Consumer Reports: more drivel?

[Ryephile]

From the Autoblog story today headlined "Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims":

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....

What do you think of this? Are they overgeneralizing? Did you notice they praised BMW and VW without disclosing they tested their n/a engines? Also note they state their tests as "reality", yet they don't disclose the conditions of their tests, nor did they provide proof of their claims.

In the sake of full disclosure, I don't suffer fools lightly and that includes the very regular incompetence that CR publishes. They seem to fail to grasp core concepts, often interjecting political agenda and opinion into what they claim are scientific process. You can't simply call something scientific without proving it, yet CR seem to do this regularly, while the rest of the media turn a blind and/or ignorant eye.

A correctly sized turbo powertrain allows the engine to operate in an efficient [read: low BSFC] load range during cruising while providing sufficient [turbo] acceleration when requested. Perhaps some of these "downsized" turbo engines aren't optimised for the car they're dropped into, or perhaps there is a lack of understanding on CR's part where WOT with X power level yields similar FE regardless of engine configuration. Take this quote as an example:

Originally Posted by CR snippet

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

If it got the same fuel economy during the slightly quicker sprint from 0 to 60, then it is a useful gain in overall performance. I can't say for certain that's the interpretation they meant, but that's what they wrote.

[Dimman]

Just confirming that 'average buyers' are idiots?

God forbid if they ever made an effort to educate consumers. Of course then no-one would be left that would read their crap.

How is it they are still even around after the Suzuki rigged tipping incident? How was their credibility not destroyed then?

[Asterisked Accolade]

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.

[robispec]

ahh but the lawyers woul say they arn't safe enough!
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!

[OrbitalEllipses]

Originally Posted by robispec

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!

I'm going to remember this next time I see an accident...

[Ryephile]

@Dimman pretty much nailed it; CR seems focused on uneducated consumers and using their ignorance to promote their preferences. The usual in-their-pocket media [MT, C&D, R&T] aren't even this flagrant.

Originally Posted by Asterisked Accolade

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.

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.

[robispec]

I own the best car already! a 94 suzuki swift 1300 cc 42 mpg @ 65 mph 1725 lbs all up full of fuel! cost me 250 (plus I had it repainted in a moment of weakness!)

WILL NOT CRASH WELL but otherwise the Physics of a high milage car.

Robi

[Asterisked Accolade]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

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.

You're totally right. I didn't mean to sound arrogant, if i did. You're right about the folly of the cars from yesteryear. They were quite flimsily built and emissions weren't impressive. And i'm aware cars now have to follow the rules of the industry.

However, i think just with using lighter interior materials and maybe even taking notes from Mazdas SkyActive suite, cars could cut some weight. There are ways to have a lightweight car and still keep the safety equipment.
Cars such as compacts:
Cobalt (2,721lbs)
FRS (2,806lbs)

or even sedans which don't go overboard with weight:
2008 Mazda 6 (3,042lbs)
2008 Nissan Altima (3,052lbs)

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?

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by Asterisked Accolade

......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?

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.

[ZDan]

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

2013 FR-S/BRZ meets all safety regs, is the same size and weight and relative performance/price point as an S13 240SX from more than 20 years ago.

Fact is, if CAFE had continued to go up a bit every single year instead of sticking at 1987 levels for ~20 years, cars wouldn't have bulked up as much as they did.

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

[Asterisked Accolade]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

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.

You seem very educated on the subject, much more so than myself.

But hopefully, utilizing those materials you pointed out they can cut the weight a bit. Also, it wouldn't hurt the car companies to stop slapping on DUB wheels onto everything, lol.

I always look for the cars with the least amount of leather and amenities so it's as light as i can buy. I have a Go-cart/Bus system i measure cars by.

[Ryephile]

Originally Posted by ZDan

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

Sorry Dan, you're off base. You wouldn't want to bet the Silvia would meet today's crash regulations, not to mention its chassis is less rigid than the twins. Given their similar weight, the design of the twins' structure is significantly advanced compared to the Silvia. Don't take that emotionally, it's just how auto design progresses. Take a look at these two pages from the full press documentation for the twins, it's clear the FEA done on the various high strength steels composing the chassis result in a massively stronger and stiffer structure given its weight versus anything designed by guesstimations back in the day.

[ZDan]

Originally Posted by Ryephile

Sorry Dan, you're off base.

Nope!

You wouldn't want to bet the Silvia would meet today's crash regulations, not to mention its chassis is less rigid than the twins. Given their similar weight, the design of the twins' structure is significantly advanced compared to the Silvia.

EXACTLY. That is PROGRESS. Doing MORE with LESS (or rather, the same amount in this case).

Don't take that emotionally,

?

it's just how auto design progresses.

PRECISELY.

Take a look at these two pages from the full press documentation for the twins, it's clear the FEA done on the various high strength steels composing the chassis result in a massively stronger and stiffer structure given its weight versus anything designed by guesstimations back in the day.

They weren't doing "guesstimations" in the 80s. Structural engineering and stress analysis precede finite element analysis by decades/centuries/millennia.

And you can be sure FEA was done on the S13 chassis, anyway.

But again, you're just proving my point. That with PROGRESS, you can meet increasing safety/crash regs *without* adding weight or cost.

Hence, the FR-S/BRZ are no heavier than the S13, while being way safer and stiffer and being at the same relative price/performance points.

[Ryephile]

Here's what I meant to reference in saying you're off base:

Originally Posted by ZDan

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

"grossly overweight" is entirely relative. Modern crash standards are a significant reason cars have gained weight since the 80's. The rest of the weight comes from scaling the cars to an increasingly obese population and the significantly added feature content. Cars like the twins are now a statistical outlier instead of average sized like the Silvia was.