Market Currents
Automobiles with turbocharged engines are blasted by Consumer Reports for not living up to their...
-
Tuesday, February 5, 7:08 AM ETAutomobiles with turbocharged engines are blasted by Consumer Reports for not living up to their expectations. Engineers found in detailed testing that the performance results from turbocharged four-cylinder vehicles underperformed on power and fuel economy. The development is important with close to 3M vehicles with turbocharged engines slated to be sold from automakers this year at elevated prices, including models from General Motors (GM), Ford (F), and Hyundai (HYLMF.PK)
Other date
Latest Consumer Articles
This news story has 24 comments:
And to sell lots and lots of magazines, of course.
The National Enquirer has nothing on Consumer Reports, when it comes to self-serving journalism and attention-grabbing headlines. The only things missing at CR are the results achieved by the Sasquatch "Finding Bigfoot" Hunters, and the Space Alien Scientists at their Area 51 test site.
As stated, the EPA is responsible for defining the specific test procedures, and reviewing and certifying the results. Very rarely an automaker (Hyundai-Kia) gets "caught" with results from improperly conducted tests (apparently inadvertently at H-K). And very-very rarely do automakers get caught deliberately falsifying and/or tailoring the data and methods to achieve a competitive advantage.
But that is technically what Consumer Reports is doing - quoting fuel economy results from deliberately improperly conducted tests, in order to draw attention.
Consumer Reports can and should first run independently the fuel efficiency tests exactly to EPA specifications, or hire a lab to do so if they are unable due to the complexity, and see if they get a match with the official EPA numbers.
Then they can go ahead and run their own preferred custom tests to their internal specifications, and report those results and discuss the differences.
This should be fair to both sides. And then they do not come across as calling the Automakers and EPA "liars" for the sake of making headlines and selling magazines. At least their credibility demands it. And society would get a second set of eyes on the data, preventing fraud and uncovering "mistakes".
Automakers are legally obligated to accurately report results from standardized tests, not coming up with their own customized tests to provide the best possible results for their own vehicles, and the worst possible results for the competition. That is how things worked in the 50s and 60s, when there were 100 different ways to measure and compare something as "simple" as horsepower. Needless to say, results varied, and significantly.
Anyway to be fair, Consumer Reports is using a simple but long-discarded, old school method for measuring highway mpg - a cold engine at 65 mph for several minutes. This in direct contrast with the EPA regulated method for measuring real-world highway mpg - which includes standardized freeway ramp accelerations and decelerations, significant speed variations up and down with traffic, fast and slow traffic merging style accelerations, and so forth.
It all comes down to how you drive. Hypermilers can easily beat the EPA fuel economy estimates, often by 10-20%, simply by driving the car less agressively. On the other hand, less skilled and lead footed drivers can just as easily get half the mpg quoted.
All that said, in the light of CR's findings, it may well make sense for the EPA to go back and rework the EPA fuel economy drive cycles to include the sort of driving that CR tests. Of course then they would also have to look and see how Motor Trend does it, and Road & Track, and Car & Driver, and AutoWeek, and the Europeans regulators, etc., etc., etc....
it's not the automakers keeping performance data or reports of explosions to themselves. oh no!
it's people's fault. or obama's. or the fed's. certainly not the automakers whose blindness drove them into bankruptcy, and whose corrupt lawmaker employees did everything they could to help them kill their corps.
the fact is automakers have to move iron and there is only so much money for new cars in the new normal of most people not having any money.
and so whether it's 3-d for tv's or turbos for cars, it doesn't matter if it works, it only matters if it sells.
Ford has been the biggest winner in my opinion with pushing turbos and have done a great job of marketing it in their trucks. They advertise that it can tow 11,5000 lbs. -- and I'm sure it can -- but I doubt that if it's the engine of choice for anyone with a trailer that size. I think that long term durability is still questionable in applications like this. Sure makes great marketing though!!!
It's also interesting that GM didn't use this technology for their new trucks coming out this year. Instead, they went for upgrading traditional powertrains with all the new features like direct injection and cylinder deactivation. I am looking forward to driving the new base V6. It looks like they will finally have a base engine that will satisfy most driver's needs and people won't have to spend the money to upgrade to a V8 or turbo V6.
FYI, there are some serious problems with dual/staged turbos as well as with direct injection. Perhaps the biggest problem with turbo technology, however, is that it requires more diligent maintenance, something the average American driver is not good it. You must use synthetic oil and change it often. Turbo engines usually require the highest octane available. The extra vacuum and mechanical devices that need periodic replacement. The higher under hood temperatures usually heat age components quicker. All the sensors, like O2, knock, temp, pressure, mass flow, etc., are more critical for proper operation. Computer adaptations are more sophisticated.
Lack of understanding of how to drive a turbo will cause Ford some problems down the road (as it has VW/Audi). You cannot drive a turbo hard and then shut it off red hot (yes, they get that color). In the summer, turbos don't performed as well. There is some boost lag, however minimal, that takes getting use to. In short, it's not as "idiot proof" as a normally aspirated (NA) engine.
But the bottom line, that most people don't realize, is that a turbo engine will require the same amount of fuel as a larger, NA engine, minus the reduction in the mechanical and frictional losses. So at low power levels (cruising), those reductions are significant, and mileage improves quite a bit. But at high power, it's a smaller relative difference, so that at full boost, the turbo engine making, say 200HP, is not going to be significantly better in mileage than a larger NA engine making the same 200HP.
The current 4.8L V8 is gone -- I think that there's so much upgrading that has gone into the base V6 -- it's an all new 4.3L V6 with direct injection and cylinder deactivation -- that they didn't need the 4.8L V8 any more. Probably for most people, they won't have to spend the extra money for a V8 or a turbo V6 which might give them a huge advantage in the marketplace.
It will be interesting to see the new 5.3L V8 versus the competition -- I wouldn't rush out to buy the Ford V8. Toyota and Nissan have new offerings too. There's a lot of competition coming out and there's bound to be some great deals. I suspect that Ford will have to get into some deep discounting too just to keep it's market share.
If everyone used the same test criterion the discussion would be over and CR would have no magazines to sell.
If CR is unhappy with the way EPA tests, they should lobby the EPA to revise their procedures.
CR has been an extremely biased magazine in terms of treating the domestic automakers. Personally, I stopped reading their trash years ago. Unfortunately, they still have a large membership and use tactics like this to keep themselves in the news and sell their product.
Also, Tdot is correct in that the Ford Ecoboost system is not your father's turbo technology, and I am sure GM and others did not want to pay royalties to Ford to put it into their upcoming products. Ford has performed some extensive "public" durability and reliability tests for the Ecoboost technology and the long term outlook should be no better or worse than any similar technology.
If it wasn't for Consumer reports, we would all be driving the same unsafe, rust buckets of old that would last three years. Please quit trying to pull one over on us again auto manufacturers, cars are just too expensive. No one has the technology to accurately or even come close to measure correct mpg? Now comes Ford, after Hyundai's recent mpg misgivings which resulted in the latter with huge multi-million dollar settlements for incorrect mpg data. I have owned a Ford twin turbo for the past few years and NO way have I come close to the EPA MPG that was on the sticker. I tried being easy on the accelerator... Unfortunately we do not live in a downhill world.
Thanks Consumer Reports for help keeping us informed !
My RWD-V8 powered car is rated at 16 mpg city, 23 mpg highway, for 18 mpg combined.
My full year average in combined highway-city driving is 24.2 mpg - in summer months I average 26.2 mpg, while in harsh winter it drops to 22.2 mpg. I've also achieved 30 mpg stretches on the freeway at 65 mph in mild weather.
Methinks the EPA drive cycles themselves severely penalize heavier V8 powered cars, while favoring small lightweight 4-cylinders and hybrids.
Your mileage may vary!
MPG are measured easily enough. It is miles driven, divided by fuel consumed in gallons.
The onboard computers in vehicles these days measure practically every droplet sprayed through the fuel injectors, making fine adjustments as needed to maintain the necessary Air-Fuel ratio to achieve the desired performance.
Of course they cannot account for fuel that evaporates or spills out if you leave the cap off and the fuel door hanging open, and for that which you spill on the ground at the pump, or that which overflows out the vent tube while "tamping it" or as you drive away from the station burning rubber in anger at the bill.