Which consumes more fuel, 1.6T or 2.0L?

[EmersynRose]

It depends on the road conditions. When driving in urban areas, the 2.0L engine consumes slightly more fuel than the 1.6T engine. However, on highways, the difference in fuel consumption between the two is minimal. In city traffic jams, smaller-displacement turbocharged models tend to be more fuel-efficient than naturally aspirated ones. But when maintaining the same power output on highways, without considering other external factors, their fuel consumption is similar. Turbocharged engines save fuel to some extent because they reduce pumping losses, allowing for direct air intake. Simply put, they minimize the power wasted during the cylinder's downward stroke when drawing in air. The maximum power and torque of a 2.0L naturally aspirated engine are comparable to those of a 1.6T turbocharged engine. The 2.0L naturally aspirated engine offers smoother acceleration without the abruptness of turbocharging and generally has quicker initial acceleration than a 1.6T. However, on highways, turbocharged engines still deliver better power. The 2.0L naturally aspirated engine outperforms the 1.6T and 2.0T in terms of control, fuel efficiency, and failure rate, with lower repair and maintenance costs.