TriShield

CONSUMER REPORTS TESTS FIND MANY SMALL TURBO ENGINES FALL SHORT ON PERFORMANCE AND FUEL ECONOMY PROMISES



Fuel Economy, Acceleration No Better than in Conventional Powertrains

YONKERS, NY ― Although small turbocharged engines are marketed as delivering the power of a larger engine, with the fuel economy of a smaller one, Consumer Reports tests have found that most fall short of expectations. Many turbocharged cars tested by CR have slower acceleration and no better fuel economy than the models with larger, more conventional engines.

"While these engines may look better on paper with impressive EPA numbers, in reality they are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines," said Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports.

Consumer Reports tests many cars with small, turbocharged engines, and many of their competitors with traditional, naturally aspirated engines, big and small. Based on the EPA fuel-economy estimates, which are calculated based on laboratory tests, some of these cars' turbocharged engines look better than their rivals or larger engines available on the same vehicle. But CR's engineers found those results don't always translate to the real world driving and in Consumer Reports' own fuel economy tests.

The latest example of underperforming small turbocharged engines is the collection of 2013 Ford Fusions with EcoBoost engines – small, turbocharged four-cylinders with direct injection –which were recently tested by Consumer Reports. The smallest engine – a turbocharged 1.6-liter producing 173 hp – is a $795 option over the basic conventional 2.5-liter four on Fusion SE models. But that car's 0-60 mph acceleration time trails the 2.5-liter four as well as most competitive family sedans, and it delivers just 25 mpg, placing it among the worst of the crop of recently-redesigned family sedans.

The most direct comparison among the vehicles Consumer Reports has tested is the Chevrolet Cruze. CR tested both a Cruze with the base 1.8-liter conventional four-cylinder, and one with the smaller 1.4-liter turbocharged four. While the 1.4-liter feels marginally more powerful in daily driving, it was barely faster to 60 mph, and returned the same fuel economy as the larger engine.

The Hyundai Sonata Turbo, Kia Sportage Turbo, and Ford Escape 2.0T are examples of cars with turbocharged four cylinder engines that are less fuel efficient than V6 models in the same class, Consumer Reports found.

Consumer Reports has also found some turbocharged four-cylinder models that do deliver good fuel economy and acceleration: BMW's new 2.0-liter turbocharged four gets 28 mpg in the new 328i Sedan and delivered improved mileage in the 2012 X3 SUV by one mpg, with essentially identical power and acceleration. Volkswagens using that company's 2.0-liter turbo also return impressive mileage, though CR hasn't tested any model variations with other engines that are directly comparable.

Consumer Reports notes that turbochargers pump extra air into the engine to deliver more power. But gasoline engines have to be operated at a very specific air-to-fuel ratio. So this extra air has to be augmented with extra fuel, which may offset any savings from shrinking engine sizes.

The full report can be found online at ConsumerReports.org.

Consumer Reports is the world's largest independent product-testing organization. Using its more than 50 labs, auto test center, and survey research center, the nonprofit rates thousands of products and services annually. Founded in 1936, Consumer Reports has over 8 million subscribers to its magazine, website and other publications. Its advocacy division, Consumers Union, works for health reform, product safety, financial reform, and other consumer issues in Washington, D.C., the states, and in the marketplace.

justin455

Not so surprising if you know an engine works. You have to feed horses, not cubes.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

IMO it's their driving. Consumer auto reports always gets insanely low MPGs on their tests, I think they are constantly beating on them when they do these tests. If you beat the hell out of two cars with 300hp, both are going to use roughly the same amount of gas. If you try to get good gas mileage out of both the I4T is going to beat out the V6/V8.

tjwashow

iTrader: (2)

This is interesting

Marc 85Z28

iTrader: (8)

This is only a small part of the problem.

This is incredibly ignorant. You should be posting comments on youtube videos, not on an automotive enthusiast forum.

-Ross-

iTrader: (2)

A lady I work with has a brand new turbo 2.0 BMW 328i. It shuts completely off when you come to a stop. I see consumer reports failed to note that.

Z Fury

iTrader: (1)

My only experience is with the fiance's 2012 Tiguan with the 2.0T engine. It does damn well for what it is, in my opinion. Rated at 200hp/208tq and 21/27 mpgs, I am constantly beating the highway average without even trying. Setting the cruise at 70mph we get between 28 and 31 mpg, depending on wind, traffic, hills, etc. Flat stretch with minimal wind we get 30 consistently. Power-wise, it is plenty powerful for the driving we do in it. We didn't buy it to be a street racing champion.

Tainted

iTrader: (9)

I never understood the gutless *** small engines. more power and torque and mpg with a regular engine. but nooooooo I guess that 1-3mpg difference is THAT important to the world

metalmilitia606

iTrader: (8)

They're also testing full size cars with small engines of course they will get bad mpg's. It's just like my blazer. The ol 4.3 struggles pulling it around when I am going uphill or trying to pass. Even when my dad bought it brand new in 01 it was underpowered. I feel like these turbo motors would be great in small cars, but a sedan like a Fusion I feel like they will struggle and these tests are proving it.

deft

iTrader: (7)

I'm not aware of any turbo 4 in a full size vehicle that makes particularly interesting fuel economy numbers.

I have a 17 year old 4000 lb buick that averages around 23 mpg on a 6 cylinder supercharged engine making around 240 hp. It seems we haven't come very far in 17 years.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

Ok, care to back that up with anything at all? All other things being equal, an I4T is going to beat a N/A V6 or V8 9/10 times when it comes to MPG. But when you drive like an *******, like the Consumer Auto report guys seem to do when getting "average" MPG ratings for cars, the gas mileage isn't going to be any better.

Marc 85Z28

iTrader: (8)

You cannot base an engine's fuel consumption solely rated on power output, and then use that to compare two different engines of similar output. Even in the same chassis there is little to no difference in fuel economy in real world examples of this. Very small displacement engines are at a SEVERE torque disadvantage which requires higher RPM and aggressive gearing to produce acceptable drivability. Couple a complete lack of torque and the necessary quick spooling turbo and the paper milage falls off a cliff. A bigger engine producing far more torque (especially at low RPM) that can be geared mildly will produce similar if not better milage. Of course mild mannered driving will result in mid 30ish MPG in a small displacement midsize sedan. But the same driving will result in 30+ MPG in a 505HP 427" sports car!

jimmy169

They market highway mpg so people look at that and add city and divide by two and then are dumbfounded when they see it doesn't work that way, so they complain and are now doing class action lawsuits. First Hyundai, now autoblog reports it may happen to ford.

http://www.autoblog.com/2013/03/01/f...in-california/

Frankly, I'm glad, but I doubt it'll change a thing because some higher up will do the math and see that it still makes financial sense to miss lead the public and keep trying to squeak out that extra highway mile. One car claims 40 highway mpg, all of a sudden one version of every model is capable of 40 high way mpg.

gocartone

iTrader: (4)

So how am I the ignorant one when you clearly have no idea of the torque output on a turbo four? They make a lot more low end torque than a V6 does.

ThisBlood147

I'm all for turbo-6's used as an alternative to V8's (in certain car classes), but I can't say I like the idea of replacing 6 cyl powered mid size cars and light SUV's with turbo 4's. The ppl who really WANT that fuel economy out of their mid-sizers can get it with a standard NA 4 cyl optioned model. If they want more power, they can get it from an NA 6 cyl powered model. You're not going to find hardly anyone out there that is going to want both...not from something in these market segments. I agree, the turbo 4's just seem like a marketing ploy to me.

IMO, turbo 4's belong in the realm of sporty hatchbacks and small coupe's....and ONLY there.

HioSSilver

iTrader: (8)

Just to put your mileage into perspective my Camaro was rated @ 19 and 28. I have scored a best of 29.1 out of it......and it runs 11.0 @ 131....lol and still gets those mpg's.

MI-Z/28

I've never seen 29mpg on the highway, but I regularly see 27-28mpg highway and 22mpg combined in my car. This is why I love the F-body. With bolt ons it's plenty capable in the performance department on the street and can get close to 30mpg on the highway. The new Camaros really are bricks going down the road. They don't do much better than trucks for mpg. I understand hardcore performance enthusiasts don't care about mpg, but I enjoy driving my car every day during the summer so mpg is important to me.

Marc 85Z28

iTrader: (8)

ONLY when in boost, which completely negates the "efficiency" of the smaller displacement.

Furthermore, part throttle low RPM torque output has little to do with what you are referring to as torque.

Johnnystock

iTrader: (6)

I just saw a guy with a 25.5mpg average on Camaro5 5mins ago. The car is a bolton auto 2010 SS. FYI..

Not too bad.

Hardrvin

iTrader: (1)

You're actually pretty close. Kudos.

To go a speed or accelerate at a give rate, you need to out in a certain amount of work.

Now its just a question of how efficiently you do that work. So whats the total volumetric efficiency of the package.

They did fail to point out that a lot of the turbo setups like premium fuel and down the road maintanence costs tend to be higher.