Which consumes more fuel, 1.6T or 2.0L?

[LaOscar]

When driving on urban roads, the 2.0L engine consumes more fuel than the 1.6T engine. However, at high speeds, the difference in fuel consumption between the two is minimal. In city traffic jams, turbocharged models with smaller displacements are more fuel-efficient than naturally aspirated ones. But when driving on highways and requiring the same power output, if only the engine is considered without other external factors, the fuel consumption is the same. Turbocharged engines are somewhat more fuel-efficient because they reduce pumping losses, allowing for direct air intake. Simply put, they minimize the power wasted during the process of the cylinder descending and drawing in air. The maximum power and torque of a 2.0L naturally aspirated engine are similar to those of a 1.6T turbocharged engine. The 2.0L naturally aspirated engine lacks the abrupt sensation of turbocharging, offering linear acceleration and generally faster starts than the 1.6T. However, on highways, the turbocharged engine still delivers better power. The 2.0L naturally aspirated engine performs better in terms of control, fuel consumption, and failure rates compared to the 1.6T and 2.0T, and it also has lower repair and maintenance costs.