Quote:



I just pointed out why in the 80s the turbo'd engine would get worse mileage. Other than when in boost - a "modern" engine will make the same mileage NA as boosted when not in boost.





Your position makes no sense- The turbo motor passes Federal emissions (destroying the "dumps fuel" argument) has better intake and fueling than the N/A counterpart and yet the N/A motor gets better MPG.

The turbocharged engine WILL get worse MPG regardless of electronics for the same displacement. The exhaust restrictions alone due to the turbo will cause some loss of MPG.

Oh, and by the way? If you compare turbocharged 2.4 engine with the non-turbocharged version you will see that the non turbocharged version gets better mpg. One can assume that 2006 vintage electronics are somewhat better than what was used in 1989.

Quote:



They put more fuel to it and retarded the timing to make it work hard enough to burn the fuel at idle to pass emissions. That's just how they did it in "the old days".





You keep stating this without a shred of proof.

I have access to the code and can point out that at times the turbo engines ran as much as 54 degrees of timing at cruise. This can be confirmed with a Snap On MT 2500 scanner on an average turbo Mopar.

My point (again) is that you cannot increase mpg by adding a turbo to an engine package (which is the original intent of discussion is it not?).

Only by decreasing the displacement will you gain any mpg when adding a turbocharger. The turbocharger will allow you cruise with a "small" engine and have a "larger" engine when desirable.