Which Method is less Fuel Consuming?

[richardtan]

Hell Experts,

I am keen to find out which method has more fuel consumption:

1. increase hp with supercharger by about 50 hp or less.
2. increase hp with larger engine by the same/ similar amount. Stock unadulterated , Naturally Aspirated engine.

Lets assuming scenarios under normal conditions/situations and both using the same car to test. Also, lets not compare the cost of the solutions as I think obviously option 1 is cheaper than 2, assuming a new engine for the replacement. Such engines may not exist. So, this is theoretical comparison. Please bear with me.

For both methods of hp gain, more fuel is consumed , compared to the original engine.

So, can someone advise which method consumes more fuel ?

If this comparison is not possible, please advise as well. I am kinda new to automobiles.

Have a nice day

Best Regards
Richard

 

[jeffayn]

the purpose of supercharge is to increase the amount of energy where the NA does not able to get it out anymore.... so the diesel car are mostly equipped with turbo. But to compensate for the extra squeeze, it need to feed on more fuel.....

so technically speaking for a petrol car, a turbo unit will tend likely to have higher fc...

but in diesel powered, the turbo will actually help it to get the work done more faster and more efficiently, so a turbo charge diesel is actually less fc than a non charge unit...

this problem is not mere just a simple 1+1 =2 ... its all come down to earth, its play time....

 

[papagoines]

maybe this might help
http://autospeed.com/cms/A_110597/article.html


Bump: maybe this might help
http://autospeed.com/cms/A_110597/article.html