Consumer Reports pans turbo engines

[BORG]

I'm getting about 22MPG in my 2.0L EB AWD Ford Escape Titanium, which is lower than I expected but I've never had so much fun with a car and indeed I think the world of that drivetrain. I never buy (or drive) cars for their fuel economy so that is where my psychology differs. To give you some perspective, I get about 17MPG in my Lincoln MKX....yeah I'm no hyper-miler.

[ZanatWork]

The 2.3 was decent torque-wise with a turbo on it, but it was also famously unrefined to listen to. Also, that motor made about the same hp as a bone-stock Focus SE nowadays.

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

[silvrsvt]

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.

 

Your using the old unadjusted numbers for the 88 GT...its only rated at 16/24 or 14/23 with a stick, using the same testing methodality as the current car

[twintornados]

I sat in a new Fusion with a 2.5 and MFT, played with it for awhile.........

Ewwwwww, you naughty boy.....at the dealership?? And you didn't get kicked out???

[FordBuyer]

The 2.3 was decent torque-wise with a turbo on it, but it was also famously unrefined to listen to. Also, that motor made about the same hp as a bone-stock Focus SE nowadays.

 

 

Never did like small displacement turbo motors back then when wonderful, burbly 5.0 V8 was available and fuel was cheap. Still to this day can't make case for picking 1.6EB over 2.5L I4. Both near as I can tell have about same 0-60mph times, and fuel advantage of 1.6 EB is very marginal at best. 2.5 is also no cost standard engine, very reliable with no recalls compared to 1.6 EB's recalls. So other than pretty Ecoboost badge on rear deck lie and a bit more torque, hard to jusify extra cost for maybe 10-15 more miles out of tank of gas if you have light foot. For that matter, I have yet to see even ONE 2.0 EB Taurus on road or in dealer inventory as of yet. Ditto with Explorer or Edge. V6 seems to be most popular around here at least. Personally, I have only owned one 4 cylinder and that was '68 Cortina back when I was a teenager. Still see 4 cylinders as teenager vehicles, but of course do understand the consequences of $4+ fuel.

[BB390fe]

The 2.3 was decent torque-wise with a turbo on it, but it was also famously unrefined to listen to. Also, that motor made about the same hp as a bone-stock Focus SE nowadays.

It was a stunner in it's day though... an 87 turbo coupe was good for 170HP... a stock 2.3 was 88 friggin horse!

[StevenCaylor]

It was a stunner in it's day though... an 87 turbo coupe was good for 170HP... a stock 2.3 was 88 friggin horse!

 

Actually, it was 190 hp (I owned one). The most powerful of the original 2.3 turbo engines was the 1985.5 SVO Mustang with 205 hp.

[92merc]

CR report now being regurgitated by Yahoo site...

 

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-dont-deliver-050100955.html

[Extreme4x4]

Personal observation, owning a 2013 Explorer Sport (3.5L EB) for appx 4100 miles.

 

I keep the left screen on the instantaneous mileage readout. This really lets you see what causes what, fuel economy wise, with the turbo engine. It is a wonderful tool for learning how to drive a turbocharged engine for maximum efficiency. Mind you, there has been no tank where we haven't played some. It is just too fun. :D

 

At a steady state 80mph, I will pull 21.6mpg. At 70, it does go up a couple of mpg, but I cannot give an accurate read on that, as I have not driven over 100 miles straight, at that mph. In town (our small town encompasses 8 miles one way, and 6 the other, with 8 lights) our mileage is right at, or just shy of the 16mpg city rating. All of your trips are very short..... so, you have about a worst case scenerio in a small town.

 

This is all within 4100 miles on the vehicle, and utilizing winter blend fuel (10% ethanol).

 

Hydro, I have NEVER had a Ford vehicle that did not pick up mileage with usage. Our V10 SD did it (is finally getting its best mileage, with a little over 30K on the clock), our 2003 Tibute ES AWD did it, our 2001 Lightning did it, my '94 Lightning did it, etc.

 

I will state this, from having had this vehicle for a couple of months now. You have to drive much differently than you did with a NA vehicle, to get the mileage. There is so much torque right off idle, that the throttle response is instantaneous. Thus, you need to use MUCH LESS throttle to do the same things you will do with a NA engine. There IS a learning curve to this. In the case of our Sport, even a tiny amount of throttle gives more than enough acceleration to outrun most vehicles off the line.

 

So, this is the reason there is a mileage spread on the window sticker. YOUR MILEAGE MAY VARY....................... especially depending on how you drive the vehicle. Also, you will get better mileage without cruise control on these newer vehicles, as the cruise is way too aggressive with acceleration. If you are not getting good mileage, look no further than yourself.

[DR61]

I have usually had good experiences with turbocharged vehicles. One benefit in the mountain west is that turbos help maintain rated power at high elevations. I have also found with turbo cars that for highway driving at high elevations I have gotten significantly better fuel economy compared to similar driving at sea level with the same car.

[V8-X]

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.

 

Hydro: Must agree. Out of all the N/A vehicles we've purchased new (6 vehicles - 96 Sentra 1.6L, 99 Ranger 4.0L, 99 Explorer 5.0, 02 F150 5.4L, 04 Altima 3.5L, 06 F150 5.4L), neither the wife or I have seen any increase in mpgs after any mileage break-in period. All typically have provided EPA rating, sometimes slightly better some slightly worse. but never anything other than maybe a 1/2 mpg increase, which could be attributed to driving style for that tank of gas.

[akirby]

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

 

http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/52511-2013-ruby-red-titanium/

[NickF1011]

Better fuel economy after break-in was absolutely real in my Edge. It regularly gets 2 mpg more now than it did the first 6 months I owned it, and no, it's definitely not because I probably baby it more now. If anything, I drive it far more aggressively now that I'm fully used to driving a top-heavy CUV again instead of a low-slung sedan.

[silvrsvt]

Better fuel economy after break-in was absolutely real in my Edge. It regularly gets 2 mpg more now than it did the first 6 months I owned it, and no, it's definitely not because I probably baby it more now. If anything, I drive it far more aggressively now that I'm fully used to driving a top-heavy CUV again instead of a low-slung sedan.

 

Maybe its the gas, but I experienced the same thing...I was getting 14-16 MPG out of my Mustang when I first got it and now I get 19-21 MPG with 118K on it. I can get 26 on the open highway...

[NickF1011]

Maybe its the gas, but I experienced the same thing...I was getting 14-16 MPG out of my Mustang when I first got it and now I get 19-21 MPG with 118K on it. I can get 26 on the open highway...

 

Even with the crap E10 winter blends here I'm getting almost 22 mpg overall now. It would regularly average 19-20 when new. I was a little disappointed by that at the time.

[92LX302]

Same thing with my 4.0 Ranger. Easily a 2-3 mpg gain after the first 15 000Kms.

[ZanatWork]

Yep. In 1989, the TBird went "SC" and gained a couple cylinders. I'd eventually own one of those, and I'm still said that I had to let it go.

My biggest beef with the 2.3 was that Ford insisted on putting in so many vehicles, but wouldn't put a modern 16v valvetrain on it. It was the base engine on essentially every car in the early 80's, it should've gotten some development beyond the twin plug head going into the 90's.

However, back to the topic...I remain one that would like to see a V6 option back in the Fusion. I know there are others who hate knowing the top engine option is 30 hp down to...Kia?!?!

And yes, I've seen the commercial on YouTube on this very subject, and there's a reason why half or more of the comments aren't real complimentary.

 

Actually, it was 190 hp (I owned one). The most powerful of the original 2.3 turbo engines was the 1985.5 SVO Mustang with 205 hp.

[Deanh]

Yep. In 1989, the TBird went "SC" and gained a couple cylinders. I'd eventually own one of those, and I'm still said that I had to let it go.

 

My biggest beef with the 2.3 was that Ford insisted on putting in so many vehicles, but wouldn't put a modern 16v valvetrain on it. It was the base engine on essentially every car in the early 80's, it should've gotten some development beyond the twin plug head going into the 90's.

 

However, back to the topic...I remain one that would like to see a V6 option back in the Fusion. I know there are others who hate knowing the top engine option is 30 hp down to...Kia?!?!

 

And yes, I've seen the commercial on YouTube on this very subject, and there's a reason why half or more of the comments aren't real complimentary.

dont forget Zan, that supposed 30 hp difference are KIA numbers.......and yes, I agree on having a six cylinder...how about grafting TWO eco 1.0's for a 2.0 eco 6?.....ahhhh, dreams.....

[Deanh]

Same thing with my 4.0 Ranger. Easily a 2-3 mpg gain after the first 15 000Kms.

well in defence, engines tolerances now are night and day with the engines such as the old 302s and 4.0's which did garner additional MPGs after 5000 or so miles...witness the difference in oil viscosity now utilized....try and run that 4.0 on 5W-20..................

[silvrsvt]

dont forget Zan, that supposed 30 hp difference are KIA numbers......

 

I wonder what the "real" world difference is in performance?

[Hydro]

I wonder what the "real" world difference is in performance?

Might be pretty accurate? It works the Fusion 0-60... The Fusion is actually the slowest in 1.6 & 2.0 comparisons. The Accord and camry are CLEARLY the better choices when equipped with the V6. They offer better MPG and way quicker than the 2.0EB

 

here's the link from 92Mercs post

 

http://autos.yahoo.com/news/consumer-reports-finds-small-turbo-engines-dont-deliver-050100955.html

Edited February 7, 2013 by Hydro

[jasonj80]

I really want to see what the 3.5L would do in a Fusion in mileage .

22 city/32 hwy/26 combined - I4 Ecoboost in the Taurus (2.0)
19 city/29 hwy/23 combined - V6 in the Taurus
22 city/33 hwy/26 combined - I4 Ecoboost in the Fusion
so estimate 20 city/30 hwy for a 3.5L V6 in the Fusion -- I really think Ford should just build it to shut people up -- might not sell a lot but there are people that MUST have a v6 and now you've given them a 30K option, I also think they would sell 25-30K a year of them and they would be new customers.

On another note the DRL LED's on the Mondeo look really sharp, hopefully those show up on the 2014 Fusion's at least as an option.

[ZanatWork]

A few of us caught crap at the time of the Fusion reveal, as no sport model and no V6 were in the works...and because the car had essentially dropped to the bottom in available power among cars in the segment.

I find fuel mileage and technology interesting, but not terribly exciting. If I'm going to drop 5 digits worth of money on a vehicle purchase, I certainly want it to excite me. One doesn't have to choose between performance and useability anymore. Plenty of vehicles have good performance, acceptable mileage, and all the useful factors one could ask for.

The Fusion is gorgeous, no argument. That, however, makes it kind of tragic that for the performance-leaning buyer, it's among the slowest in its class. If they think it's worth promoting in NASCAR, they must know some customers in the stands or watching TV will be interested in performance.

I'm sure we'll get our sport model, but for the time being...small motors are still thrashier, and a shape that lovely deserves a lovely drivetrain. I don't think this is unreasonable.

[akirby]

A few of us caught crap at the time of the Fusion reveal, as no sport model and no V6 were in the works...and because the car had essentially dropped to the bottom in available power among cars in the segment.

 

Yet they're selling like hotcakes. That should tell you something, but probably won't.

[ZanatWork]

Spiffy. Camries also sell like hotcakes, but there isn't one made that a driving enthusiast would buy.

Glad to see you're still determined to be childish, I appreciate consistency.