turbo

Turbos don't use fuel, all they do is pump air into cylinders. That extra air has the capacity to burn more fuel but used normally a turboed engine is more economical, unless you use the additional power/torque.

Of course they use more fuel!

Turbo's compress the air fuel mixture so you cram more of both into the combustion chamber to produce more power.

Intercoolers cool the air to make it denser so you cram more of both into the combustion chamber to produce even more power.

But in both cases you are forcing more fuel into the engine.

Gazza

Hi
If the compressions
injector pump
injectors
are not running at there best you will have excessive fuel consumption
Do u service the injectors and pump at no more than 200,oookm ????

If u fit an aftermarket turbo economy may be close to a factory turbo but most likely not the same .
If for eg its an early hilux say 2.4/2.8 with big wheels This combo is just underpowered and eventually pushes oil out the seals . The poor engine is just to overloaded . It does not help the after market kit is pushing way to much pressure to start with .

John
Some time back I had a 1980's 2.2 lit Jackaroo that came without a turbo, After a few months I got frustrated with the lack of grunt so fitted a turbo running just 7 lbs of boost.

This vehicle was run a number of times between the Gold Coast and Newcastle, and I can tell you that, provided the maximum speed was kept to within the posted speed limits, the vehicle returned exactly the same fuel figures on that run, however the turbo'd version did that run 2.5 hours quicker than the non turbo as it did not slow down on the hills. It was up to 2 gears better on hills, which translated to up to 60kph better without exceeding the posted speed limit.

The climb north from Bangalow on the highway of the day, when you had to go through the town, would slow the original vehicle to the point where 2nd gear was required, but the turbo'd version saw sufficient performance to require backing off the throttle so as not to exceed the 100km limit.

Regards
Athol

Good lord, use a spellcheck people.
The more time people spend on the net, the worse it gets it seems.

My 3l TD uses less fuel than my 2.5 injected petrol wagon did. It's also about 40% heavier.

But a litre of diesel has more energy than a litre of ULP I'm told.

It's a two tonne vehicle, unloaded, with less than sleek lines, at a near constant 105 kmh it consumes 8l per 100 kms. Not bad.

Overall it should be a little bit better if it's set up correctly because once you settle down from the excitement of buying or fitting a turbo and get back to your usual way of driving you will find you need less throttle to achieve the same or better acceleration than a non turbo and you'll do less gear changes so over all that usually equates to less fuel burn. A non turbo's fuel consumption doesn't vary a lot in general driving beach work, towing etc excluded usually only by a few litres even when driven harder than usual their pretty consistent in their fuel useage.
Now put you foot down in a turbo diesel, yes of course you'll burn more juice which would stand to reason because your launching that heavy brick at a faster rate of knots. I've had 2 non turbo and 3 turbo diesel 4WD's, the turbo diesel are nicer to drive as in ease of getting to hwy speeds faster maintaining hwy speeds there safer when overtaking vehicles quite often it can be done it can be done in 5th gear and there better in hilly areas.
With a non turbo you can improve their power, econ by fitting extractors and a larger exhaust you can feel the exhaust system/extractors wanting to make the engine rev easier and draw you up to the required speed so again less throttle required than you use to use which is a nice and a less complicated improvement but they still won't keep up with a turbo.