Consumer Reports - New Turbocharged Four Cylinders Over Promise, Under Deliver
#41
^Exactly. I don't know what they do to get their average MPG figures, but they should state them like they are. "We averaged 30mpg with our foot to the floor 75% of the time, driving like we stole it", not "During a mixture of city and highway driving we were only able to average 30mpg".
The only sliver of light on this whole debacle is the people who read Consumer Reports also read Readers Digest and are probably all about to die off anyway. Good riddance with that BS.
#42
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (8)
Even more interestingly is that appears the CR went out of their way to source vehicles that are usually not used in the standard litmus tests for the turbo 4 applications. It appears that they took regular full sized sedans that come with bigger motors, and reported the comparison on that.
Comparing these engines to larger more traditional engines is what was done. Of course they get great fuel milage in a compact car, but that wasn't the point of the article. They used the same platform!!!! How else would you do it?
#43
I dislike CR as much as you do. However, it's either your disdain for them or your love for the little engine that couldn't that is clouding your judgement here.
Comparing these engines to larger more traditional engines is what was done. Of course they get great fuel milage in a compact car, but that wasn't the point of the article. They used the same platform!!!! How else would you do it?
Comparing these engines to larger more traditional engines is what was done. Of course they get great fuel milage in a compact car, but that wasn't the point of the article. They used the same platform!!!! How else would you do it?
Honestly, as a discriminating consumer who this magazine is specifically marketed towards, I would be forced to throw out the results of their "tests" based on this drastic anomaly and cannot draw any useful conclusions from this. This is a spectacular failure on CRs parts, but honestly what would you expect when your publishing an agenda driven hit job then what would you expect?
#44
TECH Fanatic
iTrader: (8)
In the "real world", you're looking at a difference of 1-2 MPG. Close enough.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Power...ze&srchtyp=ymm
#45
Mechanical impossibility?
In the "real world", you're looking at a difference of 1-2 MPG. Close enough.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Power...ze&srchtyp=ymm
In the "real world", you're looking at a difference of 1-2 MPG. Close enough.
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/Power...ze&srchtyp=ymm
Nearly 6 MPG combined for user results. That's not "close enough". That's significant, especially when spaced over a 60 month ownership period.
A naturally aspirated 4 cylinder is not going to get the same gas mileage as a 4 cylinder with a turbo applied specifically for mileage purposes. If it was then they wouldn't bother with turbos to begin with.
FWIW, the Cruze has an Eco model that is specifically built with aero and body modificiations for MPG purposes. Its rated at 42 MPG highway. They do not offer an Eco model with the 1.8 and there is a reason for that.
#46
TECH Veteran
Thread Starter
Join Date: Feb 2004
Location: Phoenix, AZ Hometown: Aberdeen, SD
Posts: 4,231
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The biggest disinformation campaigns in the country are nearly every piece of advertising and marketing we see everywhere.
It most certainly isn't from a private consumer advocacy group who does not accept paid trips, advertising in it's pages or sites and buys all of their own products that they test and compare.
It most certainly isn't from a private consumer advocacy group who does not accept paid trips, advertising in it's pages or sites and buys all of their own products that they test and compare.
#48
How do most people here calculate their mpg here? I'm seeing some eye catching numbers that's making me wonder how my little 4 cylinder gets less. I write down the mileage on 2 consecutive receipts, subtract the difference and divide that total by the gallons written in the most recent receipt (I also fill up as soon as I see the light warning and fill it to max to try to keep things consistent when I do this). I get 21-23 mpg in my little mazda 4 cylinder, yet I'm seeing close to 30 here and am blown away because I don't even drive the car hard (why would I, it's a boring car). Our new vw turbo diesel gets around 30-32 mpg using the same method.
#49
TECH Apprentice
iTrader: (7)
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: pennsylvania
Posts: 382
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
That's pretty much what I do. I use the "for dummies" method though and use www.fuelly.com saves me math and keeping receipts. Also it lets you look up other people's real world mpg numbers.
I actually drove a '99 TDI jetta (manual) for about 2 weeks. I observed somewhere around 44+ mpg.
I actually drove a '99 TDI jetta (manual) for about 2 weeks. I observed somewhere around 44+ mpg.
#50
TECH Regular
How do most people here calculate their mpg here? I'm seeing some eye catching numbers that's making me wonder how my little 4 cylinder gets less. I write down the mileage on 2 consecutive receipts, subtract the difference and divide that total by the gallons written in the most recent receipt (I also fill up as soon as I see the light warning and fill it to max to try to keep things consistent when I do this). I get 21-23 mpg in my little mazda 4 cylinder, yet I'm seeing close to 30 here and am blown away because I don't even drive the car hard (why would I, it's a boring car). Our new vw turbo diesel gets around 30-32 mpg using the same method.
#52
TECH Resident
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: Eau Claire-ish, WI
Posts: 853
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
How do most people here calculate their mpg here? I'm seeing some eye catching numbers that's making me wonder how my little 4 cylinder gets less. I write down the mileage on 2 consecutive receipts, subtract the difference and divide that total by the gallons written in the most recent receipt (I also fill up as soon as I see the light warning and fill it to max to try to keep things consistent when I do this). I get 21-23 mpg in my little mazda 4 cylinder, yet I'm seeing close to 30 here and am blown away because I don't even drive the car hard (why would I, it's a boring car). Our new vw turbo diesel gets around 30-32 mpg using the same method.
If you want a good average check every time you fill up and keep track of your MPG for each tank, add them together, then divide. So 30mpg+35mpg+28mpg= 93, then divide by 3 = 31mpg average.
#54
TECH Senior Member
iTrader: (11)
How do most people here calculate their mpg here? I'm seeing some eye catching numbers that's making me wonder how my little 4 cylinder gets less. I write down the mileage on 2 consecutive receipts, subtract the difference and divide that total by the gallons written in the most recent receipt (I also fill up as soon as I see the light warning and fill it to max to try to keep things consistent when I do this). I get 21-23 mpg in my little mazda 4 cylinder, yet I'm seeing close to 30 here and am blown away because I don't even drive the car hard (why would I, it's a boring car). Our new vw turbo diesel gets around 30-32 mpg using the same method.
Starting from a full tank, take miles driven and divide by the gallons needed to refill. Example, drive 280 miles, take 11.4 gallons to refill = 24.6 mpg.
#55
The biggest disinformation campaigns in the country are nearly every piece of advertising and marketing we see everywhere.
It most certainly isn't from a private consumer advocacy group who does not accept paid trips, advertising in it's pages or sites and buys all of their own products that they test and compare.
It most certainly isn't from a private consumer advocacy group who does not accept paid trips, advertising in it's pages or sites and buys all of their own products that they test and compare.
It Still doesn't explain how they can pull mid-20s MPG from a Cruze when no other publication has managed numbers that low.
If your seeing something I'm not, please let me know.
#56
That's with both cars being equipped with Automatics. Granted the 1.8 manual comes close the the 1.4T auto but with both trannies being the same your not going to make up the difference in gearing alone.
#57
How do most people here calculate their mpg here? I'm seeing some eye catching numbers that's making me wonder how my little 4 cylinder gets less. I write down the mileage on 2 consecutive receipts, subtract the difference and divide that total by the gallons written in the most recent receipt (I also fill up as soon as I see the light warning and fill it to max to try to keep things consistent when I do this). I get 21-23 mpg in my little mazda 4 cylinder, yet I'm seeing close to 30 here and am blown away because I don't even drive the car hard (why would I, it's a boring car). Our new vw turbo diesel gets around 30-32 mpg using the same method.
#58
TECH Regular
I would, but i dont care that much, lol. My car is for fun so i'm not worried about mpg too much
#59
The problem I have with the consumer reports article is that they only used 1 vehicle that is traditionally used as the litmus test for the capabilities of a turbo 4 application, and that vehicle horribly under performed in comparison to other similar models tested in other magazines. They also state that the 1.4 Turbo returned the same MPG as the 1.8 N/A model which is way out of line with real world results and nearly a mechanical impossibility as well.
#60
Why is it a mechanical impossibility? Same number of cylinders between the engines, so your friction losses should be pretty darn similar. If anything, your non turbo motor is probably lighter. And your non turbo probably has a higher compression ratio which boosts volumetric efficiency.
A turbo allows more precise control over the atmospheric variables, and allows for more consistency in the burn over an overall performance spectrum that you are not going to get with a N/A motor. A turbo is an efficiency driver.
For example according to this paper right here; http://www.raeng.org.uk/education/di...lmax_Power.pdf
The power of a basic 4-stroke, 4-Cylinder motor can be calculated by applying this formula;
Wherein;
The last variable, n, is your efficiency of the motor itself.
The application of the turbo directly modifies the density variables, pA, which directly influences the output of the horsepower figure. Without the turbo, the density pA will be lower, which will output a lesser figure.
So yes, it is a mechanical impossibility because that's what the math works out to.