In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
On 14/05/2020 13:44:47, Dave Plowman (News) wrote:
In article ,
Fredxx wrote:
Turbos may be a nice cheap way of making an engine of a given output, but
with petrol engines are never as good as a larger NA unit of the same
output. Despite the marketing hype.

That simply isn't true. As a general rule the smaller the engine you are
comparing a turbo may reduce overall mpg. On larger engine where
induction losses dominate a turbo can increase economy. It really isn't
safe to make such a blanket statement.

Go on then. Give some real world figures.

And example of the same engine with turbo and without where the turbo unit
gives better MPG at cruise.

Your goal posts have changed, your claim was, "petrol engines are never
as good as a larger NA unit of the same output".

You're the one who made such a claim, and as usual have no evidence to
back up this blanket statement.

And since you are so certain I'm wrong you could do the research and find
figures that prove it.

It may have escaped your notice, but turbos on petrol engines are nothing
likes as common as on diesels. Indeed plenty makers of petrol cars have
gone back from using turbos to simply fitting a bigger engine of similar
output. Perhaps you'd explain just why - if they are such a panacea.

--
*Oh, what a tangled website we weave when first we practice *

Dave Plowman London SW
To e-mail, change noise into sound.