Print 64 comment(s) - last by theapparition.. on Feb 11 at 10:53 AM

Not all small turbo engines are more fuel-efficient says Consumer Reports

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.

Consumer Reports, 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. Consumer Reports 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 investigate Ford after Consumer Reports and other owners have complained that fuel efficiency doesn't meet the automakers claims in the Fusion Hybrid and C-MAX.

Source: Consumer Reports

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

RE: Common Knowledge
By Reclaimer77 on 2/5/2013 11:38:07 AM , Rating: 3
No this is NOT "common knowledge" because the average person in this country is a retard. They think car makers can magically deliver insane MPG without having to compromise on anything. Because Obama, or the EPA, or the news lady said so.

Just more evidence of how are committing national suicide by regulating our manufacturing base into extinction. The Government doesn't seem to understand that fuel economy is not the primary factor to the average car buyer. They still have to make cars that people WANT TO BUY so they can make a profit.

RE: Common Knowledge
By Labotomizer on 2/5/2013 1:50:13 PM , Rating: 2
because the average person in this country is a retard.

Amazingly accurate statement there. The reason there is such a huge need to stretch MPG in the first place is because of the ridiculous CAFE regulations. I understand wanting companies to offer more fuel efficient models, although that should be chosen by consumer demand and not government regulations, but to say "Your average across your fleet must be XX" is insane. Some people NEED high powered vehicles. Some people just WANT them and are okay with paying for it at the pump. My friend who just bought the 2013 GT 500 knows full well he's going to pay for more gas. But he can easily afford it, so he should have that option. The way things are going we won't much longer. It's sad.

Of course, who cares if we ruin the auto industry. The government is here to fund them and make sure everything is okay.

RE: Common Knowledge
By Jeffk464 on 2/6/2013 10:31:46 AM , Rating: 2
MPG has had an impact on car buying. People are choosing 4cyl sedans over the v6 engines in much larger number and crossovers are pretty much replacing mid sized truck based SUV's.

RE: Common Knowledge
By Reclaimer77 on 2/6/2013 11:04:04 AM , Rating: 1
I never said it wasn't a factor. I just said it wasn't a "primary" concern. If it was, hybrids would be accounting for WAY more than the ~6% of sales they do now.

One could just as easily say the trends you've brought up have more to do with the economy sucking balls for the past 5 years, and massive consumer uncertainty, than fuel economy as well.

RE: Common Knowledge
By Jeffk464 on 2/6/2013 9:21:41 PM , Rating: 2
Gas prices, gas prices, gas prices. :)
I bought my v6 tacoma prerunner back when gas was around $2.50, given current trends I would never buy a vehicle with that kind of mileage now. And my Tacoma could be worse 18-19 in the city and 25ish on the interstate with cruise on.

"There is a single light of science, and to brighten it anywhere is to brighten it everywhere." -- Isaac Asimov

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki