On 13/05/2020 17:04, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
The Natural Philosopher wrote:
You€˜re ignoring the weight/volume penalty of a large N/A engine as opposed
to a turbo engine.

He is also ignoring frictional loses - larger in a big engine.

And you're ignoring that with a petrol engine a turbo unit of the same
output as a larger NA one is generally more thirsty. It's just a cheap way
of getting more power.

Do you have a source for that?

I thought one of the reasons they've all gone for little turbos is that
they are more efficient than a big NA on light loads. Which is most driving.

The turbo give you the output you need for the brochure's 0-60 figure.
For most people that's enough.

And if the engine only lasts 60k miles? shrugs

Andy
--
FTAOD my car has an NA engine and over twice that mileage...