Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don’t deliver on fuel economy claims

18 Янв 2015 | Author: | No comments yet »
Toyota Camry sedan IV

Find Ratings

Small engines are marketed as delivering the of a large engine, with the economy of a smaller one. a tempting proposition, but our testing these small-displacement turbos are not on the promises.

By now, we’ve many cars with engines, and lots of competitors traditional, naturally-aspirated powerplants, big and Generally, the turbocharged cars slower acceleration and no better economy than the models bigger, conventional engines. at EPA fuel-economy estimates (calculated on laboratory tests), some of cars’ turbocharged engines to have an advantage. But we found results don’t match the from our own fuel-economy tests .

The latest example is the collection of Ford Fusions we tested. come with small, turbocharged four-cylinder engines. The one—a 1.6-liter producing 173 a $795 option over the conventional 2.5-liter four on Fusion SE models. But that 0-60 mph acceleration time most competitors, and its 25 mpg overall it among the worst of the crop of family sedans. The Toyota Honda Accord. and Nissan all with conventional 2.4- or four-cylinder engines, get an additional 2, 5, and 6 respectively. And all accelerate more

The larger among Ford’s four-cylinder engines, the turbocharged 2.0-liter, is billed as having the of a V6 but delivering the fuel economy of a However, our so-equipped Fusion returned 22 mpg (which pales the 25 and 26 mpg we recorded for the best V6 family slower acceleration and reduced compared to its V6-powered peers.

Toyota Camry sedan IV

Another example is our tests of the Cruze. Our base Cruze had the four-cylinder; our higher-end 1LT version with the 1.4-liter turbo cylinder. While the 1.4-liter marginally more powerful in driving, it was barely faster to 60 and it got the same fuel economy as the engine—26 mpg overall.

Turbochargers extra air into the engine to more power. But all engines to be operated at a very specific ratio. So this extra air has to be with extra fuel, may offset any savings from engine sizes.

One benefit to the turbocharged engines is an of torque at low to mid rpm. In daily this means a more feeling of thrust with need to downshift while hills or when delivering the of moderate acceleration most demand. That can make a car more responsive, even if its acceleration times from a are slower. However, not all of these models deliver that Many, especially those 1.4- and 1.6-liter engines, downshift frequently to keep up traffic. And all but one of the tested cars slower mid-range acceleration 45-65 mph.

In contrast, BMW’s turbocharged engines seem to deliver good fuel economy and The 2.0-liter turbocharged four contributes to 28 mpg overall in our last 328i sedan. It improved only marginally in the 2013 X3 SUV to the six-cylinder 2011 X3 we tested, essentially identical power and but somewhat comprised refinement. The turbo four cylinder we’ve tested in Audis and usually return impressive though we haven’t tested any model powered by two different for such a direct comparison.

Toyota Camry sedan IV

Interesting Articles

Here you can write a commentary on the recording "Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don’t deliver on fuel economy claims".

Sign in, to write a review.

Our partners
Follow us
Contact us
Our contacts

Born in the USSR


About this site

For all questions about advertising, please contact listed on the site.

Toyota cars catalog with specifications, pictures, ratings, reviews and discusssions about cars Toyota.