability is indeed a concern. There's always a catch. In everything. For me, I'd bite the bullet, and drive something that's energetic and lively than a lethargic, boring engine. It's the heart and soul of the car. The 1.2 TSI has proven to be immensely superior to the 1.6 MPI of Rapid/Vento. It's more than adequate for these segments.

With the BS6 norms and probably a heavier build, the newer City probably will face the no-longer-peppy situation like the 1.2 NIOS. Probably. So this is where we'll probably see the small-turbo in action. Things are getting interesting in this segment once again.

[GipsyDanger]

Originally Posted by evilmessiah

Why is the VW/ Skoda 1.6 so disliked? I haven't driven a car with this engine, but it looks healthy enough on paper- 104 bhp, 153 NM torque as opposed to 105 bhp and 175 NM torque of the 1.2 TSI (if I remember correctly). Sure, the turbo 1.2 would have a great midrange and coupled with quick DSG, should be fun, but shouldn't the bigger hearted 1.6 be more linear, have better throttle response, lighter and thus be more reliable?

Completely different appeals for both engines, but I wonder why this 1.6 isn't revered like the old Fiat (the one in the Palio GTX), Ford Rocam (Ikon) and Baleno 1.6 (G16B) engines.

Nope, you really got to drive a 1.6 MPI to know the difference. The torque defiency is really apparent. Even the 94 HP 1.6 G16B of our decade-old Baleno felt much, much, much more alive! It's not because it's not turbo or anything, it's just that the engine is too anemic for the car's heft. NA's benefits become apparent when the power-to-weight ratio is good enough. Reliability may be a different question, though. It's kind of the same situation for the i20 and the 1.2 kappa2.

[Ultim8]

Voted for 1.5 NA.

I haven't driven a Honda yet. But I enjoy driving my dad's Ford Fiesta 1.6 SXi (Zetec/Duratec), thanks to it's NA motor, which is a gem.

Sure, I am addicted to the mid-range torquey acceleration offered by the Turbocharged engines (have driven my uncle's Maruti Ritz 1.3 DDiS for more than 150 kms in last three weeks).

But a NA petrol motor in general, especially with even number of cylinders, is so refined at low revs (doesn't need a lot of NVH), while being rev happy and providing power in a linear manner.

I sometimes tend to drive at low revs (and slow speeds) to calm my mind. Otherwise, am happy to occasionally rev the Fiesta hard to enjoy it's raspy engine note and see the rev counter needle twitch on both sides of the gauge as I press and depress the throttle.

In short, I don't mind sacrificing mid range torquey acceleration for refinement and linear power delivery.

[AkhilR]

Voted 1.5 NA. To me 1.0 turbo is too small. Even if it's turbo, it needs to be at least 1.2 turbo. 1.0 turbo is not enough for inclines or pulling off from a start.

[govindremesh]

Voted for 1L turbo. Sure, the turbo lag is annoying, but having driven extensively in 1.5L ivetc (car at home) and 1L TSI Golf (car in NL), the subtle push into the seat feeling from 2200 RPM onwards is better than having to rev the engine upwards 4500 RPM to get a similar feeling. The three pot 1L turbo nowhere as refined as the 4 cylinder ivtec nor is the low end torque, but that's a discomfort I can live with. Overtaking within city and Highways is just dropping a gear and flooring it on the turbo petrols

[Nazaar25]

Voted for NA 1.5.
Since it's a battle between a 4 cylinder NA 1.5L and a 3 cylinder turbo 1L motor, I would anyday choose the former simply because they are way more refined, smooth, reliable and have a crazy top end too! As I am used to a very refined petrol engine (K12) from almost 3 years now, I immediately know the difference when I am in a car with a 3 pot engine and hence I am a bit too critical when it comes to refinement.
Why aren't companies making turbo 1Ls with four cylinders?!!

[Achilles]

Voted for 1.5 N/A simply because of reliability and maintenance aspects!
Personally I like the efficient modern diesel motors (of-course they are turbo charged) over a turbo charged petrol motor.

[fhdowntheline]

As the current owner of the Polo GT TSi "1.2" (nowadays this needs to be specified ) and the Honda City iVtec, and the past owner of the Linea T-Jet, I guess I can weigh in on my experiences.
Turbo petrols give you a lot of pleasure potential which unfortunately, cannot be fully exploited in the Indian driving cycle (even on highways). To that extent I would prefer the 1.5 (or any large) NA petrol, for the linearity of the engine response. Yes, it won't give me 'delight' in zipping past other cars, but I won't be worse off either. As I have mentioned in other posts, between the experience of the Linea T-Jet and the Honda City, it was a delight to handle the Linea at high speeds as compared to the City, but the City itself is deceptively fast. I was comparing my earlier trip experiences to Mahabaleshwar last year in my Polo Tsi and City (both driven during the same traffic patterns). While it felt great driving the Polo through the ghats, it was in the City that I managed to keep consistent high speeds (100-120) without breaking a sweat.