Consumer Reports pans turbo engines

[silvrsvt]

CR crusade against MFT is all about supporting anti-distracted driving measures at any cost.

 

If you drive conservativity with a EB engine you'll see good MPG numbers, but drive your EB I4 like you would a V6 with a heavy foot...your fuel economy will suffer, just like it does with a regular car.

[mackinaw]

.........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......

No doubt temperature has an impact on mileage. My 2012 Focus averages 38 mpg in the summer (all types of driving). Now, in this Northern Michigan winter, I'm currently averaging 34 mpg. 15 degree F temperatures during mid-day are not the best for getting good gas mileage.

[03 LS]

It seems to me that CR is basically missing the point of EB in Ford's case ...

The point CR missed is right there in Ford's answer, "...We're telling the driver, it's up to you on how you want to drive."

 

The point is, with EB, now you have a choice.

 

CR seems hellbent to try to match these turbos against V6s' performance spec, then claim the FE improvement is not there. No Duh, drive like a V6, of course you get V6 like FE numbers. If you drive like EPA, well you get EPA numbers.

[jpd80]

Downsizing and turbocharging is a way of getting great EPA numbers whilst still providing acceptable performance to consumers.

If you want the power it's there but remember that power comes from using fuel, just as superior economy comes from not using it

[FordBuyer]

Downsizing and turbocharging is a way of getting great EPA numbers whilst still providing acceptable performance to consumers.

If you want the power it's there but remember that power comes from using fuel, just as superior economy comes from not using it

 

To give CR some credit, they use a different fuel mileage cycle, and seem to report only combined mileage numbers. In their testing, Ford's EB 1.6 I4 underpeforms the normally aspirated Toyota and Honda I4's in fuel mileage and performance. I would have to drive the EB 1.6 I4 against the Toyota and Honda models to agree or not. I have a feeling though the Toyota/Honda models are lighter than the 2013 Fusion and Escape with EB 1.6 I4. Thus the better performance. Power to weight ratios win out.

[timmm55]

TTAC had a very interesting article about automobile writers, and this is very apt in the case of CR.

 

http://www.thetruthaboutcars.com/2011/03/clarkson-burgess-the-wobble-and-the-chrysler-200/

 

 

"Strictly speaking, this website should contain “the truth about cars”, but I believe it should contain “the truth about car writing” as well. Here’s some bona-fide truth for every aspiring writer out there: Money is made in the wobble. What’s the wobble? Why, it’s the measurable gap between the biggest puff piece you’ve ever written and the most hilarious example of automotive character assassination you’ve managed to sneak into print. I’ll explain......"

 

CR is sooooo in the wobble! lol Their credibility depends on it. In the 70s when there were cars like the Vega CR was influential for a GOOD reason. Now they create their own useless buzz. They create their straw man. But they will have to catch up eventually, probably about he same time as Toyota introduces the same things to the market. Then it will be brilliant I'm sure! (?)

[papilgee4evaeva]

Anyone else notice this failure of a comparison?

 

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.

 

Didn't know the 1.6EB was replacing any V6.

Also didn't know the 1.4T was replacing a big honkin' V6 in the Cruze.

Edited February 5, 2013 by papilgee4evaeva

[ice-capades]

Typical for Consumers Reports. It's all about selling magazines and catering to their readership and past reputation to stay in the media, etc.

[Hydro]

Anyone else notice this failure of a comparison?

 

 

Didn't know the 1.6EB was replacing any V6.

Also didn't know the 1.4T was replacing a big honkin' V6 in the Cruze.

I think what they are getting at which I can attest to ..... is that the 3.0 V6 in last years Fusion gets the same mileage as the new 1.6 or 2.0 EB when driven "normally" , meaning with the flow of traffic. So why stuff a a more tech I-4 motor (turbo's, DI, etc.) when you can achieve the same MPG with a larger V6. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but give me a 3.0 or 3.5L V6 Fusion over a EB2.0. We did a test drive loop with the 2.0EB with her normal driving style, not fake hypermiling B.S. and the wife achieved better MPG with her 2010 Fusion V6 (3.0).

[silvrsvt]

I know I'm beating a dead horse, but give me a 3.0 or 3.5L V6 Fusion over a EB2.0. We did a test drive loop with the 2.0EB with her normal driving style, not fake hypermiling B.S. and the wife achieved better MPG with her 2010 Fusion V6 (3.0).

 

Um how many miles where on the new Fusion vs yours? I got really crappy MPG out of my Mustang the firsr 10K or so.

[fordmantpw]

I think what they are getting at which I can attest to ..... is that the 3.0 V6 in last years Fusion gets the same mileage as the new 1.6 or 2.0 EB when driven "normally" , meaning with the flow of traffic. So why stuff a a more tech I-4 motor (turbo's, DI, etc.) when you can achieve the same MPG with a larger V6. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but give me a 3.0 or 3.5L V6 Fusion over a EB2.0. We did a test drive loop with the 2.0EB with her normal driving style, not fake hypermiling B.S. and the wife achieved better MPG with her 2010 Fusion V6 (3.0).

 

Which sounds about right. My guess is that her normal driving style is not with an egg between her foot and the accelerator.

 

With my driving style, I'm pretty sure I could average a few more MPG in an EB than a V6. With my wife's, well, I would say she would get the same with the EB. It's all in how you drive, and if you use a higher percentage of the available horsepower, you are going to get a fuel economy number similar to the larger engine. It takes gas to make power, and if you use that power, you're going to use that gas.

[Hydro]

Um how many miles where on the new Fusion vs yours? I got really crappy MPG out of my Mustang the firsr 10K or so.

The new one had 70 or so miles on it and the test loop consisted of about 15 miles. Mixed hwy, but mostly city driving. IMHO, better MPG with break-in is not real. Most people with the EB F150's kept saying wait until 5k, 10k, 15k and you'll see a huge jump, plus rumors of the ECM running rich until 2k miles. I have not seen a single gain at any of those intervals. If anything, I'm losing MPG. I can't get over 15mpg combined 50/50 city& hwy driving with my EB F150 and tire pressure at 42psi (max is 44psi). Even without EB motors, my last 7 new vehicles ( 4.6L Mustang, 6.4L diesel, (2) 5.4L, 3.0L, 2.5L, 3.5L) never saw MPG increase with miles. So, for me I do not take that into account.

As Fordman said, YES. She drives pretty shitty and the egg would be broke in .25 sec , but that's just the way it is. Aggressive drivers like her and I do not benefit from EB engines. I'd love to have non-EB options available that still make good power. We would still haul butt and get better MPG doing it

Edited February 5, 2013 by Hydro

[jasonj80]

Typical for Consumers Reports. It's all about selling magazines and catering to their readership and past reputation to stay in the media, etc.

 

 

What would their readership do if today they say Toyota was the best, and next year GM/Ford/Kia were. Their readers would be confused that they weren't getting the positive reinforcement they thought they were going to get when they spent 25K following what CR says. The mindset of CR is self fulfilling, they have their readers do what they say, and then pay it back by positivily reinforcing the decisions as good that they told their readers to make.

[Edstock]

To give CR some credit, they use a different fuel mileage cycle, and seem to report only combined mileage numbers. In their testing, Ford's EB 1.6 I4 underpeforms the normally aspirated Toyota and Honda I4's in fuel mileage and performance.

 

Who knows how CR drives these vehicles? The point of the EB system (not just turbo-charging alone), as you already know, is to get 100% of available torque at the lowest possible RPM. When you combine this with 6-speed transmissions and drive to the torque curve of the EB system, you maximize economy. But if you drive it like the non-turbo competition, where maximum torque is at 3,500+ RPM, fuel economy will suffer for not a lot of extra gain.

[Biker16]

The desire to provide a performance feel, leads to aggressive engine programing, that decreases fuel economy.

 

the Same thing happens with the hybrids. that "peppy" feel could be programmed out of the ECU.

 

My 2012 Focus, basically the engine can get EPA numbers if Driven properly but under Normal circumstances where you don't Shift between 1500-2000RPM. The winter gas, Really hurts Fuel Economy, and the engine which needs to maintain 212 degrees to maximize efficiency, and the ECU will dump as much fuel as needed to get to that temperature.

 

So on cold days like 15 Degrees, or so, the engine will struggle to generate enough heat to warm the CAT, warm the cabin, get the engine up to temperature so it can stop wasting fuel. It alot to do, and the programming used to do it seems rough and crude.

 

Some days the engine would rev up to 1500rpm and hang out there there well after starting, most days it idles down to 800rpm, within seconds of starting.

 

The logic of the Shift light is suspect. Rarely results in improvement in economy.

 

the engine feels like it was optimized to run with the 6 speed not the 5 speed, the penalty for driving faster is much greater than it was in any other car I have driven.

 

The only thing that has helped is to aggressively up-shift, I mean shifting at 1500rpm and lug the heck out of the engine. Lugging warms the engine faster, gets the throttle plate wide open. then I can easily get 27mpg in the city.

 

The TiVCTs very limited at low RPM, not enough oil pressure to be effective.

 

Software seems unrefined and rushed, this leads to inconsistent Fuel Economy

[ZanatWork]

For those of us old enough to remember the 80's...boy, isn't this familiar?

While technology has certainly helped smaller engines gain footing against their larger cousins, tech has also been applied and larger motors are doing better as well. A 1988 Mustang GT was rated at 225 hp and 19/24 gas mileage. The current car, complete with 200 more horsepower from the same displacement, is at 17/26. A V6 puts you at 305 hp and 19/29.

The thrashy nature of smaller motors gets better, but smoothness and carefully-engineered sound is also happening in bigger motors.

There's no replacement for displacement, still...but the sacrifices are less than they were. So, how long 'til the smaller V6s show up, again?

[JasonM]

GM's response to CR article:

 

The turbocharged Cruze has "better acceleration across the rpm range making for a more fun to drive car," Tom Read, a GM spokesman, said in a statement. "However, if you have a heavy foot on a turbocharged engine, you're not necessarily going to see a lot of fuel economy benefits."

 

Mileage, he said, "is really dependent on how you drive."

 

[papilgee4evaeva]

I think what they are getting at which I can attest to ..... is that the 3.0 V6 in last years Fusion gets the same mileage as the new 1.6 or 2.0 EB when driven "normally" , meaning with the flow of traffic. So why stuff a a more tech I-4 motor (turbo's, DI, etc.) when you can achieve the same MPG with a larger V6. I know I'm beating a dead horse, but give me a 3.0 or 3.5L V6 Fusion over a EB2.0. We did a test drive loop with the 2.0EB with her normal driving style, not fake hypermiling B.S. and the wife achieved better MPG with her 2010 Fusion V6 (3.0).

The point is that the 1.6EB was never meant to replace anyone's V6. Had they gotten their engine designations right...

[akirby]

I only have 500 miles on my 2.0L EB Fusion but I'm already getting 2-4 mpg better than my 3.0L 2006 Fusion. And with a lot more power if I choose to use it. I saw almost 30 mpg on a short freeway stint at 70 mph.

[probowler]

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.

 

My 2008 4WD 4-Cyl is getting about 20mpg with three days worth of delivery driving in the city and 2 days of long-highway stretches, all in Alaskan snow and constant below-freezing temps

[4d4evr-1]

For those of us old enough to remember the 80's...boy, isn't this familiar?

 

While technology has certainly helped smaller engines gain footing against their larger cousins, tech has also been applied and larger motors are doing better as well. A 1988 Mustang GT was rated at 225 hp and 19/24 gas mileage. The current car, complete with 200 more horsepower from the same displacement, is at 17/26. A V6 puts you at 305 hp and 19/29.

 

The thrashy nature of smaller motors gets better, but smoothness and carefully-engineered sound is also happening in bigger motors.

 

There's no replacement for displacement, still...but the sacrifices are less than they were. So, how long 'til the smaller V6s show up, again?

I had a 84 turbo coupe tbird, 4 cylinder turbo that was very quick when turbo kicked in and still very good mpg.

[fordmantpw]

I only have 500 miles on my 2.0L EB Fusion but I'm already getting 2-4 mpg better than my 3.0L 2006 Fusion. And with a lot more power if I choose to use it. I saw almost 30 mpg on a short freeway stint at 70 mph.

 

Congrats on the new ride! I haven't seen pics yet, possibly in a thread that I missed?

[Hydro]

I only have 500 miles on my 2.0L EB Fusion but I'm already getting 2-4 mpg better than my 3.0L 2006 Fusion. And with a lot more power if I choose to use it. I saw almost 30 mpg on a short freeway stint at 70 mph.

Our 2010 Fusion 3.0L achieved 32.6 mpg going 78-84mph to Fresno 2 years ago and would pretty much avg that on any freeway trip. This was with three people and luggage. The wife would beat the snot out of it and get 22.2 MPG with mixed driving. I loved that car as did she, but The Edge was paid off and she didn't want a car payment for a while. The Lease was up and we sent it back. We're really reluctant on the 2.0EB Fusion because of our driving styles and don't really want to fork the $$ over for a MKZ 3.7L. With any luck a Sport model with the 3.5 will return and I'll buy it on the spot.

[Hoser768]

I had a 84 turbo coupe tbird, 4 cylinder turbo that was very quick when turbo kicked in and still very good mpg.

Exactly. Keep it under 3000rpm and the light on the dashboard off, and you get the milage. Put your foot in it and at WOT it will drink as much as a 5.0, but not everyone drives like that all the time.

 

I think it's better to haul around a small engine that can act like a big one when needed, rather than hauling around a big engine that uses cylinder deactivation to try to act like a small one. I would think weight and friction losses would favor the smaller engine.

[Noah Harbinger]

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".

 

 

 

Ford pulled a bit of a slight of hand: Customer satisfaction about fuel economy is not the same as customer fuel economy. The former is driven by psychological aspects such as "I payed up for better fuel economy so I'm subconsciously predisposed to assume my fuel economy is better". The latter is harder to measure.