hoodlum
Senior Member
- Joined
- Oct 17, 2015
- Threads
- 8
- Messages
- 173
- Reaction score
- 155
- Location
- Toronto Canada
- Vehicle(s)
- Saturn Astra
- Thread starter
- #1
C&D just posted a comparison of the Turbo and NA fuel economy. It looks like they are about the same on average (40mpg). Since the turbo does better at a steady speed, the NA must be offsetting that with better results in stop and go.
http://blog.caranddriver.com/a-tale-of-two-honda-civics-turbo-vs-non-turbo-fuel-economy/
"On a 300-mile loop of mixed highway, rural, and urban driving, the cars proved equally frugal by averaging 40 mpg. Digging deeper, we measured the steady-speed fuel consumption of the two Civics. Some of our results are astounding, such as the 50-plus-mpg both Civics achieve at 55 mph. The turbo wins across speeds ranging from 30 to 90 mph, with a 6-mpg advantage between 40 and 55 mph."
http://blog.caranddriver.com/a-tale-of-two-honda-civics-turbo-vs-non-turbo-fuel-economy/
"On a 300-mile loop of mixed highway, rural, and urban driving, the cars proved equally frugal by averaging 40 mpg. Digging deeper, we measured the steady-speed fuel consumption of the two Civics. Some of our results are astounding, such as the 50-plus-mpg both Civics achieve at 55 mph. The turbo wins across speeds ranging from 30 to 90 mph, with a 6-mpg advantage between 40 and 55 mph."
Sponsored