turbo or na
-
okay ka-t , i assume you have a ka24 in your 240, what does a na ka24 get for gas mileage on the highway?
-
i actually have no personal expeince. never drove on the highway with my car. I have delivered them but dont fill the tank up. i got just under 27 with a auto, which in 240s when stock gets better gasmileage. but it was -20 so thats a big side affect right there
I also think I would have better gas mileage with a bigger turbo, because it would take more rpm to spool. on the highway at 80mph, I am at 3200-3300rpm in 5th gear. which when I am full throttle at the rpm at am in the upper teens in boost. so if it hit a bump oops 10psi, lol
-
KA-T_240;181426 wrote:
i actually have no personal expeince. never drove on the highway with my car. I have delivered them but dont fill the tank up. i got just under 27 with a auto, which in 240s when stock gets better gasmileage. but it was -20 so thats a big side affect right thereI also think I would have better gas mileage with a bigger turbo, because it would take more rpm to spool. on the highway at 80mph, I am at 3200-3300rpm in 5th gear. which when I am full throttle at the rpm at am in the upper teens in boost. so if it hit a bump oops 10psi, lol
Type much?
It all depends on your tune. It doesnt matter whether your turbo or N/A when you aren't in boost. most turbo people just have their cars tuned to be lean at low RPMS. Lean obviously means better gas mileage. i guess air swirling thought a turbo/Intercooler/ic piping might make a tiny bit of difference on gas mileage, but I highly doubt it.
-
i just mean factory tune...same motor same everything..like a na dsm from factory and turbo dsm from factory...everything is BONE STOCK. which will get better gas mileage average?
-
On my del sol, i consistently got about 32 mpg on it NA, when i turbod it, even before tuning i got 33 mpg, and that is usually what i got so i gained about 1 mpg on average.
-
I would say NA or gas mileage... I could never NOT boost...
-
bench racing is an ugly thing.
first off, to eliminate the chassis and driveline from the process, you need to look at the fuel consumption for a given engine output level with the engine on a stand.
Next, there's no magic involved -- making a certain amount of HP requires a certain amount of air, which also requires a certain amount of fuel. Of course, any engine makes power that you cannot measure at the crank.. this is power used to turn the alternator, or to warm the engine, or to pump the engines oil, etc.
It is my opinion that given two engines making identical peak power at the same RPM, with similar internal losses and accessory loads, the NA engine will use less fuel.
Of course, where are you going to find 2 identical engines that make the same amount of HP in both NA and turbo versions? If one of them is a 3 liter V6 vs a 2 liter I4 turbo, the internal differences will be intrinsically different due to different # of bearings, balance shafts, # of valves, etc.
I think as a practical matter, a smaller, lower displacement turbo engine can make similar peak power when its boosting, but be lighter and consume less fuel when its not boosting. The A4 2.0T gets better milages than the A4 3.2 V6.
Under boost i think an NA engine does better. Turbo combustion is less efficient than NA combustion i think, and most turbos run rich under boost. running rich == using more fuel than strictly necessary.
In around town driving, my A4 2.0T gets better mileage than my 2.8L NA V6 passat, which gets MUCH better mileage than my 3.5L I6 NA M5. The A4 is 200hp, the VW is 190hp, and the M5 is ~250hp. The A4 is actually the heaviest of the vehicles and has the most drivetrain losses. It's also got the most efficient engine design with the most modern technology.
-
For the factory specs on a 92 talon it says the na gets better gas millage.
http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx?year=1992&make=Eagle&model=Talon&trimid=-1
I think the exact same engine was used on both na and turboed versions of this car for that year.http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx?year=1995&make=Eagle&model=Talon&trimid=-1
the 2g was very close for gas millage but differant engines were used.http://autos.msn.com/research/vip/Spec_Glance.aspx?year=2007&make=Chevrolet&model=Cobalt&trimid=-1
the supercharged colbalt get worse milage than the na colbalt.
Hello! It looks like you're interested in this conversation, but you don't have an account yet.
Getting fed up of having to scroll through the same posts each visit? When you register for an account, you'll always come back to exactly where you were before, and choose to be notified of new replies (either via email, or push notification). You'll also be able to save bookmarks and upvote posts to show your appreciation to other community members.
With your input, this post could be even better 💗
Register Login