Small turbo engines don't deliver

[itguy08]

Never been a CR fan. Pretty much all their "ratings" are from an old [censored] point of view which is afraid of technology. Been that way for years. And when they point out "flaws", it's always "the sky is falling".

It was an interesting read and watch of the video. But there is definitely some bias going on.

I've driven both the Escape and Fusion. Both seemed plenty fast to me. And smooth too.

There are a bunch of inaccuracies in this article:

Quote:
However, our so-equipped Fusion Titanium returned 22 mpg (which pales against the 25 and 26 mpg we recorded for the best V6 family sedans), slower acceleration and reduced refinement compared to its V6-powered peers.


From THEIR Fusion review:

Quote:
The redesigned Fusion is a delight to drive and is quite stylish. All versions have a solid, upscale feel, with a supple ride, agile handling, and sharp steering.


So which is it? Delight to drive or unrefined?

Also, how do these new cars fare when compared to the outgoing V6 models (in the case of the Fusion and Escape).

They also spend a lot of time bashing Ford and Chevy when the Hyundai/Kia turbos are the same way - less fuel economy than the regular ones.

Seems more of a click bait article than good reporting.

And I've been quite happy with the fuel economy and performance of the Ecoboost 3.5 in my SHO...

Over 51k, my fuel economy #'s are:
Avg 20.35
Min 14.11
Max 30.88

Not bad considering AWD and the car tips the scale at well over 4,000 LBS.

Drive it like you stole it and it will drink gas like a drunk drinking whiskey. Drive it sanely and it's about the same as any other 3.5 V6.

 

[zzyzzx]

I bet they would get really good gas mileage if they unplugged the turbo! Those people drive with the proverbial lead foot.

 

[sciphi]

Originally Posted By: zzyzzx
I bet they would get really good gas mileage if they unplugged the turbo! Those people drive with the proverbial lead foot.


Don't use the turbo much and get great fuel economy. Also, rational gearing helps. I have to shift out of 6th in my turbocharged Cruze to get any meaningful acceleration. 6th is a gear where the turbo is used sparingly, so the engine sips fuel like the tiny engine it is. On highways the car stays in 6th whenever possible since it's loafing at 1700 RPM at 60 mph, sipping fuel like the 1.4 liter it is.

In the right application a small turbo engine can help achieve great MPG numbers. Gearing and aerodynamics play a role, too.

 

[gathermewool]

Not apples to apples, but my STI gets me to 60 mph in < 5 seconds, while returning an average of exactly 22 mpg, as calculated over the last 39,000 miles.

It's all about knowing how to drive a turbo-charged vehicle.

 

[Jarlaxle]

That's...wow. 22MPG? That's...appalling is a good word. Pathetic also fits. A little engine in a little car and only 22MPG. Just...wow. I managed that with a 4500lb car and a 5.7 litre engine!

 

[mechanicx]

Originally Posted By: KrisZ
Meh. Looks like another so called "journalist" is trying to push whatever bias he has to the public.

I bet these cars were never drive equally and I can clearly see a line drawn between imports (Japanese, German and Korean) and domestics. Same old bias to praise everything foreign and bash domestic offerings or at least give ammo for bashing.


I agree, CR seems to have a very strong Japanese brand bias and a foreign car bias in general. I'm not much of a fan of Ford's Egoboost, but I think intentionally or done subconsciously CR probably lead-footed the domestic turbo models to make them look worse.

Some one left an interesting comment to the story indicating that CR over reported the foreign cars milage and underreported the domestics compared to what owners reported to a gas milage website.

Quote:
Some of these "real world" numbers reported by Consumer Reports just don't make sense, especially when compared to true user reported real world data on websites such as fuelly.com

Here's a comparison of the numbers mentioned in this article vs user reported fuel economy (sorted alphabetically by make):

consumer reports, fuelly.com
BMW 328i (over reported by 2 mpg) 28, 26
Chevy Cruze (under reported by 7 mpg) 26, 33
Ford Fusion (reported fairly on) 25, 25
Honda Accord (over reported by 2 mpg) 30, 28
Nissan Altima (over reported by 2 mpg) 31, 29
Toyota Camry (reported on fairly) 27, 27

Note: fuelly does not differentiate between turbo and non-turbo engines. This likely hurts the Fusion's average

 

[rjundi]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That's...wow. 22MPG? That's...appalling is a good word. Pathetic also fits. A little engine in a little car and only 22MPG. Just...wow. I managed that with a 4500lb car and a 5.7 litre engine!


I don't believe you maintained an average of 22 MPG in a 4500lb/5.7L vehicle if 60%+ city driving involved.

 

[Cujet]

My F150 Ecoboost gets far better MPG's than my 5.4L V8 powered version of the same truck. 21-22 vs. 14-15.

BUT, the EB powered truck is a work truck, and I MUST never drive it over the speed limit, or lose my job. The other truck is mine and I drive it normally. Driven exactly the same, the V8 will get 15-16.

Also, the EB truck gets far better MPG's now that it has some miles on it. Plus fresh oil and premium fuel help too.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That's...wow. 22MPG? That's...appalling is a good word. Pathetic also fits. A little engine in a little car and only 22MPG. Just...wow. I managed that with a 4500lb car and a 5.7 litre engine!


I don't believe you maintained an average of 22 MPG in a 4500lb/5.7L vehicle if 60%+ city driving involved.


Bingo

I'm 1mpg under the rated highway, with a lot of city driving.

 

[Jarlaxle]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That's...wow. 22MPG? That's...appalling is a good word. Pathetic also fits. A little engine in a little car and only 22MPG. Just...wow. I managed that with a 4500lb car and a 5.7 litre engine!


I don't believe you maintained an average of 22 MPG in a 4500lb/5.7L vehicle if 60%+ city driving involved.


You did not mention is was mostly city driving!

 

[sciphi]

Chevy got zinged by this article among others, and changed the final drive ratio in the 2012-current Cruze's automatic transmission from 3.87 to 3.53. 2012 automatic owners are much happier with their fuel economy than the 2011 automatic owners.

That being said, with this particular engine a manual transmission gets the best real-world results. I covered my last 43 miles on 0.8 gallons today. My first 43 took 1.1 gallons. The turbo was used liberally ascending ~1000 vertical feet on the first leg, and in a passing maneuver on the last leg.

 

[gathermewool]

Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
Originally Posted By: rjundi
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That's...wow. 22MPG? That's...appalling is a good word. Pathetic also fits. A little engine in a little car and only 22MPG. Just...wow. I managed that with a 4500lb car and a 5.7 litre engine!


I don't believe you maintained an average of 22 MPG in a 4500lb/5.7L vehicle if 60%+ city driving involved.


You did not mention is was mostly city driving!


You didn't ask before making you smart-Alec reply.

The point is, every car has its purpose. Mine is to put 300+ ft-# of torque to all four wheels as well as any drivetrain can, and still get decent gas mileage. My relatively poor gas mileage has nothing to do with being powered by a strung-out 4-banger and everything to do with the amount of mass having to be accelerated, the losses associated with the triple LSD's, and the low CR required to achieve an engine that can reliably run 15# of boost, stock. The CR alone kills most of the cruising mileage, IMO.

An H6 with equivalent performance would most likely get the same, if not worse mileage (especially in the city,) and take up more room under the hood.

 

[itguy08]

Originally Posted By: sciphi
Chevy got zinged by this article among others, and changed the final drive ratio in the 2012-current Cruze's automatic transmission from 3.87 to 3.53. 2012 automatic owners are much happier with their fuel economy than the 2011 automatic owners.


My only issue with it is they spent 95% of the article bashing Ford and Chevy. 1 Paragraph about BMW, Audi, and VW. No mention about Hyundai and Kia who also got less fuel economy with their turbo engines.

Stuff like that makes it hard to hide CR's import bias.

 

[SteveSRT8]

Originally Posted By: rjundi
Originally Posted By: Jarlaxle
That's...wow. 22MPG? That's...appalling is a good word. Pathetic also fits. A little engine in a little car and only 22MPG. Just...wow. I managed that with a 4500lb car and a 5.7 litre engine!


I don't believe you maintained an average of 22 MPG in a 4500lb/5.7L vehicle if 60%+ city driving involved.


I would tend to agree with this. I have a 2005 Silverado that is a bit of a freak. Weighs in at about 4800 pounds net. It runs like a 6.0 (it's a 5.3) and gets around 18 in the city. If you really drive it carefully you could get 19-20. But you would be really making people behind you mad!

 

[vwGLI]

look at the honda's 3.5L V6!!!
It has more MPG than 2.4L as well as 2.0T. So amazing!

 

[tig1]

Originally Posted By: Cujet
My F150 Ecoboost gets far better MPG's than my 5.4L V8 powered version of the same truck. 21-22 vs. 14-15.

BUT, the EB powered truck is a work truck, and I MUST never drive it over the speed limit, or lose my job. The other truck is mine and I drive it normally. Driven exactly the same, the V8 will get 15-16.

Also, the EB truck gets far better MPG's now that it has some miles on it. Plus fresh oil and premium fuel help too.


A friend has had about the same experience as you. He traded his 2002 Ford 5.4 in toward a 2011 EB. He uses it in his construction business, so it is often loaded with equiptment, or pulling an inclosed trl. He is getting around 18MPG under those conditions. That's about 6 MPG better than the old Ford.

 

[BeerCan]

just as a data point my 2011 ecoboost averages about 3mpg better than my 2010 5.4 did. Almost identical trucks, in fact the EB is slightly heavier.

 

[Shaman]

Originally Posted By: bepperb
Fortunately we're pretty early on in the turbo for fuel economy movement, things will get better from here.


The J makers have been using turbos for economy for over 2, and close to 3 decades. If they would transfer that over, then things would speed up greatly.

 

[ryster]

Originally Posted By: vwGLI
look at the honda's 3.5L V6!!!
It has more MPG than 2.4L as well as 2.0T. So amazing!


Not really. If you look at the EPA ratings:

2013 Honda Accord Sedan 3.5L V6
21mpg city
34mpg highway
25mpg combined

2013 Honda Accord Coupe 3.5L V6
21mpg city
32mpg highway
25mpg combined

2013 Hyundai Sonata 2.4L
24mpg city
35mpg highway
28mpg combined

2013 Hyundai Sonata 2.0T
22mpg city
34mpg highway
26mpg combined

 

[[email protected]]

Originally Posted By: vwGLI
look at the honda's 3.5L V6!!!
It has more MPG than 2.4L as well as 2.0T. So amazing!


The beauty of the internet... any guy can say whatever he wants without any basis and people believe it for fact.