Consumer Reports: Small Turbo Engines Don't Meet Efficiency Claims
February 5, 2013 9:29 AM
comment(s) - last by
Not all small turbo engines are more fuel-efficient says Consumer Reports
isn't letting up on its testing of fuel efficiency claims for various vehicles. According to the publication, small turbocharged engines aren't delivering on the fuel efficiency claims by the manufacturers.
Small displacement turbocharged engines have become common in a variety of vehicles in place of larger displacement, naturally aspirated engines. The claim by the automotive manufacturers is that the small displacement turbocharged engines offer the same power as larger displacement engines and improved fuel efficiency.
however, states that in its real world testing many vehicles with turbocharged engines aren't as efficient as the manufacturers claim. The publication recently tested the
1.6-liter EcoBoost in a Ford Fusion
and found that the turbocharged version has a slower 0-to-60 mph time than its competitors and achieved only 25 mpg in testing, making it among the worst for fuel efficiency in the recent crop of family sedans.
The publication also claims that the larger 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder, which promises the power of the V-6 with the fuel economy of four-cylinder engine, fails to deliver on either front.
2013 Ford Fusion
Chevrolet is also under fire for the 1.4-liter turbo four-cylinder in the Cruze.
claims that real world performance wasn’t much better than the standard, naturally aspirated 1.8-liter engine and overall fuel economy was similar as well.
Ford and General Motors representatives offered similar statements explaining the discrepancy. "When you have an EcoBoost engine, you have the opportunity to have performance and fuel economy, but not at the same time,” said Ford Powertrain Communications Manager Richard Truett. “EcoBoost adds a dimension that you won't get by just making the engine smaller. We're telling the driver, it's up to you on how you want to drive."
"The Cruze turbocharged engine provides a much broader torque curve than a non-turbocharged engine, and that means better acceleration across the rpm range, making for a more fun-to-drive car,” said GM spokesman Tom Read. “However, if you have a heavy foot on a turbocharged engine, you're not necessarily going to see a lot of fuel economy benefits."
The EPA is going to
and other owners have complained that fuel efficiency doesn't meet the automakers claims in the Fusion Hybrid and C-MAX.
This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled
Is it just me...
2/5/2013 10:02:42 AM
Or is this mostly common sense? The main reason, as far as I know, for using turbo chargers on smaller engines, was so you could have the higher performance if you needed it, along with the better gas mileage, when you didn't need the better performance. I have yet to talk to anybody with an EcoBoost (including the one in the Fusion) that hasn't liked them. Sure, they might not get the gas mileage that a non-turbo engine gets, but they are a lot more fun to drive - at the cost of fuel economy.
You can drive your little non-turbo 4 banger like it is a dragster and get mediocre gas mileage, too. But it won't compare to the drive a turbo charged engine will give you.
I think the bottom line is that these types of engines are marketed to the person that wants more power but doesn't want a vehicle that gets 10 miles to the gallon. Or doesn't want to put diesel in the tank at $4.00+ per gallon, though that might net you better fuel economy in the long run.
I had a 97 Ford Explorer with a 5.0 V8 that I could get almost 20 MPG with, and a 2007 F150 that wouldn't get more than 15 MPG no matter how I drove it. Now I have an 09 Escape with a 3.0L V6 that I can get almost 30 MPG on the highway if I'm careful how I drive. Or I can drive it like crazy and get 20 MPG. But it is pretty light weight if you compare it to some of the vehicles that they put smaller engines with turbos in. (Read: Ford F150, 6' Bed SuperCrew @ 5,731 lbs curb weight)
Just my 2 cents.
Curb weight source:
"Well, there may be a reason why they call them 'Mac' trucks! Windows machines will not be trucks." -- Microsoft CEO Steve Ballmer
EPA Ready to Investigate Ford C-Max, Fusion Hybrid Fuel Economy Claims
January 15, 2013, 9:44 AM
Ford's 2013 Fusion Hybrid Clobbers the Competition, Delivers 47 MPG City/44 MPG Highway
January 8, 2012, 11:34 PM
Study Predicts Self-Driving Vehicles Could Rake in Billions
March 6, 2015, 8:34 AM
Dual-Motor Tesla Model S P85D's "Insane Mode" Shocks Passengers
January 28, 2015, 11:18 PM
2016 Cadillac CTS-V Packs 640 hp Punch with 200 mph Reach
January 23, 2015, 3:25 PM
BMW Testing Tech to Allow Users to Auto-Park, Summon Cars Via Smartwatch
December 16, 2014, 9:30 AM
Lamborghini Offers Up $6,000 Leather-Bound Android Smartphone
December 12, 2014, 3:12 PM
Quick Note: GM Teases Next Generation Chevrolet Volt
November 20, 2014, 3:26 PM
Most Popular Articles
WSJ Report Implies That Google Leveraged Lobbying to Kill Antitrust Abuse Probe
March 25, 2015, 5:37 PM
Food Chemists at Italy's Barilla Claim to Have Perfect Instant Noodles w/out Frying
March 26, 2015, 4:25 PM
NVIDIA's Latest Windows 10 Drivers: Still Too Unstable For Primetime
March 24, 2015, 4:45 PM
Google Readies Gmail "Pony Express" to Combat Facebook's Messenger Payments
March 25, 2015, 11:43 AM
Apple CEO's Pledge to Give Away His Fortune is Worth More Than Face Value
March 27, 2015, 5:08 PM
Latest Blog Posts
Sceptre Airs 27", 120 Hz. 1080p Monitor/HDTV w/ 5 ms Response Time for $220
Dec 3, 2014, 10:32 PM
Costco Gives Employees Thanksgiving Off; Wal-Mart Leads "Black Thursday" Charge
Oct 29, 2014, 9:57 PM
"Bear Selfies" Fad Could Turn Deadly, Warn Nevada Wildlife Officials
Oct 28, 2014, 12:00 PM
The Surface Mini That Was Never Released Gets "Hands On" Treatment
Sep 26, 2014, 8:22 AM
ISIS Imposes Ban on Teaching Evolution in Iraq
Sep 17, 2014, 5:22 PM
More Blog Posts
Copyright 2015 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information