What's the difference between a car with turbocharger and a car without turbocharger? Which fuel consumption is high?

The advantages of turbochargers have traditionally been:

First, fuel economy: there is no doubt about it. Especially the comprehensive road conditions.

Second, relevant preferential policies: because of the reduction of emissions, vehicle and vessel use fees, purchase taxes, etc. Small displacement turbocars are relatively cheaper than large displacement self-priming.

Third, conform to the global trend of pursuing environmental protection: In recent years, German troika (BMW, Mercedes-Benz, Audi) have replaced their main models with turbines, especially BMW, and the classic BMW inline six-cylinder engine has been replaced with a four-cylinder N20 2.0T engine.

But the disadvantages of turbocharger are:

First, the turbine burns oil.

Second, the maintenance cost of turbine cars is very high.

Third, turbocharged cars are not more fuel-efficient than naturally aspirated models. Compared with naturally aspirated vehicles with the same displacement, turbocharged vehicles consume less fuel, but their power is much better than naturally aspirated vehicles. Therefore, in comparison, if the turbocharged car is more fuel-efficient than the naturally aspirated car, then the prerequisite for the comparison is the same engine power, that is, the engine power is almost the same, and the displacement of the 2.0T car corresponding to the naturally aspirated car must be 2.5L or even 3.0L, so the fuel-saving effect of the turbocharged car is obvious.

Fourthly, the maintenance probability of turbo cars is much higher than that of naturally aspirated models.

Fifth, turbo cars need higher oil products.