Turbo vs No turbo – The most fuel-efficient option

An engine that is turbocharged will generally be lighter on fuel and more powerful than an equivalent motor that lacks forced induction.

A turbocharger is an effective way for manufacturers to get more grunt out of their motors without sacrificing fuel consumption and displacement to do so, and particularly at the more affordable end of the market where frugality is a big concern, a handful of automakers have started to offer entry-level cars with both turbocharged and naturally-aspirated (NA) powertrains.

A turbo artificially feeds compressed air into an engine by channeling exhaust gas that would otherwise go to waste into the combustion chambers allowing it to burn the liquid more completely, subsequently generating more performance from the small engine.

In comparison, an equivalent NA configuration relies on ambient air pressure to trigger combustion.

The more efficient option

Detailed in the below tables are 10 popular vehicles which fall into the affordable camp and are sold in both NA and turbocharged forms.

In six cases, the turbocharged option reported a lower fuel consumption, in three it made no difference, and in one it raised the reading.

However, the turbo models always enjoy greater performance figures – up to 47% more power and 74% more torque – without pushing up fuel usage by nearly as much as a larger NA powerplant would have done.

Since turbocharged cars are much pricier to get into, the main question is therefore whether the extra spend is worth the additional capabilities and fewer trips to the filling station.

VW Polo Vivo

Ford EcoSport

Kia Sonet

Nissan Magnite

Renault Kiger

Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross

Chery Tiggo 4 Pro

Hyundai Venue

Peugeot 208

Opel Crossland