370tt?

dannyrst

almillar wrote: »

If you think you're going to drive like this and somehow cheat good economy out of an engine, you'll be disappointed. The turbo is likely to be spinning much more than you think and it's not just a switch.

I am not trying to "cheat economy out of an engine". I simply believed that you could achieve a slightly higher MPG whilst driving at low revs by owning a turbo powered car. For example:

1.6 Ford Fiesta Zetec S - 48 MPG
1.0T Ford Fiesta Zetec S - 65 MPG

Obviously, you are going to such much less of a difference in higher performance cars but as an example it seems to speak for itself.

agrinnall

dannyrst wrote: »

I am not trying to "cheat economy out of an engine". I simply believed that you could achieve a slightly higher MPG whilst driving at low revs by owning a turbo powered car. For example:

1.6 Ford Fiesta Zetec S - 48 MPG
1.0T Ford Fiesta Zetec S - 65 MPG

Obviously, you are going to such much less of a difference in higher performance cars but as an example it seems to speak for itself.

You don't seriously believe either of those figures do you? The turbo probably is more fuel efficient than the NA, but I'd expect the difference between published and real life consumption to be greater for the turbo than for the NA, simply because it's so difficult to not have the turbo spinning much of the time.

dannyrst

agrinnall wrote: »

You don't seriously believe either of those figures do you? The turbo probably is more fuel efficient than the NA, but I'd expect the difference between published and real life consumption to be greater for the turbo than for the NA, simply because it's so difficult to not have the turbo spinning much of the time.

Not sure if you mean for your reply to sound quite so arrogant? Did I offend you?

Whilst I appreciate they are exaggerated figures, I maintain that from what I have read, heard and been told, a turbo engine at low RPM will have a higher MPG than an NA engine. Is that incorrect? If so, I'm happy to learn. And this is regardless of whether or not the turbo is doing anything or not.

motorguy

dannyrst wrote: »

I am not trying to "cheat economy out of an engine". I simply believed that you could achieve a slightly higher MPG whilst driving at low revs by owning a turbo powered car. For example:

1.6 Ford Fiesta Zetec S - 48 MPG
1.0T Ford Fiesta Zetec S - 65 MPG

Obviously, you are going to such much less of a difference in higher performance cars but as an example it seems to speak for itself.

In the real world though, that translates to

1.6 Ford Fiesta Zetec S - 40.6 MPG
1.0T Ford Fiesta Zetec S - 44.5 MPG

http://www.honestjohn.co.uk/realmpg/ford/fiesta-2013

Our Z4 2.0i Turbo was supposed to do near 40mpg, but it averaged around 34mpg.

gzoom

NA is fine for a small car, but the OP is asking about a performance car. On that front no NA engine can match a force induction engine. Hence even Honda had to give up and stick a turbo in the latest Civic Type R.

jay213

What is NA?

motorguy

Indeed, naturally aspirated = no turbo or supercharger to force air in, forced induction = turbocharged or supercharged.

davemorton

Is it only me, but while reading this thread, I wonder why...?

If you are going to get one of the cars that have been mentioned, would you really worry about a few MPG here and there??

gzoom

Both were designed last decade, and both only produce some 550bhp. A Golf R can be modified to produce 400bhp+ thanks to turbocharging.

The future for supercars is force induction+hybrid technology, P1/Le Ferrari style.

NA is dead and buried. I don't see the attraction of it, why would you stick with less efficient/less powerful engine when force induction and hybridisation offers more power AND more ecnomoy. If you drive any of the new turbo charged cars, your realise 'turbo lag' is all but a non-existent problem. Add in electric turbos or hybrid drivetrains and your get torque curves NA engine can never match.

dannyrst

davemorton wrote: »

Is it only me, but while reading this thread, I wonder why...?

If you are going to get one of the cars that have been mentioned, would you really worry about a few MPG here and there??

Because if you get an extra 5MPG, over the course of lets say a 3-5 year ownership that equates to a substantial amount of money (too early to do the maths).

DarkMatter - I can't afford a Ferrari or any other supercar or hypercar so if you'd like to discuss those, feel free to move elsewhere.