Even I was under the same impression till some time ago. In layman terms, a turbo engine tries to reuse the blown out air in the first go and reuse it as a second attempt but more air needs more fuel to be combined to generate power. If you aim to achieve high power keep the power (PS/bhp) as constant, a turbo engine might(or might not) lead to better FE but if you keep engine size constant it probably reduces FE (giving more power) and yes the engine Tata would keep them same as Tiago. You see most petrol engines 1.2L are claiming FE >20kmpl but even 1L Turbo petrol engines claim FE around 19kmpl (ecosport). What I found is that it reduces FE if you keep the engine size constant. Also adding a Turbo is more effective to a diesel engine compared to a gasoline one.
In a well-designed & integrated turbo set-up, air mass-flow rate is increased, fuel consumption also increases. But the two rates (in sync) favour a raised SFOC (spec. fuel oil cons.) upto an optimum level, beyond which obviously, design parameters go out of the window!.
You are right in that diesels lend themselves very well to t/charging because of their particular combustion characteristics (lower flame-front propagation speeds being a major consideration). This allows for far more accurate injection mapping (piezo-electrics are a great boon here) and gives fine control of fuel consumption, trying to stay within the optimum band as much as possible. Also, turbo-lag can be better minimized by choosing the optimum t/ch - with the lightest pyrometric materials and the lowest rotor inertia.
I guess the problem arises with the ultra small (1.0 L or <) t/charged gasoline engines (Eco-boost or similar) where the demands of optimum performance/max. FE, in the smallest package, leads to strange parameters! Is it any wonder that no one takes the ARAI figures seriously - except of course the mfrs themselves!
Last edited: