[ron_9191]

I voted yes I have always driven NA cars probably my entire life. Not that I was blessed with the opportunity of driving many cars. In between I also had the opportunity to drive some turbo diesels and understood what they could do.

The car I have with me since 2007 is the Baleno Vxi. The 1.6 G16B although not the greatest of the engines gives me everything to cruise at highway speeds and whenever I feel the urge to accelerate, I just have to drop 2 gears and the 3rd gear just gives you something may be very close to what a OHC VTEC can give you, minus the VTEC or any variable valve timing mechanisms. I still take it on long highway drives and she never fails to impress me even after so many years. Does the job, and on a smooth highway it can still keep up with its modern siblings. However when the road gets bad, the suspension makes you think you are conscious and having a seizure.

My first experience of turbocharged petrol car was the Skoda Octavia VRS MK1. And my reaction to that kind of power, I still haven't found how to describe it. The most recent experience driving a turbo petrol was the Renault Duster 1.3 and I have to say I was thoroughly impressed by it. I know nothing about he longevity or the reliability of the engine, but going by what I know about turbo engines from Renault throughout the F1 turbo hybrid era, I'd rather keep a safe distance from it, jokes apart the engine felt really well made and although I was expecting the acceleration to be explosive, it felt very linear and most importantly, it felt that the power it made was put to the road very efficiently. In my car if I have to get acceleration like that, I would have to play with my gears, modulate the A pedal and keep it at an optimum place where I have a balance of almost linear power delivery from an engine that would sound pretty loud.

I don't want to advocate for NA engines here because clearly, with 300cc less the 1.3L turbo unit on the duster will eat my 1.6 NA Suzuki for breakfast. The tech is far superior than the NA engines. Take F1 itself as an example, there are unofficial reports that states that the Mercedes W11 developed over 1100 bhp from a 1.6 L V6. So I am open to embrace the change, but ask me what I will drive daily, I would clearly go for a reliable 4 pot tried and tested NA engine. We are yet to see how reliable turbo petrol cars are in India.

[ron82x3]

I would like to point out that, Turbo Petrols don't serve the purpose
1. If you are generating similar power in a turbo Petrol and NA, the NA will be more efficient because turbo petrols cool their engines by burning off extra fuel
2. Turbos give pathetic FE when driven like a maniac, worse than NA.
3. Not cheap to buy, neither cheap to maintain(compared to diesels)
So, if you are buying a turbo Petrol for that addictive mid range, why not buy a Diesel instead?
Buying to save money? NA is the answer.

The only advantage I can see for Turbo Petrols is that they are better to cruise on the highways, also retuning a better FE; or you drive like the uncle who tests FE for ARAI

I know, for some fuel efficiency doesn't matter as much, but for those situations isn't a NA engine at 7000 rpm is better than a turbo Petrol at 5000 rpm?
Tell me you don't like a straight six or a V8?

The reason why NA engines don't shine in India is the tax regulations. Otherwise every mortal being knows, "There's no replacement for displacement".


Here is a video by Jason Camissa, protesting strongly against Turbo Petrols:
https://www.instagram.com/tv/B5B88eK...d=vru1nvrw63v6

I do have a NA and I like the fact how it scares me while driving through a narrow lane in 2nd whereas in a turbo car, you are always shifting between 1st and second.

[SaiSW]

Taking the case of our country alone ( and only considering the cars on sale currently, since there has been some interesting NAs in the past ) then turbo, anyday. As somebody mentioned earlier on in this thread, most of the NAs we get here are weak 1.2s, I have driven Suzuki's famed 1.2 and I honestly couldn't notice anything special about it apart from the refinement compared to a 3 cylinder NA from Tata or some other company. It is these little 1.0 turbos that are bringing good performance down to the masses, not NA engines. A 1.2 turbo in the JTP or the 1.0 in the Nios Turbo would absolutely decimate any NA petrol below 10 lacs and probably some above it as well.

Ofcourse, like I mentioned at the start, my post only concerns the case here in India where a 4 wheeler is still an aspirational item for many, abroad the case is very different, I assume.

[₹itzylove]

I am still unable to cast my vote for some reason, would have voted YES.

I agree with the fact that the Turbo petrol engines of these days are fun to drive and much superior interms of power output, but I still personally prefer driving a Naturally Aspirated one. Given an option to choose between the Skoda 1.0L Turbo and Ford 1.5L NA, I would pick the more linear Ford NA which has longer powerband.

I am someone who would any day pick a Lambo NA V10 over a Ferrari Twin Turbo V8. Just that I don't have enough money to buy any of these two now

[Jeevith]

Originally Posted by 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 .

Originally Posted by GTO

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.

Originally Posted by GTO

Whatever the segment or whatever the car, I would pick the turbo-petrol replacement over the n/a petrol.

Originally Posted by GTO

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.

If there was a dislike button, I would be pressing it so hard right now. But hey, everyone is entitled to their opinion (even if it's the wrong one ).

But let me meet you half way, I only think the NAs available (or rather than ones you've quoted) are bad because of their relative small size. The biggest one mentioned in your post in the 1.5 L Maruti (which I drive in the form of a Ciaz), which also by your own admission is "good".

I think the bigger you go the better it will get. TBH, even when the civic launched I was rather more keen on the 2.0 litre NA than the fabled 1.5 litre turbo. If there's an adjective to describe NAs it would be "pure", IMHO the turbo-lag (however small) makes the driving experience gimmicky.


P.S., would love to hear your views on the 1.6 Verna and the 1.8 Chevy.

[architect_santo]

I always prefer Diesel cars, but now that most of my friends buy Petrol cars over Diesel for obvious reasons such as low running, cost etc; I happen to drive their cars during long drives.

I just don’t get the thrill of driving a diesel in the same segment; diesel cars now a days comes with Turbo. Would love to have Petrol Turbo in small capacity segment, and that is what is happening. The market adoption clearly establishes the preference.

[90Horses]

Voted for NA petrol.

I drive a Punto 90HP, based on my 7 years of experience with the car (80K kms). I believe, Turbo induced cars are prone to higher maintenance costs from the 4th Year of ownership and the reliability factor will itch you when you go on a trip with the car.

I have had my share of issues with EGR, Intercooler and Clutch. Also, there are lots of extra parts involved when you compare with NA; Turbo, EGR, Intercooler, Vaccum Pump and other reinforcements to handle the power and prone to fail.

My next car would be a reliable NA Petrol, I have my eyes on Toyota Yaris or the New City.

[Hemi6.2]

If the sub-4m rule didn't exist we won't be having this discussion at all. All the cars from B2 segment and above deserve a 1.4 L or bigger NA petrol engine otherwise no matter what, one would feel the lack of power at some point of ownership.
The complexity and high maintenance of turbocharged engines over NA engines is just not justifiable in daily driven commuter cars.

[blackwasp]

Voted yes. I enjoy my 800, equipped with a free flow, as much as my Abarth.

That said, I would never tinker with a turbo petrols exhaust like an NA car. But for the great aural experience it’s best to stick to an NA engine.

[aniketi]

Big YES.

1.2 K series motor by Maruti is gem of a engine. It's silent, enough power, it's very fuel efficient, economical and fun to drive when revved hard. I have driven it in Swift, Wagon R and Baleno. All cars performed very well. I have driven Ertiga 1.4 K series in Ertiga. It is also very good and enough to pull with 6-7 people on board. Advantage here is they are best suited for city driving which is not the case in most turbo engines. I recently drove Skoda 1.0 Liter turbo engine, is it very good on open roads but same time found horrible in city conditions, specially in bumper to bumper traffic. Every time i needed to shift to first gear on speed breakers which is annoying.

Hope companies will not stop these engines. NA engines are easy on pocket too and not complicated to maintain. I heard Turbo engines are very costly if something fails.

[88_TANK_88]

I have driven a few petrol NA and turbo engines and I believe the joys of redlining an NA engine were immense. We still have Swift Gen 1 with age old 1.3 G13B that revs beautifully. Its big brother in 1.6 form in the baleno was another gem. Ikon and Fiesta 1.6 had fun engines along with great handling.

[turbowhistle]

I definitely do although both my current cars are turbo-petrol (not by choice). I think when you drive just one car, it's a bit difficult to appreciate the brilliance of NA cars. I used to love driving my i20 (very slowly obviously) on weekends after driving a turbo-diesel for 5 days straight. Here's a 2018 instagram post sharing a very similar emotion from my side. But what a gas guzzler it was

[Sreesh1009]

Have owned NA cars from '99 and am enjoying them to every bit. The power delivery is raw and the sweet sound when you rev it, is something else ��.
NA cars owned:
1. 1999 Maruti 800
2. Hyundai Santro 2005
3. Hyundai i20 2010
4. Honda Amaze 2014

[51morris]

Votes YES because in my opinion, the feel/sound of a naturally aspirated engine is second to none. I've driven very few big capacity n/a engines and have simply loved them!

At the same time, turbo petrols come with their own benefits - especially in today's traffic conditions. They are much better to drive on the motorways too, imho.

I recently picked up a n/a engine car as my weekend ride - a 1.0L Austin Rover Mini Despite it being only 998cc (about 40bhp), it still goes like the clappers - primarily due to the ridiculously low kerb weight of 675kgs. Still, just the sound of the engine as it revs through the gears is just pure joy!

Here's a sneak preview.... ownership thread coming up soon!

[DImPo]

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.

You summed it up really well. I still believe in the thumb rule "There is no replacement to displacement". Would prefer the tried, tested, simple and reliable NA engines than the Complicated, High Maintenance, Lag prone Turbo Charged engines