Tata Indica Xeta 1.2 GVS

Priced at Rs 2

Published on Sep 10, 2009 07:00:00 AM

1,04,273 Views

Make : Tata

Model : Indica

Carmakers save a substantial eight percent by way of excise duty if a petrol engine’s cubic capacity is below 1200cc. And that’s the sole reason why Tata downsized its 1396cc petrol engine to 1193cc. The reduction in displacement was achieved by slashing the stroke substantially from 79mm to 67.5mm. The bore remains identical and the only significant changes to the engine are a modified crankshaft and new connecting rods to accommodate the shorter stroke. The ECU’s mapping has been modified to suit the characteristics of this smaller engine and so has the final drive. The overall gearing is shorter to compensate for any loss of driveability due to the drop in power and torque.

Compared to the 1.4, the smaller engine develops a decent 65bhp which is only 5bhp down on the 1.4-litre. Torque too is down to by approximately 17 percent. By reducing the engine stroke, the 1.2 engine is now ‘oversquare’ which means the bore is now larger than the stroke unlike the ‘undersquare’ 1.4 motor. What this means in simple terms is that the driveability or low-end grunt of short-stroke engines isn’t as good as a long-stroke one. It’s one of the reasons why the power curve of the 1.2 Xeta is more peaky than the 1.4 with max power developed 200rpm higher in the rev range. That’s the theory at least.

The interiors remain the same as on the Xeta 1.4. Light- coloured fabrics brighten up the interiors, and there’s not much by way of improvement in quality. The driving position is still not ideal — the high-set steering wheel places a lot of stress on your shoulders and the high pedals force you to place your feet awkwardly. This is sure to cause discomfort over long hauls. Interior quality hasn’t visibly improved over the Xeta 1.4, but it hasn’t become worse either.

The Xeta 1.2 in GVS trim does lack a few basic features like the left-side rearview mirror and hubcaps, but as a budget family car it makes a strong case for itself.

So what’s the smaller-engine Indica like? Does it lose out a lot to the 1.4? Our timing gear says it does.
The dash to 100kph is significantly slower (16.9 seconds versus 16.1) and so is the 20-80kph trek in third gear (15.2seconds versus 14.03seconds on the 1.4). For the 40-100kph fourth gear dash, there is a one - second difference between the 1.2 and 1.4. But these figures don’t always tell the whole story and the 1.2 isn’t as underpowered as the numbers suggest, not in town at least.

The engine is quite tractable for slow-speed commuting and it’s easy to keep pace with the traffic. It’s only when you have to drive with a sense of urgency that you feel the 1.2 doesn’t surge forward as effortlessly as the 1.4. There’s a slight initial hesitation in power delivery but beyond 2000rpm, the engine pulls quite strongly upto 4200rpm, beyond which power tapers off rapidly and the motor feels strained and labours upto the rather low redline of 5250rpm.

The rev limit on this engine is 350rpm lower than on the 1.4, possibly in the interests of fuel economy. However, when you downshift for overtaking, you wind the needle smack into the red zone up against the rev limiter. This isn’t good at all, especially if you are on the wrong side of the road.
Indica owners will also expect the car to do a little highway duty, and this is where the 1.2’s shortage of horses really shows up. Though the car can cruise at three-digit speeds comfortably and top speed remains almost identical to the 1.4, the smaller engine feels more strained on the highway, possibly due to the shorter gearing.

Part-throttle response is pretty good and so is the torque spread, so you don’t have to change gears frequently in traffic — a good thing as the gearshift action hasn’t improved. The gearshift still feels rubbery and continues to be the Indica’s weakness, especially since other small cars have a far superior shift.

The most important question however, is how much better is the Xeta 1.2 at the fuel pump? It’s not, actually. We achieved 10.5kpl in the city and 14.5kpl on the highway, which is marginally worse than the 1.4. The smaller engine may suck in less fuel but it has to work hard (for the same kerb weight) and the low gearing has penalised efficiency as well.

What could have done with some improvement is the dynamics of the car. The suspension remains unchanged, so there’s not much difference in the ride and handling. The low- speed ride is absorbent enough but the suspension is quite clunky, and at higher speeds, the car gets quite unsettled. The steering is very non-linear and very vague, especially at the straight-ahead position; so, this adds to the floaty feeling this car has when at speed.