View Single Post
Old 09-01-2016, 01:13 AM   #12 (permalink)
pgfpro
In Lean Burn Mode
 
pgfpro's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Pacific NW
Posts: 1,543

MisFit Talon - '91 Eagle Talon TSi
Team Turbocharged!
90 day: 63.95 mpg (US)

Warlock - '71 Chevy Camaro

Fe Eclipse - '97 Mitsubishi Eclipse GS
Thanks: 1,301
Thanked 597 Times in 386 Posts
This might help answer your question.

I have installed around 10 turbo systems on N/A Honda engines. I did not change anything on the engines. Completely stock. These were just bolt on turbo kits and before the larger injectors, stronger heaver clutch and engine management were added the engines got the same fuel mileage as they did N/A at light load and freeway driving. The exhaust back pressure did not hurt fuel mileage at these loads. In fact I measure on two different engines that the turbo back pressure decreased at light load verses N/A because the exhaust system pipe diameter increased from 1.5 to 2.5". So there is no reason to install a exhaust cut out to bypass the turbo at light load.

As others have already said when you see two types of engines of the same family one N/A verses one turbo there's a reason the turbo engine gets poorer fuel mileage.
Lower compression.
Heavy duty internals and drivetrain two handle the HP at high load.
Fuel enrichment to keep detonation suppressed because of the uneducated car buyer.
etc.
__________________
Pressure Gradient Force
The Positive Side of the Number Line


Last edited by pgfpro; 09-01-2016 at 01:22 AM..
  Reply With Quote
The Following 4 Users Say Thank You to pgfpro For This Useful Post:
Daox (09-01-2016), Daschicken (02-23-2017), MetroMPG (09-01-2016), Xist (09-01-2016)