[STdan]

Small turbocharged engines are marketed as delivering the power of a large engine, with the fuel economy of a smaller one. That's a tempting proposition, but our testing shows these small-displacement turbos are not delivering on the promises.
By now, we've tested many cars with these engines, and lots of competitors with traditional, naturally-aspirated powerplants, big and small. Generally, the turbocharged cars have slower acceleration and no better fuel economy than the models with bigger, conventional engines.

Looking at EPA fuel-economy estimates (calculated based on laboratory tests), some of these cars' turbocharged engines seem to have an advantage. But we found those results don't match the findings from our own fuel-economy tests.
The latest example is the collection of EcoBoost Ford Fusions we tested, which come with small, direct-injection, turbocharged four-cylinder engines. The smallest one—a 1.6-liter producing 173 hp—is a $795 option over the basic conventional 2.5-liter four cylinder on Fusion SE models. But that car's 0-60 mph acceleration time trails most competitors, and its 25 mpg overall places it among the worst of the crop of recently-redesigned family sedans. The Toyota Camry, Honda Accord, and Nissan Altima, all with conventional 2.4- or 2.5-liter four-cylinder engines, get an additional 2, 5, and 6 mpg, respectively. And all accelerate more quickly.

Continue Reading @ Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims

 

[AK-KingBoost]

Yeah read that article the other day wasn't super impressed as it is only one side of the coin. The lab coats typically only capture one part of the whole picture and tend to lean in favor of the imports LOL. True smaller turbo motors have to rev more to make more thus sucking more fuel but they fail to point out certian give and takes of all motors (Hybrids/Diesels). For one, go to higher elevation and the turbo would lose no power compared to the others V6s. Or what would happen to the same sedans 0-60 times if they had full size adults in all the seats? Sure going to a diesel like the VW would maybe save more fuel but there is a trade off with cost of fuel (at least in my State Diesel is 40c more a gallon), maintenance, greater weather impact not to mention Diesel and hybrids typically carry a higher price tag.
As for trucks I believe the EcoBoost does have more gains than loses. For one you get diesel like TQ that no other gas motor can match throughout the rpms (which matters to anyone who has even stopped on a hill or pulled a wet boat up a ramp). Granted the MPG are not as high as what most would expect but get a hybrid to pull what a F-150 can and see if you get even close to MPGs, doubtful to say the least. As for the 0-60 times I don't think many can match the EcoBoost unloaded (Although they do come very close) and what really matters is none from what I have seen so far can match it loaded which in truck world is a true measurement of a powertrain. Sure you can modify the big V8s to catch and pass a EcoBoost in stock form. The key word is modify to match or surpass it and I am sure guys like Slow can contest apples to apples his modifed EcoBoost has eaten plenty of modified V8s out there. They don't really make a small diesel yet for the 1/2 ton truck world yet (Ford has the a motor or two they could of used but wisely went with the EcoBoost). I know they are putting a diesel in the new Van that will replace the Econoline Vans but even that only makes approx. 197BHP and 397 TQ still shy of the EcoBoost (Which is also going in the new Van hum... wonder why? lol) Operators cost is the key word if one is to compare the two (typical twice the amout of oil, Urea Fluid, etc).
The Lab Coats fail to see the many great points to the EcoBoost (even the small ones) have to offer. Like most of us they should of done a complete run down of the gains and trade offs. Because like all of us I am sure by the time we got to the bottom of the list the pros where greater than the cons... .Just my simple two cents on consumer reports article.

 

[Mike Tritle]

Mike's Reflective Rant, Volumn 1, Issue 1:

This thread made me scratch my head a bit and come to a realization of sorts. This term, "Saving Fuel", what are we really saying? When I save money, I actuall set funds aside in an account, a drawer in my office, an IRA, a life insurance annuity or something like that.

When I buy something, I'm not saving money, I'm spending it. If I spend less, then I'm still not really saving money but simply paying less for the same value so I can spend the difference on something else. To actually save the money, well, would require me to take that sum and put it away somewhere as described above.

Souldn't what we call saving fuel actually be called, "Using less fuel"? Or instead of terming paying for less gas be described as, "Paying less for fuel"?

I'm continuously amazed at how terminology is used as psycology these days! I wonder what George Carlin would have to say about this?

And, no, I've not been drinking tonight...