The tricks up my sleeve... Methods I may implement for better FE.

[omgwtfbyobbq]

Originally Posted by DrivenByNothing

When comparing the mileage of factory N/A vehicles with factory forced induction vehicles, one must realize that cars are manufactured to appeal to a certain demographic of people. The group that buys sporty cars puts performance above fuel economy (for the most part).

That's the great part about the EPA highway test. It's consistent! So, given the same car, one with a NA engine, and another with a turbocharged version of the same engine and a taller transmission, on the same test. It's evident imo, that the turbocharged engine is less efficient than the NA engine if it gets worse mileage, because it's over the same test, in the same car, with the same engine, and a slightly more efficient transmission ratio. The only variable I can think of would be the ECU, but I'm pretty sure that's the same for both, since all cars have to keep the AFR at 14.7:1 during normal driving unless they're lean burn, diesel, or hybrid iirc. I'm not trying to knock your ideas. I'm just saying that imo, turbocharging a NA engine, designed for less power, and running it lean isn't the best for efficiency and reliability. It's cheaper to get a larger displacement engine and gear it down if you want power and efficiency at some speed. That way, you don't have to worry about replacing the engine in the first place.

Originally Posted by SVOboy

VW uses diesel where Honda is new to the market (but then VW's diesels are the dirtiest things on the road, and Honda's late entry into the diesel market should differ substantially on this point).

Both Honda and VW offer sedans that are in the Euro IV emissions category... How is this a substantial difference?