Originally Posted by Consumer Reports

CONSUMER REPORTS TESTS FIND MANY SMALL TURBO ENGINES FALL SHORT ON 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 large engine, with the fuel economy of a smaller one, Consumer Reports tests have found that they often fall short of expectations. Many turbocharged cars tested by CR have slower acceleration and no better fuel economy than the models with bigger 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.

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

Consumer Reports tests many cars with small, turbocharged engines, and lots of 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. 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 smaller engine - a 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 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 got 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 4 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.
.....snip....

Originally Posted by CR snippet

it was barely faster to 60 mph, and got the same fuel economy as the larger engine

Originally Posted by robispec (Post 715017)

Hint I dont care how safe the vehicle is the vehicle with the most lug nuts WINS EVERYTIME in a head on crash..and the other crashes too!

Originally Posted by Asterisked Accolade (Post 714973)

I bet if manufacturers did what they did in the 80s and really worked to lighten up their vehicles, the MPG ratings wouldn't be so difficult to achieve.

Originally Posted by Ryephile (Post 715038)

Talk to your congressperson about repealing all the federally mandated safety and emission laws and something along those lines might happen. Otherwise, you're grossly overgeneralizing just as much as CR.

If you want to generalize, cars in the 80's had poor emissions, poor chassis rigidity, poor crash protection, poor NVH, and virtually no passive safety systems compared to even the most frugal new car offerings today. Remember that the EPA wrote the book [and in 2008 re-wrote it] on MPG city and highway ratings. Don't think for a second that blaming the OEMs is rational as they're forced to play by the EPAs rules.

Originally Posted by Asterisked Accolade (Post 715070)

......I'm just saying, a lot of electronics(Your large touch screens and 8-speaker systems) and luxuries(Full leather upholstery and heated seats) help weigh the cars down. In 2001 the average car had 41lbs of wiring. How much would you presume it is now?

Originally Posted by Ryephile (Post 715772)

Ok, I see where you're coming from. In response to wiring harnesses in particular, most cars now use CAN, LIN, or FlexRay as communication busses throughout the car, reducing wiring harness size for a given set of features. However, as you pointed out, cars feature sets are greatly expanding, with active and powered everything. Much of that is perhaps haphazardly applying technology (touchscreens for GUIs for example) to add essentially irrelevant features [like in-car WiFi].

OEM's spend an enormous amount of R&D on improving materials and design to reduce structural mass while simultaneously improving structural integrity and deformation predictability in a variety of collisions. From tailored blanks to magnesium IP beams and seat frames to aluminum everywhere, SMC and now carbon composite panels, advanced and lightweight materials are becoming mainstream rather quickly. As time moves forward, those materials will become more commonplace on reasonably affordable cars. The FR-S/BRZ twins use a tiny bit of that (aluminum hood, ultra high strength steel safety ring), but their relatively low volume and price [just like the Miata] keep them from being heavily laden (pun!) with supertech materials.

Originally Posted by ZDan (Post 715803)

....The twins are PROOF that the weight gain wasn't really necessary to meet new crash regs.

Originally Posted by Ryephile (Post 715819)

Sorry Dan, you're off base.

Originally Posted by ZDan (Post 715803)

Don't agree with crash standards as an excuse for grossly overweight cars.....