Which one is better? Does it really give you big differences in fuel efficiency as I don't live in country side area and don't use motorway a lot?
Adding the questions to as in better in (thanks to oscargamer):
Acceleration?
Fuel consumption?
Noise?
Load carrying capability?
You could even, you know, tell us which cars? - does brand matter? engine is engine right? - It's KIA Cerato
I am asking comparison on a brand new car.
Don't be a dick when someone is trying to help you. Sigh..
If all you care about is fuel efficiency then just look at the fuel consumption of the cars you're looking at. It differs per car. Not just based on capacity and forced induction
does brand matter? engine is engine right?
Yes, the brand, model, year, weight of the car, everything else matters too.
Please detail the exact cars you are comparing.
As a wild guess, you are comparing the Hyundai/Kia 1.6T vs 2.0?
Yes, the brand, model, year, weight of the car, everything else matters too.
Thanks for kindly explaining this to me - will put it
As a wild guess, you are comparing the Hyundai/Kia 1.6T vs 2.0?
nice guess, It's Kia Cerato i was trying to compare
I have the Cerato GT.
There are many differences than just the engine. The transmission and suspension are also different in the GT.
If you enjoy driving, get the GT, it is much more fun to drive, but will cost you more annually to run though. (Servicing costs)
New Tucson?
KIA Cerato
Modern 1.6T should be more economical than 2.0 naturally aspirated but may have less power and certain worse driving dynamics. There are, of course, outliers to this so you do need to state which ones in particular.
The engine alone isn't enough to confirm though, depends on the rest of the vehicle, the weight it has to lug around, gearbox (CVT vs manual vs auto is big difference), other components, steering, braking etc. You cannot direct compare engines only (unless it's the exact same car with both engine options).
but may have less power and certain worse driving dynamics
Correct me if im wrong,but is this how the concept of turbo working: when you drive normally, the engine performs in 1.6L capacity, and then say you're in motorway, then it's where the turbo kicks in and makes the car stronger?
Depends. Some spool all the time, some don't. Some have small turbos, some have large ones. Some have different types of turbos. Some save fuel, some use more.
Since you mentioned Cerato, they have their own comparison page. Unhide the Engine and Fuel elements to cross-compare.
https://www.kia.com/au/cars/cerato-sedan/specification.html
The only 1.6L option is the GT spec which has more peak power than the 2.0. I would go for that. 112 kW out of 2L is awful.
awesome, so that's how you read and tell the difference.
The salesperson was useless, he kept saying not much difference etc but couldn't really give me the detail
Flatter torque curve in the GT too.
265Nm @ 1,500 ~ 4,500. Shows where the turbo “kicks in”.
Vs 192Nm @ 4,000
also consider insurance. the turbo might attract a higher premium
good point, thanks!
And higher servicing costs (pricier oil at least), and premium fuel (?) for the Turbo.
I'm guessing the GT Line will probably also have more expensive tyres and possibly brakes.
and premium fuel (?) for the Turbo
Depends on the manufacturer's recommendation. Our CX-9 has a turbo, but takes ULP91 and E10.
so in long term, Turbo probably going to costs you more isn't it? another good point, makes me wonder now if I should just go ahead with the 2L petrol
Get the 1.6LTurbo with the 2L max torque comes on at 4000rpm so you'd have to give it some beans to get going whereas the 1.6L turbo max torque is at 1500-4500rpm so you don't need to rev it's tits off. Much better to have a car with low down torque as a daily driver. The turbo also has much more torque 265Nm vs 192Nm.
I have that 1.6T GDi engine, way better than a atmo 2L. 80% torque at 1500rpm, feels like a v6 bottom end.
Acceleration?
Good but get wheel spin due to torque slowing it down, 0-100 in 7s aint bad with a 6MT
Fuel consumption?
Av city 8-9L for me
Noise?
quiet, injectors can get a bit loud making it sound like a diesel. I throw in Subaru injector clean and BP ultimate shuts it up.
Load carrying capability?
whatever fit in boot it moves
Av city 8-9L for me
this is good, you must be good driver
Basically from all the positive responses I read here, everything in 1.6 Turbo is better than 2L. However, the maintenance costs in long term probably in favor of the 2L engine
This is with manual, think should be better with Cerato DCT.
City driving 2L is fine, acceleration in city is irrelevant really. Help get a friend a Cerato sport+ 2L nice car and all you really need really.
Okay well I'm in a pretty good spot to comment on this. I traded in my 2.0L Elantra for a new 1.6L i30 just under 2 weeks ago.
2.0L is a nice smooth engine, it accelerates nicely from idle, not powerfully, just nice and linear. It is no fast engine, but it can give a nice bit of overtaking power when you need it. Economy is about 6-7L/100km depending on how and where you drive. Best I got was about 5.6L/100km, but that is a long country road. Average is about 7L/100km on the daily work run.
Downside is the engine is noisy until it is warm.
1.6L is using just a touch more petrol, not much though. It is a much more fun engine and it's power delivery is effortless. I'll be up to 80km/h quite quickly without even hitting 3000rpm, but that is due to the torque being delivered at 1500rpm. My engine is still new so I am taking it very easy on it, after the 1500km service I will open it up more. But my friend has the same engine in her Elantra SR and while no V8, it is quite impressive. Engine is also nice and quiet.
Only downside is a half sec of no power when you hit the accelerator, keep in mind I have the auto DCT.
Downside is the engine is noisy until it is warm.
Is this still the case for new cars these days?
I traded in my 2.0L Elantra for a new 1.6L i30 just under 2 weeks ago
Do you think 1.6L turbo has a better resale value than 2L?
Only downside is a half sec of no power when you hit the accelerator,
What does this mean?
Turbo lag.
The engine is a pissweak 1.6L until the Turbo Boost kicks in.
A Turbo compresses air into the Cylinders, so once it's working, you're getting the same amount of air as you might get in a (for example) 3L engine.
So now the engine is able to burn the fuel and produce the power of a 3L engine.
Its not turbo lag, unit is a twin scroll turbo direct injection motor. Boost kicks in at 1500rpm…. as the poster said, its the transmission.
I have a 6MT with that engine, has little lag, infact my modded 300kw STI has more lag in that RPM range and its a 2.5L
The Cerato 1.6T is surprisingly strong at low RPM and has very little lag, just gotta be in the right gear.
My Elantra was only a MY18, and cold engine noise was enough to annoy me. It was a good reliable engine, but a cheap one.
I would say the sports editions with the 1.6L would have better resale.
The engine feels like it "bogs down", but only for about half a sec before the engine hits 1500rpm and it takes off. Whether it's the transmission or the engine just not making any power below 1500rpm, I have no idea. The DCT transmission is a decent unit. Car idles at about 700rpm, but when you release the brakes but before you touch the accelerator, engine idle increases to about 1000rpm. DCT shifts smoothly, and I rather like it.
I've driven the Cerato GT and have my Proceed GT with the 6 speed manual, its the transmission. With manual no hesitation, infact get wheel spin off the lights with traction control off or wet, that hesitation is probably there for fuel economy and/or reduce shock loading gearbox.
@Bid Sniper: I daresay you are right. If I put it in sports mode, the acceleration lag seems reduced.
@AdosHouse: it's the throttle map then.
my STI is dull in granny mode but instantly responsive in sport sharp mode. It's a manual too so just cogs. Do this for fuel economy reasons and also makes it easier to drive.
In the Kia I think fuel economy/smoothness and preserve the gearbox. My GT will do one wheel peel off the light with traction control off, its annoying. So smooth throttle map stops you doing that.
@Bid Sniper: Makes sense. Further investigation is required on my part. But I am babying the engine until I get the 1500km service, at which point I will also get them to do an oil change. Then I can see how the throttle responds in all 3 modes, with various amounts of throttle.
Often it comes down to the driving experience. If the two engines are similar power ratings, they will probably deliver the power at different parts of the rev range. Driving style may mean one or the other is better for you, but the other one for me.
If the turbo is a little to large it’ll take more to spool up meaning you need to rev the engine more, but if the turbo is small you’ll get power earlier but not as much at higher revs. The NA 2L will probably have a more linear power curve.
Turbo may require premium fuel and cost more to service.
Drive both and see which you prefer.
82kW
My ex has a 2016 Cerato 2.0 auto.
My kids drive a 2005 Honda Accord Euro 2.4 Auto.
According to my kids the Kia "uses as much fuel as the Honda, is a bit slow but it does the job it has to do."
If I was buying a Kia / Hyundai today I'd get the 1.6 turbo.
My ex has a 2016 Cerato 2.0 auto.
I guess the auto alone is a good enough reason to leave
After we split she needed a car. She wanted help buying a used car around $15k. I had better things to do and suggested she tip a bit more in and get a Cerato hatch with 7 years warranty. It was only $18k DA inc the upgraded centre screen. It was great value for what it is.
On paper comparison between 2020 Cerato GT 1.6T and Sport+ 2.0NA
In theory; Turbo = more torque. More torque = more power. Smaller engine means better fuel economy.
Acceleration? Maybe slightly quicker in the 1.6T due to there being 265Nm compared to the 2.0 @ 192Nm
Fuel consumption? Slightly better on the 1.6, (1.6T) 14.7km/l vs (2.0NA) 13.5km/l
Noise? About the same. Maybe a little quieter in the 1.6T, but it may have a sportier exhaust system on it that negates that. Go drive both.
Load carrying capability? Buy a van. (Both are 610km unbraked)
These were considered cheap big lighters…. and now look at them going up in flames
Better how?
Acceleration?
Fuel consumption?
Noise?
Load carrying capability?
You could even, you know, tell us which cars?
Is one brand new and the other 18 years old?