From the June 2016 issue
Turbochargers may be synonymous with big power and torque, but automakers have a very different motive for embracing forced induction. Smaller turbo engines fare better than naturally aspirated ones with similar performance on the EPA?s granny-like driving schedule. However, it?s not always clear if the fuel-economy advantage holds up on public roads with quicker acceleration and higher speeds.
To sniff out the real-world differences, we tested two Honda Civic sedans, each with the CVT, but one with the 174-hp turbocharged 1.5-liter four-cylinder and one with the 158-hp naturally aspirated 2.0-liter. By the EPA?s measure, the turbo Civic holds a 1-mpg edge on the highway with its 31/42-mpg ratings.
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.
To generate the power required to maintain a particular cruising speed, any engine?small or large?must pump a corresponding amount of air. With equivalent gearing, the smaller engine requires a wider throttle opening to pump the same amount of air as a larger engine. Because pumping losses are lower with wider throttle openings, a smaller engine is more efficient.

2016 ...