|
|
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
11-04-2012, 05:38 AM | #1 | |
Scooby Guru
Member#: 73805
Join Date: Nov 2004
|
Turbocharged Cars Don’t Live Up to Fuel-Economy Hype Says Consumer Reports
Quote:
* Registered users of the site do not see these ads.
|
|
11-04-2012, 07:36 AM | #2 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 95600
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Pittsburgh
Vehicle:2003 WRX wagon Silver |
These sorts of complaints are always such crap. If you keep your foot out of the turbo then you get better mileage. This is arguing essentially that we need slow unresponsive cars and then we will get better fuel economy. The EPA tests are fair. Maybe people don't get those results, but to simulate that one would have to have different testing procedures for turbos that take into account variances in driver behavior in response to the engine (torque changes etc).
(Yes I read the 0-60 part that said they were the same and got the same economy in the real world). |
11-04-2012, 08:52 AM | #3 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 36249
Join Date: May 2003
Chapter/Region:
MWSOC
Location: Midwest
|
It seems to me there isn't any news here unless the reader was uneducated to begin with. Physics apply when generating power, regardless of how it is accomplished.
Quote from the article: "Part of the discrepancy noted by Consumer Reports and documented anecdotally in AutoGuide reviews may come from the fact that so called “window sticker” fuel-economy numbers provided by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) are achieved through tests done in a lab, rather than on the street." The driver's influence on any car's gas milage is substantial, this will always be an issue with the EPA fuel milage numbers. Possibly they are trying to indicate that driving habits are even more impactful on Turbo cars than NA...? (which we all know)... and if so they had a round about way of stating it. |
11-04-2012, 11:16 AM | #4 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 232940
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: cold
|
I don't think they're doing the right comparisons. The smaller engine + turbo often has more usable torque than the less expensive, port injected and naturally aspirated option.
|
11-05-2012, 06:30 AM | #5 |
Scooby Guru
Member#: 9481
Join Date: Aug 2001
Chapter/Region:
South East
Location: FFR Challenge #43
Vehicle:1832 Steam Buggy Wood |
With the advancements in off power fuel delivery And cylinder deactivation, the larger engines are getting just as efficient at idle and cruising as the smaller turbo engines.
|
11-05-2012, 07:46 PM | #6 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 232940
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: cold
|
|
11-06-2012, 08:26 AM | #7 |
Scooby Guru
Member#: 6598
Join Date: May 2001
Chapter/Region:
MWSOC
Location: West side of Indianapolis
Vehicle:2017 Golf R Limestone Grey |
My Mazdaspeed3 gets WAY better mileage than what's on the sticker, including my autocross time.
|
11-06-2012, 08:42 AM | #8 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 32113
Join Date: Jan 2003
Chapter/Region:
NESIC
Location: Trollhatten, Japan
Vehicle:05 Saabaru Satin Grey |
News Flash:
Eating 4000 calories of healthy food will make you fat! |
11-06-2012, 09:32 AM | #9 |
*** Banned ***
Member#: 24038
Join Date: Sep 2002
Chapter/Region:
South East
Location: Godspeed Cale...
|
Gasp, there's no such thing as free power?
Improvements in combustion efficiency (e.g. DI), aside....it simply takes a given amount of power to accelerate a car at a given rate, maintain a given car at speed, etc. Without a large discrepancy between the overall efficiency of a the turbocharged engine vs. a larger N/A powerplant (which is there isn't), resulting mileage will be pretty darn close all other things being equal. "It's not what you drive, it's how you drive it" ****, i think I just quoted Clarkson.... |
11-06-2012, 10:25 AM | #10 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 317270
Join Date: Apr 2012
Location: PA
Vehicle:FL5, Sienna, GR86 |
I figured we would be hearing this - people getting bad fuel economy numbers with their turbo engines. Turbos make it too tempting to mash that pedal.
My TDI is the first turbo I've owned, and I drive more like a jackass in this dog than any sports car I've ever owned or driven. Especially when it's nice out, windows down, maybe a hillside or jersey barrier to reflect the wooshing sound back into the cabin like I'm in some 9 sec. 0 to 60 rally-car touge monster. |
11-06-2012, 12:25 PM | #11 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 30733
Join Date: Dec 2002
Chapter/Region:
TXIC
Location: Houston texas
Vehicle:2007 tiny car striped |
thermal efficency of TC engines can potentially be better than NA engines because they use the recovered exaust energy for some "free" compression work. THis is great for part throttle and continous loading.
However, under agressive use the thermal efficency is lower than NA because they run rich open loop fueling to prevent detonation and High EGTs. Turbo engines when done appropriately are great for EPA tests and being driven how people should drive to optimize mpg. However, most everybodies foot is a little heavier than optimum. Signed, Captain semi obvious |
11-06-2012, 01:31 PM | #12 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:2008 Impreza Dark Gray |
This is why i hate consumer reports, they are a NEWS source trying to sell magazines. This is not the first time their so called "experts" screwed up a comparison.
You can't compare the 5.0 engine to the ecoboost. The 5.0 engine is a car engine, and sucks for towing. Doesn't have the low end grunt making peak torque at 4250rpm, and the epa estimates only make the ecoboost 1mpg better than the 5.0. So they are going to average nearly the same. Instead CR should have compared the ecoboost to the 6.2l engine. The ecoboost wins hands down in fuel economy. It also tows better at altitude, and has 90% of it's torque at 17000rpm with full torque at 2500rpm. It's a total beast, so yes you can have your cake and eat it too. Tow over 11000lbs, and get the same fuel economy as the lower model engines. Last edited by gggplaya; 11-06-2012 at 01:42 PM. |
11-06-2012, 09:42 PM | #13 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 35419
Join Date: Apr 2003
|
Quote:
But if it revs to 17,000 rpms, you are right, it is the most amazing engine evar! All of the towing test I have seen show that it uses MORE fuel than comparable NA engine cause it is constantly in boost--and generating a lot of heat... . |
|
11-07-2012, 09:12 AM | #14 | |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:2008 Impreza Dark Gray |
Quote:
17000rpm is a typo, it's pretty obvious to anyone with car knowledge that i meant a low 1700rpm. As far as towing goes with the F150 ecoboost vs the 6.2l or 5.0, towing MPG is a wash for most F150 buyers. For someone that tows an RV once a month, it doesn't make a difference. You get crappy fuel mileage with all 3 engines, so the difference between 10mpg vs 12mpg is moot if you only do it a few times a year. Even diesels gets crappy fuel mileage towing 10000lbs. The consumer reports didn't test any towing either, which they should have. Because each customer is different, mileage during towing would make a difference to the ones that tow heavy loads everyday. But most people that tow heavy loads daily for their business, or full time rv people, almost always get a diesel. FYI i normally tow with a diesel, but i have friends with rv's that tow with an ecoboost and a hemi 5.7l(also a car engine put into a truck). The ecoboost is absolutely phenomenal as a tow vehicle, tows like a diesel and doesn't feel like much is behind you. it has plenty of torque at all engine speeds. The hemi likes to rev, it's annoying to me, but it gets the job done. There is some lag while waiting for the revs to climb, and plenty of down shifting. The hemi was also constantly falling behind at altitude in Yosemite even with a much lighter RV than the on the ecoboost. Obviously i never said the 5.0 or 6.2l can't tow. They can, and are obviously rated to do so. But the turbo ecoboost does a better job in my experience and opinion. Towing mpg is a consideration to factor in when buying a vehicle, but also towability is another factor to consider. Plus when not towing, you get the mpg of the 5.0L the other 98% of the time you drive the vehicle. Last edited by gggplaya; 11-07-2012 at 09:26 AM. |
|
11-07-2012, 01:22 PM | #15 | ||
Scooby Guru
Member#: 92634
Join Date: Aug 2005
Chapter/Region:
RMIC
|
Quote:
Quote:
If you're saying they didn't provide separate mpg figures for towing and unloaded, ok, fine. |
||
11-07-2012, 02:29 PM | #16 | |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:2008 Impreza Dark Gray |
Quote:
Ok they did test towing but it's completely idiotic because they have the lowest rear end ratio in the ecoboost. 3.31 is for the buyer who only tows a garden utility trailer or simply doesn't ever tow with their truck and wants the best possible unloaded mpg. For people that tow on occasion or moderate 3-5klbs loads, they would get the 3.55 rear end. For people that tow often or heavy loads >5klbs you would get the 3.73 rear end. The fact that they would do comparisons in towing using the worst possible rear end to tow 7500lbs is beyond me. Shows you how flawed this test is using max tow ratings by optioning the trucks with different rear end ratios in an effort to make an apples to apples comparison is just silly. It's called "consumer" reports, and any buyer knowing they'll be towing 7500lbs more than a few miles is going to opt for the 3.73 rear end with either engine. With those rear's they chose, they should have used a more realistic weight like 3-4000lbs. An yes, i would like to see the towing mileage and unloaded mileage in the report. Consumers can make better decisions knowing how often they use the truck for either situation. They would opt for the engine based on their lifestyle. |
|
11-07-2012, 04:22 PM | #17 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 110330
Join Date: Mar 2006
Chapter/Region:
Tri-State
Location: https://www.must-stash-it.com
Vehicle:2004 996TT 2018 SQ5 |
Dumb. TC engines do seem to vary more based on how they're used than NA do but it still seems the better route to go. I don't see many naturally aspirated 450hp AWD cars that get mid 20s mpg, and my TDI consistently does 15-20% better than what it's rated for as well.
|
11-07-2012, 07:46 PM | #18 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 35419
Join Date: Apr 2003
|
Quote:
Based on your own logic, the 5.0 and Hemi are truck engines too since they do not run the same camshaft(s) etc, and are tuned for truck duty... . |
|
11-07-2012, 08:27 PM | #19 | |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:2008 Impreza Dark Gray |
Quote:
Dodge tried to do the same with the Hemi but didn't do anywhere near as good a job. The torque curve is still very car like and the engine really needs to rev to do the same duties. Like i said, it needs to downshift far more often, lags as it tries to get up into it's power band and the engine loves to stay in those high revs trying to climb a small grade. It's not going to hurt the engine and it's capable of doing so, but again, not the ideal truck engine. If they made the stroke longer, it would have more low end torque and the power band would be more ideal for truck duty. But then that would require a completely different block/engine altogether and the engine would suck for car performance. |
|
11-07-2012, 09:03 PM | #20 | |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 35419
Join Date: Apr 2003
|
Quote:
If the ecoboost was such a remarkable "truck" engine, it would be in the F250/F350, but it is not--probably for "truck" reasons... . Yet the Hemi is used in an HD application. |
|
11-08-2012, 07:24 AM | #21 | |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 139444
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: PA
Vehicle:2008 Impreza Dark Gray |
Quote:
A good example of a truck engine is the Nissan Titan. Nissan designed the engine specifically for truck duty. It's an engine that was never designed to go into any cars and is only used in the Titan and Armada. While i personally haven't towed with it, my mother owns an armada and i have driven it on numerous occasions. I think it would do well in towing, and every review you read from user tow experience raves about how well this engine does while towing. The 5.6L nissan V8 makes 385lbs of torque at 3400rpm and the torque curve itself is flatter than dodge or fords offerings. Dodge's hemi reaches peak torque at 4000rpm and has a very steep torque curve, Fords 5.0 makes peak torque at 4500rpm and the 6.2l at 4250rpm. |
|
11-08-2012, 08:45 AM | #22 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 172959
Join Date: Feb 2008
Chapter/Region:
South East
Location: Franklin, TN
Vehicle:'16 Ford GT350, '08 EvoX GSR,01 EclipseGT SDS |
Truth is that in the hands of an average driver...ie non-car enthusiast, it may not make a difference. I can get 27-28mpg in 50/50 highway/city driving in either of the cars I drive most if the time (boosted eclipse and Evo) while my wife struggles to get 21-22 in same conditions (she also does not drive either car much to be fair).
|
11-08-2012, 01:43 PM | #23 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 115260
Join Date: May 2006
Chapter/Region:
MAIC
Location: Dover, DE
Vehicle:04 WRX 205/22E Hybrid w/ VF39 |
Turbo's are awesome for towing.
To some extent, they provide more power/boost based on LOAD, not RPM. I think the Ecoboost F150 is a great idea, as long as they where able to keep it reliable. |
11-10-2012, 01:24 AM | #24 |
Scooby Specialist
Member#: 232940
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: cold
|
eh, I agree that the Ecoboost 3.5 is more of a "truck engine" in concept with its torque band and the fact that its car sales volumes are low.
Maybe Chrysler just didn't bother making a 5.7L hemi fully optimized for low-end torque on a truck application. Saying Nissan's 5.6 is a "truck engine" is partly true, but there is a version for a car (Infiniti M56) that uses direct injection and the VVEL system found in the 370Z. |
11-10-2012, 09:46 PM | #25 |
Scooby Newbie
Member#: 289538
Join Date: Jul 2011
Chapter/Region:
MAIC
Location: PA
Vehicle:2013 BRZ Galxy BL-\ |
Ecoboost F150 owners report 12mpg towing, spirited r on the go driving 15 mpg.
So whats the big deal? My guess the turbo motor will not last well as Ford has little experience with turbos. Have to ask my Ford Mech friends how it's holding up. |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|