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
2/5/2013 8:53:17 PM
Vehicle weight and the torque output and torque curve are more important than pure HP numbers. If an engine gets more torque at a low rpm near what you are cruising at than another then that engine can be geared to produce better mileage.
I had an old 2.3L I4 Mustang that got worse mileage than most 5.0L V8 models. The little engine just did not have the power and had to be geared much lower just to move the car. Another way to think about it is displacement versus operating rpm. A 1.6L engine operating at 5000rpm displaces the same volume of air/fuel as a 2.67L engine operating at 3000 rpm. Given that stoichiometrically you get the same amount of energy from the same amount of fuel/air(minus the minor efficiency differences) then you should get the same mileage from a 1.6L engine running 5000rpm to achieve 70mph as you would from a 2.67L engine running at 3000 rpm to achieve 70mpg. Both of those engines are consuming 4000L of fuel/air mixture per minute running at the respective 5000 and 3000 rpm and 4000L will have the same BTUs produced in each engine.
Now where you can make one engine better than the other is in the design of the leverage in the piston/crankshaft geometry to gain more torque at lower rpm so that your gearing can be higher(lower ratio)at the final drive axle. If you can't manage to get the torque needed at a low enough rpm on the little turbo I4 it will not beat the mileage of a larger engine that can.
This is why I like the 4.9L I6 in my truck over the 5.0L V8 because the I6 has much more torque at lower rpm. While I can not rev the engine up over 5K rpm and smoke the tires, I can be in 5th gear by the time I am at 30mph without bogging the engine down. Long stroke inlines for low end torque, short stroke engines for higher rpm horsepower. Both have their uses and their detriments.
"We don't know how to make a $500 computer that's not a piece of junk." -- Apple CEO Steve Jobs
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
Ford, Toyota, and Universal Pictures Celebrate "Back to the Future Day' in Style
October 21, 2015, 4:19 PM
Consumer Reports Flexes Muscle, Hits Slumping Tesla Motors Stock
October 20, 2015, 4:13 PM
Debunked: Beneath the Lies, Nigerian "Pee Generator" Is Still Pissing Into the Wind
October 19, 2015, 7:53 PM
Hot Air? President Obama, G7 Pledge to Eliminate Most Fossil Fuel Use by 2100
June 8, 2015, 5:40 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
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 2016 DailyTech LLC. -
Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information