Does having turbo really mean better fuel effiency?

[Alau3978]

All the 4 cars cost around 110K. My favorite is Ford but doubt the RM servicing.

[flashbang]

All the 4 cars cost around 110K. My favorite is Ford but doubt the RM servicing.

Ford too "ulu", very few on the roads. Better to get a more popular one

[Blueray]

My 10 year old NA car will expire next year. If you were me, which car will you select

 

1. Ford Focus 1.0L turbo

2. Opel Astra 1.0 turbo

3. Nissan QQ 1.2 turbo

4. Mazda 3 NA

 

4.

[inlinesix]

Would like to give some real world figures.

 

Have the following cars

 

1. Mark-X since 2009 - 2.5 V6 (6 Speed)

2. 2016 Mark-X G's this year  - 2.5 V6 (6 speed)

 

The above fuel consumption (1) on mix 50/50 SG driving on "super heavy foot", 8km - 10km/L  (2) NSHW to KL/Cameron highland - done this many times, 12~14km/L. All the above are actual real life figures over 10 years with 2 Toyota Mark-X of the same engine. When my wife drive, she hit 10km~11.5km/L easily

 

 

3. 2016 Infinit Q50 - 2.0T  - 7 Speed(similar to Merc Gtronics) - SG mix 50/50 - 7~8km/L,  NSHW 12~13km/L.   When my wife drives, 9~10.5km/L

 

The above is base on TC vs V6 engine, probably not the same with normal 4C engine. I own Honda Civic SIR in the past, but that's a fuel drinking machine!!!!! I think V6 engines love wide open road and TC engine is great in city driving with better low end torque......especially TC Diesel. 

 

 

I do want to state base on facts, actual fuel consumption proclaim by mfgr is not a good gauge. I would think in Singapore hot and high humidity climate, TC engine will suffer in performance vs actual register/tested figure from mfgr?

 

What you have omitted in your comparison is weight diff btw Q50 and Mark X.

 

Q50 is 1.8 ton while Mark X is 1.5 ton.  Of course, Q50 will need more fuel in city drive.

 

Currently, only Toyota Crown Athete has both 2.5L NA & 2L TC.  Based on Manufacturer number, 2L TC is much better than 2.5L NA.

 

 

[Victor68]

4.

Can give your reasoning why 4? I am also making similar selection. Your reasoning can help me decide better. Thanks

[Blueray]

Can give your reasoning why 4? I am also making similar selection. Your reasoning can help me decide better. Thanks

 

am old school - no replacement for displacement.

 

will consider 1 to 3 only if its min 1.4 turbo.

[inlinesix]

am old school - no replacement for displacement.

 

will consider 1 to 3 only if its min 1.4 turbo.

 

That's why

half cut V12 FTW

[merc280v6]

That's why

half cut V12 FTW

Half-cut V12 ... yesss Edited August 24, 2016 by merc280v6

[inlinesix]

Half-cut V12 ... yesss

[Contipro]

would like to share good explanation of downsized engine with turbo not so efficiency.

(mainly depend on the boost level designed by car manufacturer)

 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9aO2vC_iMTI&index=22&t=1s&list=WL

 

 

and how Mazda address to this issue:

 

But hoping they development smaller cc with same technologies considering high road tax cost in Singapore.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nxVOyL4r7Qc&index=23&list=WL

 

 

happy watching.... Cheers !!

Edited August 15, 2018 by Contipro