Which is more fuel-efficient, 'l' or 't'?

[ZacharyDella]

Generally speaking, for engines of the same displacement, turbocharged engines are more fuel-efficient than naturally aspirated engines, meaning that choosing 't' over 'l' when buying a car will save more fuel. Below are the structure and common faults of turbochargers: Structure of a turbocharger: The turbocharging system in gasoline engines consists of two main parts: the turbocharger and the intercooler. The turbocharger compresses the air, and the intercooler cools the compressed air. The turbocharger itself is composed of the turbine housing and the compressor. Common faults of turbochargers: Low boost pressure, which refers to the boost pressure being below 90% of the normal value compared to standard conditions. Low boost pressure reduces the charge in the cylinders, leading not only to a decrease in diesel engine power but also to a deterioration of the combustion process inside the cylinders, resulting in increased fuel consumption and higher exhaust temperatures.

[SanJace]

I've driven many cars before, including naturally aspirated L-type and turbocharged T-type engines. In my experience, T-type engines are usually more fuel-efficient because they can generate high power with small displacement and consume less fuel at idle, especially in traffic jams where the effect is noticeable. However, during rapid acceleration or frequent stop-and-go driving, the T-type might consume more fuel, making it less smooth and economical compared to the L-type. It also depends on the vehicle weight and your driving habits—I usually drive a T-type car for commuting in the city and found the fuel consumption to be about 15%-20% lower than my previous L-type. Although maintenance costs are higher, it's generally cost-effective. When choosing a car, consider your usage—for example, opt for a T-type for long-distance trips and an L-type for city driving to save money. Don’t forget that regular maintenance of tires and air filters can also help save on fuel costs.

[MacElaina]

I've been driving for many years and have experience with various engines. Turbocharged (T) engines indeed have an advantage in fuel efficiency, especially during high-speed cruising where they provide ample power with low fuel consumption. However, in short city trips, the delayed turbo engagement at startup can sometimes result in slightly higher fuel consumption compared to naturally aspirated (L) engines. Maintenance-wise, T engines have components like the turbocharger that are prone to damage and can be costly to repair. I believe fuel efficiency isn't just about the engine type; driving habits such as maintaining a steady speed and avoiding sudden braking play a significant role. Personally, I prefer T cars, but in congested areas, L engines are more durable. When choosing a car, don't just rely on specifications—test drive it yourself to get a real sense of the fuel consumption.

[SanAlex]

I pay more attention to vehicle performance, and the difference between T and L is obvious. Turbocharging (T) can improve power efficiency and reduce fuel consumption through pressurization, offering significant fuel-saving advantages on small-displacement vehicles. Naturally aspirated (L) engines have a simpler structure, with more stable but slightly higher fuel consumption. From practical experience, driving a T-car with light throttle input results in lower fuel consumption, while aggressive acceleration leads to higher consumption. T performs better in environmental tests, reducing emissions and conserving resources. I think the fuel consumption gap between the two isn't very large, and technological advancements have made T the mainstream choice. Fuel efficiency still depends on driving habits and maintenance.