Turbo engines can, in theory, work more efficiently, as you can get more fuel/air into the engine per combustion cycle.
However, the problem is the enrichment, which results in much worse economy when on boost.
My car is a turbo, and I have made pretty good fuel savings. I would say go for it, but you would need a wideband Lambda sensor in order to avoid the enrichment (it happens a lot earlier on turbos, I think), and a SuperMID would also be good!.
The smaller the turbo the better as it can help get more torque - my boost goes above 0 at 900-1000rpm, for example
__________________ Team GasMisers5 - #1 for first three rounds of the original GS Fuel Economy Challenge
Miles displaced by e-bike since 1 Jan 2008: 62.6 (0 kWh used)
I have heard turbos can boost efficiency, by using the "lost" energy going out the tailpipe, to help push the pistons. Naturally aspired engines have to act as vacuum pumps, every intake stroke slows the engine. In practice, though, most turbo'ed engines are tuned for power, at high RPM. When you step on it, it just crams more air/fuel than a N/A engine.
Isn't there someone on here with an Eagle Talon turbo? with 50 mpg
85 Chevrolet. 30 MPG or bust!