http://www.motortrend.com/news/2017-hon ... D00524E5AD
The data in the article supports that when the turbo is in use (like accelerating in city traffic), it is hard to sip fuel. It also supports that in light loads, like highway driving, MPG is good because the turbo is not in use.
Case in point: The CR-V with the 1.5L turbo got a "Real MPG" score of 21.9 mpg city. A CR-V with 2.4L N/A engine did 21.8 mpg city. Maybe more importantly for the article, the city rating of the AWD turbo CR-V was 27. That's a huge difference.
However, the highway mpg of the 1.5L is considerably higher, with Real MPG scores of 34.2 for the turbo and 28.2 for the 2.4L. As such, the combined figure for the turbo is 1.8 mpg higher. Certainly not as big of a difference as you maybe would expect.