Consumer Reports pans turbo engines

[mettech]

"...Consumer Reports says small turbocharged engines don't live up to performance and fuel economy expectations, despite their higher price tags.

In testing conducted by Consumer Reports engineers, turbocharged four-cylinders such as Ford Motor Co.'s 1.6-liter EcoBoost and General Motors Co.'s 1.4-liter turbo have marginal performance improvements and similar fuel economy compared to the six-cylinders they replace.

This is of particular importance to consumers, because automakers in North America plan to offer 3 million gasoline and diesel-powered vehicles with turbocharged engines in 2013.

That's up from 2.1 million in 2012, said Mike Omotoso, senior manager of global powertrain at forecaster LMC Automotive.

"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, Consumer Reports' director of automotive testing.

Hyundai Motor Co.'s Sonata Turbo, Kia Motors of America's Sportage Turbo and Ford's Escape with 2-liter EcoBoost are examples of cars with turbocharged four-cylinder engines that are less fuel-efficient than V-6 models in the same class, Consumer Reports found.

Richard Truett, Ford's powertrain communications manager, said in a telephone interview, "When you have an EcoBoost engine, you have the opportunity to have performance and fuel economy, but not at the same time. 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."

From The Detroit News: http://www.detroitnews.com/article/20130205/AUTO01/302050328#ixzz2K1pEAcrn

[silvrsvt]

"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, Consumer Reports' director of automotive testing.

Hyundai Motor Co.'s Sonata Turbo, Kia Motors of America's Sportage Turbo and Ford's Escape with 2-liter EcoBoost are examples of cars with turbocharged four-cylinder engines that are less fuel-efficient than V-6 models in the same class, Consumer Reports found.

 

Whats the testing metric they are using? Last time I check they only one that counted was the EPA testing, since any other test isn't repeatedly verifiable, due to different factors.

[92merc]

Another factor CR isn't taking into consideration is emissions. I thought I read that a smaller turbo puts out less CO2 than the larger V6, even if the MPG's are the same. Correct me if I'm wrong....

[pictor]

If Toyota isn't doing it, CR doesn't like it or think it is worth doing

[jasonj80]

CR is doing everything it can to stay relevant and in the media. With the internet people can get real information from real owners much easier than before. I always wonder on their Fuel Economy on when they test a car. Test it on a 30 degree day vs a 60 degree day vs a 90 degree day and you will end up with totally different numbers for fuel economy.

My other HUGE issue is that they don't publish numbers -- what is the difference in numbers between most and least reliable, how many vehicles do you need before you publish results? If you go to a website like true delta and look they give numbers. Why can't CR do the same? My theory if they did people wouldn't trust them anymore as the numbers would be so small.

[BORG]

Shut up already CR! GEEZUS!

[Biker16]

Another factor CR isn't taking into consideration is emissions. I thought I read that a smaller turbo puts out less CO2 than the larger V6, even if the MPG's are the same. Correct me if I'm wrong...

 

Fuel consumption has a direct Effect on CO2 production.

[rkisler]

OK, I'm not a fan of CR's "Holier than Thou" attitudes, but...

 

I'm getting not-so-great fuel economy on my Escape 2.0l AWD. I have recorded my mileage since new.

 

Overall mileage is 19.8 mpg

 

Worst mileage is 16.6 mpg

 

Best mileage was 23.2 mpg (all interstate at 70-80 mph)

 

Yes, I know it's winter in the upper midwest. Yes, I know the car is relatively new. Yes, I know I am paying a penalty for AWD. Yes, I know around-town short trips are a killer on fuel economy. No, I don't warm up my car nor leave it idling. No, in general, I don't drive like a madman.

 

I now have around 3,500 miles on the odometer, and I'll be taking off for Florida next week, so I'll see how much warmer weather and another interstate trip helps.

 

What's most disappointing is that my 2012 Explorer (FWD) gave me an honest 24.7 mpg on the interstate at 75-80 mph right out of the box. I expected better fuel economy performance from the Escape.

[silvrsvt]

Overall mileage is 19.8 mpg

 

Worst mileage is 16.6 mpg

 

Best mileage was 23.2 mpg (all interstate at 70-80 mph)

 

If it makes you feel any better, your getting just about identical MPG numbers as my GF's 2010 Escape AWD V6. We can get about 26-28 MPG out on the open highway when your not using winter blended fuel.

[twintornados]

Sounds like Consumer Reports overlord, the Toyota Motor Corporation, has directed them to "pan" all turbos so that they will stop losing sales...that is until THEY come out with an Ecoboost competitor....then it will be all, "Turbos are GREAT!!!!!"

[NLPRacing]

OK, I'm not a fan of CR's "Holier than Thou" attitudes, but...

 

I'm getting not-so-great fuel economy on my Escape 2.0l AWD. I have recorded my mileage since new.

 

Overall mileage is 19.8 mpg

 

Worst mileage is 16.6 mpg

 

Best mileage was 23.2 mpg (all interstate at 70-80 mph)

 

Yes, I know it's winter in the upper midwest. Yes, I know the car is relatively new. Yes, I know I am paying a penalty for AWD. Yes, I know around-town short trips are a killer on fuel economy. No, I don't warm up my car nor leave it idling. No, in general, I don't drive like a madman.

 

I now have around 3,500 miles on the odometer, and I'll be taking off for Florida next week, so I'll see how much warmer weather and another interstate trip helps.

 

What's most disappointing is that my 2012 Explorer (FWD) gave me an honest 24.7 mpg on the interstate at 75-80 mph right out of the box. I expected better fuel economy performance from the Escape.

 

 

If it makes you feel any better, your getting just about identical MPG numbers as my GF's 2010 Escape AWD V6. We can get about 26-28 MPG out on the open highway when your not using winter blended fuel.

 

In my 13 Escape, I have been averaging about 21 mpg with about 99.9% of it being city driving. When I have to go on a sales call where I am going be on the freeway for a while, I can usually get 30 or better, but that's based on going the speed limit (I don't get in a hurry during work hours, the company isn't going to pay for my speeding tickets). At speeds of 70 or higher, it gets about 25ish mpg. When I first got it and was hammering on it quite a bit, it never really dropped below 19 mpg. Even when my leadfoot wife is driving it, it never really drops much under 20 mpg.

[Ron W.]

Yes, I know it's winter in the upper midwest. Yes, I know the car is relatively new. Yes, I know I am paying a penalty for AWD. Yes, I know around-town short trips are a killer on fuel economy.

 

You left out winter fuel blend, hope your MPGs pick up when it gets warmer.

[aneekr]

Sounds like Consumer Reports overlord, the Toyota Motor Corporation, has directed them to "pan" all turbos so that they will stop losing sales...that is until THEY come out with an Ecoboost competitor....then it will be all, "Turbos are GREAT!!!!!"

 

CR did not "pan" all turbocharged engines, only those that failed to deliver competitive performance and real world fuel economy vis-a-vis comparable normally aspirated engines. Ford's boat anchor 1.6L Ecoboost is the worst offender here. On the other hand, BMW's N20 and VW's 2.0L EA888 engines are as good or better than most V6 competitors in terms of efficiency and performance.

 

Real world results notwithstanding, Ford's marketers deserve credit though for spreading the Ecoboost gospel more effectively than any other automaker with similar powertrains.

[akirby]

CR did not "pan" all turbocharged engines, only those that failed to deliver competitive performance and real world fuel economy vis-a-vis comparable normally aspirated engines.

 

They panned all "small turbocharged engines" without being specific.

[Havelock]

CR did not "pan" all turbocharged engines, only those that failed to deliver competitive performance and real world fuel economy vis-a-vis comparable normally aspirated engines. Ford's boat anchor 1.6L Ecoboost is the worst offender here. On the other hand, BMW's N20 and VW's 2.0L EA888 engines are as good or better than most V6 competitors in terms of efficiency and performance.

 

Real world results notwithstanding, Ford's marketers deserve credit though for spreading the Ecoboost gospel more effectively than any other automaker with similar powertrains.

The EA888 makes significantly less power and torque than Ford's 2.0 ecoboost. Comparable vehicles with these engines usually have the Ford vehicle as both significantly faster while consuming slightly less fuel in head to head comparisons.

[Deanh]

Shut up already CR! GEEZUS!

with ya Borg, but I say continue, sooner or later their constant bleating will water down any or all of their credibility....the cry wolf syndrome....

[JasonM]

From Automotive News (whose headline conveniently left out mention of Hyundai and Kia and only focused on Ford and GM)

 

"We cannot answer for how Consumer Reports tested the Fusion, but its findings are not consistent with our internal and external feedback," said Wes Sherwood, a Ford spokesman. "Those show that EcoBoost vehicles lead in customer satisfaction for fuel economy across segments -- including surveys by J.D. Power & Associates".

Edited February 5, 2013 by JasonM

[NickF1011]

Ford's boat anchor 1.6L Ecoboost

 

What exactly is so "boat anchor" about the 1.6 EB? It performs on par in power and fuel economy with the 2.5 I4 it is replacing. I mean geesh, just becuase it has a turbo doesn't mean it's supposed to be ready to take the podium at LeMans. It's a BASE engine for cryin' out loud.

Edited February 5, 2013 by NickF1011

[timmm55]

If Toyota isn't doing it, CR doesn't like it or think it is worth doing

I can't help BUT agree with you. Ford is ahead of Toyota in technology with Ecoboost and My Ford Touch. So CR slams anything with either? Toyota is rewarded for being behind the curve. If your a Luddite it makes sense.

 

Of course you can still get a 2.5 Fusion or Escape with or w/o MFT. But they aren't buying them either. They are stacking their own deck in a very negative manner.

[NickF1011]

Of course you can still get a 2.5 Fusion or Escape with or w/o MFT.

 

Hmm. Didn't think the 2.5 is avilable on any trims that offer MFT. Could be mistaken.

[timmm55]

Hmm. Didn't think the 2.5 is avilable on any trims that offer MFT. Could be mistaken.

I sat in a new Fusion with a 2.5 and MFT, played with it for awhile, and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone has a problem operating it. Seemed simpler than a previous Focus I tried.

[FordBuyer]

It seems to me that CR is basically missing the point of EB in Ford's case more specifically in that it's just a way of getting more power out of a smaller displacement engine. Common sense would dictate that owner of turbocharged engine is going to have heavier foot than average driver of normally aspirated engine. And common sense would cause me to deduce that EB 2.0 is lighter and puts out less emission and is on average just as powerful as average V6 even if doesn't perform any better. To deride turbocharging and touchscreens in vehicles is to be anti progress. I was just at the ATM earlier and had some trouble with touchscreen, but hey that is progress like it or not. So it seems that CR is hell bent on putting itself out of mainstream life.

[NickF1011]

Common sense would dictate that owner of turbocharged engine is going to have heavier foot than average driver of normally aspirated engine.

 

I don't think it dictates that at all. Probably would have been true in the past when most forced induction engines were found in performance cars, but they have become plainly mainstream in their application today. Doubt many owners of these newer turbocharged vehicles even have any idea how forced induction works.

[FordBuyer]

I sat in a new Fusion with a 2.5 and MFT, played with it for awhile, and for the life of me I can't figure out why anyone has a problem operating it. Seemed simpler than a previous Focus I tried.

 

Millions of portable Navigation units have been sold by Garmin, Tom Tom, and Magellan over the years, and so I would assume most drivers are used to their touchscreens and menus. Add in Smart phones, and CR is turning into chronic complainers of in car technology it seems that is coming like it or not. I personally could care less about in car controls on touchscreens, but then auto companies don't care what I like. So be it. There is always the used car market for guys like me. So touch screens with menus is coming big time to vehicles like it or not.

[FordBuyer]

To CR:<br /><br />I would be willing to bet that the next Toyota Corolla (impressive concept shown at NAIAS) will have available touch screen and turbocharging. Nothing stays the same CR. CR needs to keep to used vehicle market like me.