Naturally aspirated vs turbocharged which is fuel efficient

It depends on whether you are more fuel-efficient than the former or more fuel-efficient than the latter.

Naturally aspirated is more fuel-efficient, the difference between naturally aspirated and turbocharged:

1. Displacement: The turbocharged engine of the same displacement is more powerful than the naturally aspirated engine, which is generally increased by about 40%, and the time power performance is equivalent to the natural aspirated power;

2. Fuel consumption: Compared with the naturally aspirated engine with ventilation performance, fuel consumption is saved by 10 20%;

3. Failure rate: Theoretically, the naturally aspirated engine is obviously lower, and the turbocharger is a large furnace that requires advanced technical means to cool down.

Naturally aspirated is more fuel-efficient than turbocharging.

If you look at the engine alone, a turbocharged engine will consume more fuel than a naturally aspirated engine. The same engine, the turbocharged engine has more air intake and the right fuel injection in the limited generator displacement range, the explosive power is strong, and the engine output motivation is large, so the fuel consumption is also high.

For example, if you are often driving at high speeds, it must be better to turbocharge, and if you are in urban areas, where there are often traffic jams, then it is better to naturally aspirate.

1.Turbocharging is better than naturally aspirated for the following reasons:1.

2.Turbocharging is actually an "air compressor".

3.The exhaust gases from the engine push the turbocharger, which is pressurized and delivered to the engine. After mixing with gasoline mist, it is combusted, and the resulting exhaust gases continue to drive the turbocharger; 2.

4.Resolved an issue where naturally aspirated engines were unable to reach higher revs due to less air.

5,3.And because gasoline burns more fully, a turbocharged engine would theoretically be more fuel-efficient than a naturally aspirated engine.

Naturally aspirated is more fuel-efficient. The general turbocharged power fuel consumption is equivalent to that of ordinary naturally aspiratedThe fuel consumption of the 4-liter model makes it more fuel-efficient to naturally aspirate at the same displacement.

Naturally aspirated engine.

As the air pressure increases, the gasoline consumption will not be too low. So relying on turbocharging to save fuel is not too realistic. However, if it is driving in the city, in the case of severe traffic jams or traffic lights, the turbocharged model can still rely on a smaller displacement to achieve fuel savings.

This reason is very simple, for example, if the technical indicators of turbocharging are equivalent to those of the naturally aspirated power unit in liters.

At the same displacement, the power of the vortex supercharged burst is significantly stronger than that of natural aspiration.

We should not have any objections to the difference in power. For this, if you don't like the force output of natural aspiration, rough vortex energy boosting is your best option.

The difference between turbocharged and naturally aspirated

Naturally aspirated engines have a quiet ride at idle, noise and ride smoothness when starting in a cold car, naturally aspirated engines generally do better, and the power of naturally aspirated engines is easier to control.

It is mainly reflected in the output of force when the throttle is finely controlled. For example, if you keep the throttle at a certain opening, the acceleration of the naturally aspirated car will be relatively smooth, and the acceleration will be relatively even.

Turbocharged engines accelerate better. This is because turbine engines have a greater lung capacity, and people with a large lung capacity are certainly more energetic when exercising.

Generally, the power of a turbocharged engine can reach the level of a naturally aspirated engine equivalent to about twice its displacement. But that's just a general level. In fact, the "staying power" of a turbine engine after 3,000 rpm is stronger than that of a naturally aspirated engine.

On this issue, in fact, different situations will definitely lead to different results. If driving at high speeds, the advantages of a turbocharged engine may be obvious. Fuel consumption may be better than that of a naturally aspirated engine.

However, on congested roads, naturally aspirated cars are more fuel-efficient. In general, the fuel consumption of turbocharged power is comparable to that of ordinary naturally aspirated models. This is also normal.

It turned out that turbocharging simply added more pressure at the same cylinder volume, resulting in better power and torque performance. If the air pressure rises, the gasoline consumption will not be too low. Therefore, it is not realistic to save fuel by turbocharging.

The reason is simple. For example, the technical specifications of turbocharging are equal to those of naturally aspirated power units. At the same idle or low speed, the turbo does not actually start, but is equal to the normal liter naturally aspirated engine, which is naturally more fuel-efficient than the liter engine.

In fact, this is determined by the work of the turbocharged engine: at lower revs and without the turbo involved, the turbocharged engine is equivalent to a naturally aspirated engine. But if you're driving in the city, the turbo can still save fuel with a smaller displacement in severe traffic jams or with a lot of traffic lights.

Turbocharging isn't particularly fuel-guzzling, but it's also not particularly fuel-efficient. It usually consumes a little more fuel than a naturally aspirated engine of the same displacement, but is much more fuel-efficient than a naturally aspirated engine with a larger displacement and on a par with performance indicators. Millions of car purchase subsidies.

What Bian Xiao wants to introduce to you today is the knowledge of turbocharging and natural aspiration. Many friends ask Bian Xiao which is more fuel-efficient than turbocharged or naturally aspirated? The following is a brief introduction to Bian Xiao, I hope it will help you.

The fuel consumption of the general turbocharged power is comparable to that of the ordinary naturally aspirated model. This is also normal. Originally, turbocharging simply added more pressure to the same cylinder volume, resulting in better power and torque performance.

The higher the air pressure, the lower the gasoline consumption. So it's not realistic to rely on turbocharging to save fuel.

The reason is simple. For example, if the technical specifications of a turbocharger are comparable to that of a naturally aspirated power unit. At the same idle or slow rpm, the turbocharger actually does not start, but it is equal to an ordinary liter naturally aspirated engine, which is naturally more fuel-efficient than a liter engine.

In fact, this is determined by the operating characteristics of the turbocharged engine: at lower speeds and without the involvement of the turbo, the turbocharged engine is equivalent to a naturally aspirated engine. However, if driving in the city, in the case of serious traffic jams or more traffic lights, the turbocharged vehicle can still rely on a smaller displacement to achieve the purpose of fuel saving.

Turbocharging isn't particularly fuel-guzzling, but it's also not particularly fuel-efficient. Generally, it consumes a little more fuel than a naturally aspirated engine of the same displacement, but it is much more fuel-efficient than a large-displacement naturally aspirated engine with the same performance index.