If you ask me overall cost the turbo is higher.

Turbo - more components = more time to assembly = more cost

N/A - less components = less time to assembly = less cost

Wrong, if you always step on the fuel pedal like maniac turbocharge engine will also consume fuel a lot higher and besides that turbocharge engine also will not last longer compare to NA due to more heat & pressure generated compare to N/A engine.
Turbocharge engine can only save fuel when driven like RPM 3000 below without full boost, but how many drivers can so discipline their feet all the time.

This post has been edited by littlefire: Aug 8 2019, 03:48 PM

Bro, raw material cost for turbo engine cost way more as the turbo itself already cost few thousand, while the raw material casting/machining cost for the 1.5 engine is way less compare to that turbo.
Usually material & machining cost itself only cost extra few hundred max. You must need to calculate the assembly cost also, more parts mean more time to assembly the engine up and this also add cost.

Doing manufacturing is not easy as seeing small cc engine must be cheap overall. If too much time spend on assembly and expensive components also will add up more cost. If not why turbocharge model line usually cost more compare to N/A engine? Take example 1.8L Civic is still cheaper compare to 1.5T civic model. You can argue about more accesories for 1.5T, but those extra stuff do you think cost so much compare to like engine cost?