• Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0

    Consumer Reports Criticizes The Turbocharging Trend


    By William Maley

    Staff Writer - CheersandGears.com

    February 5, 2013

    The trend of automakers downsizing engines and adding turbochargers to add performance and increase fuel economy has drawn the ire of Consumer Reports.

    The publication recently tested eleven different vehicles and found that with rare exception, “the turbocharged cars have slower acceleration and no better fuel economy than the models with bigger, conventional engines.”

    Consumer Reports highlights the Ford Fusion which can come equipped with either an optional 1.6L or 2.0L EcoBoost turbocharged four-cylinder. In CR's testing, the 1.6L EcoBoost Fusion posted the slowest 0-60 MPH of 8.9 seconds among competitors with naturally aspirated engines: Kia Optima (8.6), Hyundai Sonata (8.4), Honda Accord (8.2), Nissan Altima (8.2) and Toyota Camry (7.7).

    The 1.6L EcoBoost didn't fare any better when it came time for fuel economy as it scored the lowest as-tested combined number of 25 MPG. The Nissan Altima delivered the best with 31 MPG, followed by the Honda Accord and Toyota Camry with 30.

    Similarly, the 2.0L EcoBoost Fusion posted the lowest combined fuel economy number of 22 MPG when compared to rivals with V6s: Toyota Camry and Honda Accord (26) and Nissan Altima (24). As for 0-60 run, the 2.0L posted the slowest time of 7.4 seconds. The Toyota Camry, Nissan Altima, and Honda Accord were about a second faster.

    CR also highlights the Chevrolet Cruze when equipped with the 1.4L turbo-four. While the 1.4 turbo is quicker than the 1.8L by about 0.8 to 60 MPH, the two got the same 26 MPG combined average during testing.

    Source: Consumer Reports, Los Angeles Times

    William Maley is a staff writer for Cheers & Gears. He can be reached at william.maley@cheersandgears.com or you can follow him on twitter at @realmudmonster.

    0


    Sign in to follow this  
    Followers 0


    User Feedback


    Interesting. Makes me wonder if the 1.0L Ecoboost 3 will be worth a wait in the Ford Fiesta, or if the 1.6 base motor would be a better bet.

    I do like the torquey feel of the 1.4t Ecotec though. I imagine the 2.5 in the Malibu to be a nice, economical choice.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Kinda flies in the face of everything being lamented by so many that small-displacement turbo was the way to go. It might seem there is some work to be done if there is to be any appreciable benefit. I wonder how everything fairs with long-term maintenance thrown in the mix.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    BMW's N20 motor is really the only turbo four that works: high real world MPG, linear power delivery from idle to redline, zero lag, and pleasing engine note. At idle, it's a bit clattery, but that's the price of direct injection.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Without describing how they did their testing I'm forced back to my old mantra of "prove it CR". I don't trust any report that comes from them any more because they have too much of an agenda.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Without describing how they did their testing I'm forced back to my old mantra of "prove it CR". I don't trust any report that comes from them any more because they have too much of an agenda.

    Agreed, I have seen CR with way too much Agenda to hold them as a valid non bias test company of products.

    Plus I think this tax on the size of the engine is driving this whole small size turbo thing as the companies are logically wanting to have universal engines to sell world wide.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well simply put, their own test results do not match what everyone else in the real world seems to be getting. I can make a Cruze Eco get 16mpg too, but I can also make it get 51mpg.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    I am not going to waste anymore time criticizing Displacement Taxes -- which does nothing to improve fuel economy or emissions. Legislators all over are more than capable of utter stupidity.

    The fact of the matter is that from a strictly technical standpoint -- from an engineering standpoint. Reducing displacement and adding forced induction is a horrible way of netting improvements in fuel mileage. And sometimes, it takes a pretty non-technical savvy publication -- like consumer reports to cut through the BS and simply present the facts. It doesn't really achieve a net reduction in fuel consumption and when it does the gains are so marginal (~0.5 mpg) that it's hardly worth the $1000~$1500 and added maintenance forced induction adds to the vehicle.

    If you are really serious about fuel economy, the formula is simple.

    • Use an Atkinson cam grind (which reduces specific output by ~ 25%)
    • Increase Displacement by 25% (to make up the loss)
    • Reduce the cylinder count if without reducing displacement (going from 4 cylinders to 3)
    • Reduce the number of cams and valves (going to SOHC or pushrods, and 2-valves per cylinder is a start)
    • Use Direct Injection and as high a static compression as you can (approximately 15:1 for 87 octane Atkinson cammed engines)

    Do that and you'll net about 12~13% fuel economy gains over the baseline with no performance loss and no cost increase. You'll take a slight refinement hit (from the cylinder count drop) but you can mitigate that with a balancer shaft or engine mountings -- it's not unlike going from a V6 to an I5 or I4.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well I am not fully on the turbo bandwagon, if anyone cares, I've done some complaining about the complexity and longterm maintenance issues in the past. This report just blows up the whole debate again.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    "Consumer Reports highlights the Ford Fusion which can come equipped with either an optional 1.6L or 2.0L EcoBoost turbocharged four-cylinder. In CR's testing, the 1.6L EcoBoost Fusion posted the slowest 0-60 MPH of 8.9 seconds among competitors with naturally aspirated engines: Kia Optima (8.6), Hyundai Sonata (8.4), Honda Accord (8.2), Nissan Altima (8.2) and Toyota Camry (7.7)."

    :confused0071: they do realize they are testing sedans right? i mean they arent for racing, they are for going from one place to the next... of course the mpg advantage will be less than substantial when you wring out one of these rubberband motors out... it aint what they were made for.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Well, have they tested the 2.5L Fusion? Have they tested the 2.5L Malibu? The non-turbo, non eek-Assist Regal and Verano? The 3.6L Impala and LaCrosse? What were their results in testing the previous 3.6L Malibu?

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites

    Over all we can go with bigger non turbo 4,6 and 8 size engines and run them on CNG with a cleaner longer life than on petrol. Allaround far greener and better for everyone than to go to rubber band turbo's.

    0

    Share this comment


    Link to comment
    Share on other sites


    Your content will need to be approved by a moderator

    Guest
    You are commenting as a guest. If you have an account, please sign in.
    Add a comment...

    ×   You have pasted content with formatting.   Remove formatting

    ×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

    ×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor




  • Popular Stories

  • Similar Content

    • By dfelt
      G. David Felt
      Staff Writer Alternative Energy - www.CheersandGears.com
       
      Bosch Selling WaterBoost Injection for Turbo Engines

      Seems since BMW M4 using a Bosch water injection system that works, Bosch has decided this is what the future is for all turbo engines and has come out with a solution kit to sell to all OEMs of Turbo Engines called WaterBoost.
      Essentially this is added to the intake side with a water vapor injection to cool the piston, increasing density and driving longer life and more power from the engine. This technology is not new and has been around since WWII when it was used in supercharged planes to assist during hard maneuvers and intense battle fights. The early days of water injection for auto's started with the 1962 Oldsmobile Cutlass Turbo Jetfire, water injection made another appearance in the 1980's in Formula 1 cars.
      Bosch states 2019 for kit availability to OEMS and aftermarket. As per the Seattle Times story, biggest challenge will be to get the OEMs to redesign their intake system to accept the waterboost injector and customers having to refill the storage bottle with Distilled water. The second issue might not be so hard at least for Diesel owners who are already used to filling up their Urea bottles to clean up their emissions. Yet will the average petro driver want to deal with refilling a water bottle on the engine and how long will the water bottle last, what happens once it is empty, will the engine still run or stop or detune? Interesting times we live in for the auto industry builders.
      Big question is what is the cost? Will it be worth the 5% greater engine performance, 13% less fuel consumption and 4% less CO2 emitted per the Bosch web site?
      Info Source
      Bosch web site
      Seattle Times web site
    • By William Maley
      It seemed that it would never happen, a domestic brand cracking into the top three of Consumer Reports' annual Auto Reliability Survey. But in the 2016 survey, Buick became the first domestic brand in three decades to be in the top three of reliable brands - behind Lexus and Toyota.
      “Buick’s achievement is commendable and sure to be a wake-up call to other manufacturers. One reason why the brand has been able to leapfrog others in the General Motors’ stable has been its limited vehicle lineup--with none of the pickups and truck-based SUVs that have negatively impacted Cadillac and Chevrolet,” said Jake Fisher, Consumer Reports’ director of automotive testing in a statement.
      For the 2016 survey, Consumer Reports changed up their predicted reliability score to a 0-100 scale. Brands that score between 41 to 60 were deemed to be reliable. If a brand finishes below, it is deemed to be less reliable, while those that finished above were deemed to be more reliable. 
      Rounding out the top ten list include Audi, Kia, Mazda, Hyundai, Infiniti (up 16 spots), BMW, and Honda. Chevrolet was the second highest domestic brand by finishing 15th. Ford placed 18th in the survey, still being troubled by the dual-clutch transmissions used in the Fiesta and Focus. FCA had a rough showing again with Chrysler, Fiat, and Ram Trucks finishing in the bottom three. 
      Other notes from the 2016 Annual Auto Reliability Survey:
      Tesla is now part of the survey as they now have two models - Model S and X. They placed 25th. The Model S saw its reliability rating improve to average, while the Model X is toward the bottom due to numerous problems. Subaru fell out of the top 10 because of the WRX and STI getting below average reliability, and the Legacy/Outback falling to average. The recently redesigned Honda Civic is said to have “much-worse-than-average” reliability due to issues with the infotainment and power accessories.  Source: Consumer Reports, Automotive News (Subscription Required)
      Press Release is on Page 2
      Consumer Reports 2016 Annual Auto Reliability Survey: Buick Becomes First Domestic to Reach the Top Three
      New Honda Civic Plagued with Power Equipment and Infotainment Systems Problems YONKERS, NY – While Asian brands continue to dominate, Buick has become the first domestic brand in more than three decades to earn a place in the top three most reliable brands in Consumer Reports’ Annual Brand Reliability Survey. The findings were announced during a press conference before the Automotive Press Association in Detroit today.
      There was trouble, too, for one of the imports: Honda’s popular Civic model proved to have “much-worse-than-average” reliability due to problems with its power equipment and infotainment systems. The Civic was North American Car of the Year for 2016.
      Buick, General Motors’ near-luxury brand, has been hovering in the top 10 of CR’s brand reliability rankings for the past few years. But CR’s latest findings show Buick has joined Lexus and Toyota on the podium for the first time since the organization began tracking brand performance in the early 1980s. Chevrolet ranks as the second-best domestic brand and is in 15th place overall among the 29 brands covered.
      Consumer Reports—the world’s largest and most trusted consumer nonprofit—first published its annual brand reliability rankings in 2001. That initial analysis showed that domestic nameplate vehicles had been lagging behind Japanese and European imports for the previous 20 years. Factoring in that history makes Buick’s third-place finish the highest for any American brand in more than 35 years.
      “Buick’s achievement is commendable and sure to be a wake-up call to other manufacturers,” said Jake Fisher, Consumer Reports’ director of automotive testing. “One reason why the brand has been able to leapfrog others in the General Motors’ stable has been its limited vehicle lineup--with none of the pickups and truck-based SUVs that have negatively impacted Cadillac and Chevrolet.”
      All of the Asian nameplates scored among the top half of the 29 brands tested, accounting for seven of the top 10 spots. Lexus and Toyota continued their domination, finishing in first and second place for the fourth straight year. All nine Lexus models CR rated had better-than-average reliability, as would have Toyota, had it not been for the below average score of the redesigned 2016 Tacoma pickup truck.
      Among the other Asian brands, Infiniti made the biggest gain, while Acura was up six spots and Nissan moved up two. All Mazda models remained above average except for the new CX-3 small SUV, which came in at average. Kia and Hyundai continue to surge up the rankings, coming in at five and seven this year. No Kia or Hyundai models scored below average.
      Honda has continued with its erratic trajectory, making landfall at number 10 among all brands. Usually a top finisher known for reliability, the brand has been hurt by new introductions. In addition to the new Civic, the redesigned Pilot SUV was just average.
      Historically a strong performer, Subaru is an example of how smaller manufacturers can be helped—or hindered—by the performance of one or two models. Subaru fell out of the top 10, hurt by the 2016 Legacy and Outback falling to average, and the sporty WRX/STi dropping to below average.
      Reliability improvements helped some luxury brands move up. Infiniti jumped 16 spots to number eight, but the brand still runs hot and cold. The older QX50 SUV and Q70 sedan had top scores, but the newer QX60 SUV and Q50 sedan were below average. BMW also moved into the top 10, with the 5 Series, X5, and i3 improving to average.
      Audi has had several years of upward progress, and it continues to rank in the top five. The new Q7 and the Q3 SUVs were very reliable. Other European brands continue their inconsistency. Mercedes was one of the big movers, jumping four spots to number 17. The 2016 GLC, which replaced the reliable GLK, launched with well-above-average reliability, and the GLA and GLE SUVs were average. But the large GLS SUV was among the 20 most trouble-prone new cars in the survey, and the C- and S-Class sedans remained unreliable.
      Volkswagen and Volvo, however, tumbled. Aside from the Tiguan SUV, all other VW models had below average reliability. The redesigned XC90 was the big culprit in Volvo’s plunge to the bottom third ranking, with its touch-screen infotainment and climate systems being particularly problematic.
      Transmissions with more ratios and advanced drivetrains continue to be a challenge for a number of brands. While the Acura TLX and Jeep Cherokee have seen improvements in the reliability of their nine-speed automatics, earlier models are still problematic. Ford’s dual-clutch automatic transmission continues to afflict the Fiesta and Focus, which is one reason they are among the lowest-scoring models. Likewise, early versions of the current Nissan Pathfinder and similar Infiniti QX60 SUVs continue to suffer from problems with their continuously variable transmissions.
      Other GM marques did not fare as well as Buick. Chevrolet saw gains, moving up five spots since last year. It was helped in particular by the stellar reliability of the redesigned 2016 Cruze, which topped all compact cars, and the Corvette, which moved up to average. Cadillac has two models with below-average reliability—the Escalade and small ATS sedan—while the CTS and XTS sedans were average or better. GMC has dropped, hurt by its versions of the same large SUVs and pickup trucks that haunt Chevrolet.
      Consumer Reports requires at least two models with sufficient data in order to be included in its brand reliability rankings. With the introduction of the new Model X SUV, Tesla is now included and is ranked toward the bottom, at 25th. The Model X launched with abundant problems, including frequent malfunctions of the falcon-wing doors, water leaks, and infotainment and climate-control system problems. The Model S gained ground this year, improving to average reliability.
      Fiat-Chrysler continues its turbulent voyage. The Fiat 500L, the most trouble-prone new car for the past two years, is now only the seventh-most troublesome. No Fiat or Ram vehicle managed even an average reliability rating. Only the Chrysler 300 sedan, Dodge Grand Caravan minivan, and Jeep Patriot SUV managed an average or better score.
    • By William Maley
      It seemed that it would never happen, a domestic brand cracking into the top three of Consumer Reports' annual Auto Reliability Survey. But in the 2016 survey, Buick became the first domestic brand in three decades to be in the top three of reliable brands - behind Lexus and Toyota.
      “Buick’s achievement is commendable and sure to be a wake-up call to other manufacturers. One reason why the brand has been able to leapfrog others in the General Motors’ stable has been its limited vehicle lineup--with none of the pickups and truck-based SUVs that have negatively impacted Cadillac and Chevrolet,” said Jake Fisher, Consumer Reports’ director of automotive testing in a statement.
      For the 2016 survey, Consumer Reports changed up their predicted reliability score to a 0-100 scale. Brands that score between 41 to 60 were deemed to be reliable. If a brand finishes below, it is deemed to be less reliable, while those that finished above were deemed to be more reliable. 
      Rounding out the top ten list include Audi, Kia, Mazda, Hyundai, Infiniti (up 16 spots), BMW, and Honda. Chevrolet was the second highest domestic brand by finishing 15th. Ford placed 18th in the survey, still being troubled by the dual-clutch transmissions used in the Fiesta and Focus. FCA had a rough showing again with Chrysler, Fiat, and Ram Trucks finishing in the bottom three. 
      Other notes from the 2016 Annual Auto Reliability Survey:
      Tesla is now part of the survey as they now have two models - Model S and X. They placed 25th. The Model S saw its reliability rating improve to average, while the Model X is toward the bottom due to numerous problems. Subaru fell out of the top 10 because of the WRX and STI getting below average reliability, and the Legacy/Outback falling to average. The recently redesigned Honda Civic is said to have “much-worse-than-average” reliability due to issues with the infotainment and power accessories.  Source: Consumer Reports, Automotive News (Subscription Required)
      Press Release is on Page 2
      Consumer Reports 2016 Annual Auto Reliability Survey: Buick Becomes First Domestic to Reach the Top Three
      New Honda Civic Plagued with Power Equipment and Infotainment Systems Problems YONKERS, NY – While Asian brands continue to dominate, Buick has become the first domestic brand in more than three decades to earn a place in the top three most reliable brands in Consumer Reports’ Annual Brand Reliability Survey. The findings were announced during a press conference before the Automotive Press Association in Detroit today.
      There was trouble, too, for one of the imports: Honda’s popular Civic model proved to have “much-worse-than-average” reliability due to problems with its power equipment and infotainment systems. The Civic was North American Car of the Year for 2016.
      Buick, General Motors’ near-luxury brand, has been hovering in the top 10 of CR’s brand reliability rankings for the past few years. But CR’s latest findings show Buick has joined Lexus and Toyota on the podium for the first time since the organization began tracking brand performance in the early 1980s. Chevrolet ranks as the second-best domestic brand and is in 15th place overall among the 29 brands covered.
      Consumer Reports—the world’s largest and most trusted consumer nonprofit—first published its annual brand reliability rankings in 2001. That initial analysis showed that domestic nameplate vehicles had been lagging behind Japanese and European imports for the previous 20 years. Factoring in that history makes Buick’s third-place finish the highest for any American brand in more than 35 years.
      “Buick’s achievement is commendable and sure to be a wake-up call to other manufacturers,” said Jake Fisher, Consumer Reports’ director of automotive testing. “One reason why the brand has been able to leapfrog others in the General Motors’ stable has been its limited vehicle lineup--with none of the pickups and truck-based SUVs that have negatively impacted Cadillac and Chevrolet.”
      All of the Asian nameplates scored among the top half of the 29 brands tested, accounting for seven of the top 10 spots. Lexus and Toyota continued their domination, finishing in first and second place for the fourth straight year. All nine Lexus models CR rated had better-than-average reliability, as would have Toyota, had it not been for the below average score of the redesigned 2016 Tacoma pickup truck.
      Among the other Asian brands, Infiniti made the biggest gain, while Acura was up six spots and Nissan moved up two. All Mazda models remained above average except for the new CX-3 small SUV, which came in at average. Kia and Hyundai continue to surge up the rankings, coming in at five and seven this year. No Kia or Hyundai models scored below average.
      Honda has continued with its erratic trajectory, making landfall at number 10 among all brands. Usually a top finisher known for reliability, the brand has been hurt by new introductions. In addition to the new Civic, the redesigned Pilot SUV was just average.
      Historically a strong performer, Subaru is an example of how smaller manufacturers can be helped—or hindered—by the performance of one or two models. Subaru fell out of the top 10, hurt by the 2016 Legacy and Outback falling to average, and the sporty WRX/STi dropping to below average.
      Reliability improvements helped some luxury brands move up. Infiniti jumped 16 spots to number eight, but the brand still runs hot and cold. The older QX50 SUV and Q70 sedan had top scores, but the newer QX60 SUV and Q50 sedan were below average. BMW also moved into the top 10, with the 5 Series, X5, and i3 improving to average.
      Audi has had several years of upward progress, and it continues to rank in the top five. The new Q7 and the Q3 SUVs were very reliable. Other European brands continue their inconsistency. Mercedes was one of the big movers, jumping four spots to number 17. The 2016 GLC, which replaced the reliable GLK, launched with well-above-average reliability, and the GLA and GLE SUVs were average. But the large GLS SUV was among the 20 most trouble-prone new cars in the survey, and the C- and S-Class sedans remained unreliable.
      Volkswagen and Volvo, however, tumbled. Aside from the Tiguan SUV, all other VW models had below average reliability. The redesigned XC90 was the big culprit in Volvo’s plunge to the bottom third ranking, with its touch-screen infotainment and climate systems being particularly problematic.
      Transmissions with more ratios and advanced drivetrains continue to be a challenge for a number of brands. While the Acura TLX and Jeep Cherokee have seen improvements in the reliability of their nine-speed automatics, earlier models are still problematic. Ford’s dual-clutch automatic transmission continues to afflict the Fiesta and Focus, which is one reason they are among the lowest-scoring models. Likewise, early versions of the current Nissan Pathfinder and similar Infiniti QX60 SUVs continue to suffer from problems with their continuously variable transmissions.
      Other GM marques did not fare as well as Buick. Chevrolet saw gains, moving up five spots since last year. It was helped in particular by the stellar reliability of the redesigned 2016 Cruze, which topped all compact cars, and the Corvette, which moved up to average. Cadillac has two models with below-average reliability—the Escalade and small ATS sedan—while the CTS and XTS sedans were average or better. GMC has dropped, hurt by its versions of the same large SUVs and pickup trucks that haunt Chevrolet.
      Consumer Reports requires at least two models with sufficient data in order to be included in its brand reliability rankings. With the introduction of the new Model X SUV, Tesla is now included and is ranked toward the bottom, at 25th. The Model X launched with abundant problems, including frequent malfunctions of the falcon-wing doors, water leaks, and infotainment and climate-control system problems. The Model S gained ground this year, improving to average reliability.
      Fiat-Chrysler continues its turbulent voyage. The Fiat 500L, the most trouble-prone new car for the past two years, is now only the seventh-most troublesome. No Fiat or Ram vehicle managed even an average reliability rating. Only the Chrysler 300 sedan, Dodge Grand Caravan minivan, and Jeep Patriot SUV managed an average or better score.

      View full article
    • By William Maley
      The current Ford Fiesta ST uses a 1.6L EcoBoost four-cylinder. But the next-generation Fiesta ST could be using a turbocharged three-cylinder.
      “We’re seeing more and more of what we can do with the 1.0-litre engine in development and the signs are promising. It’s a great engine – it sounds brilliant and there’s loads of torque when the turbo comes on boost, so we’re looking into things for the next ST,” said Darren Palmer, Ford's head of small cars to Auto Express.
       
      Currently, the most powerful version of the 1.0L EcoBoost three-cylinder produces 138 horsepower. But Ford has been experimenting with the engine to see how much power can be extracted. At the moment, the company has been able to get 202 horsepower.
      “There’s still a huge demand for the ST – we’ve seen that with the current ST200. But we want to offer more, so expect more performance and efficiency,” said Palmer.
      Source: Auto Express
       
       
      View full article
       
    • By William Maley
      The current Ford Fiesta ST uses a 1.6L EcoBoost four-cylinder. But the next-generation Fiesta ST could be using a turbocharged three-cylinder.
      “We’re seeing more and more of what we can do with the 1.0-litre engine in development and the signs are promising. It’s a great engine – it sounds brilliant and there’s loads of torque when the turbo comes on boost, so we’re looking into things for the next ST,” said Darren Palmer, Ford's head of small cars to Auto Express.
       
      Currently, the most powerful version of the 1.0L EcoBoost three-cylinder produces 138 horsepower. But Ford has been experimenting with the engine to see how much power can be extracted. At the moment, the company has been able to get 202 horsepower.
      “There’s still a huge demand for the ST – we’ve seen that with the current ST200. But we want to offer more, so expect more performance and efficiency,” said Palmer.
      Source: Auto Express
       
  • Recent Status Updates

  • Who's Online (See full list)