Consumer Reports Trashes small displacement turbos

[JCHAG]

Link to story-->

Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims - Yahoo! Autos

What's your take on this? I've always felt that Consumer Reports has a tendency to slant their reviews based on their editors' personal opinions, and will only publish data that supports their opinions. For example, I don't think there's a member among us who will argue that, in the Sonic anyway, the 1.4T delivers not only better performance, but better fuel economy. Much better. Where was the reference to the Sonic in CR's article?

Another vehicle that comes to mind is the VW Jetta. I've owned and racked up lots and lots of miles on both a NA and turbo version of their last gen Mk5 platform. While not exactly an apples to apples comparison, driving over 40,000 miles in each car (both had manual transmission) I averaged 25.4 lifetime MPG's with the 2.5L naturally aspirated 5 cylinder engine, and 28.9 lifetime MPGs with the 2.0L turbo (gasoline) 4 cylinder engine. In addition to the huge difference in MPGs, the difference in driving them was an even greater contrast. Despite a not horrible 0-60 time in the high 8s, the 150 HP version of the 2.5 I had felt completely gutless most of the time. The 2.0T? I think you know how the story goes.

Any other examples that come to mind? Do you think this is just another biased CR article trying to stir up trouble, or do you think people should take this "Small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy [and performance] claims" article seriously. One last note, I find it interesting that CR was able to achieve or exceed EPA fuel economy numbers in their perennial darlings (Accord, Camry, Altima).

 

[Calculon]

I didn't like the CR Sonic Review. Overall it had a negative tone, yet they gave it a recommended buy. They spent most of the time focused on the bad stuff and only slightly mentioned the positives. Contrast this to the Fit review, which was glowing and glossed over the negatives. The Sonic is by no means a perfect car, but I think the Sonic with it's better handling, more peppy performance and quieter interior makes it a better fit(pun intended) for the way people use their cars, as commuter vehicles. Sure the Fit's reliability factor is very good and if that's important to you, it's worth considering. The Fit has more cargo space too, but how often do people fill their car to the brim? Not too often in my experience and the cargo space was extolled as a virtue in the CR review, and Car and Driver review too. They ragged on the shifter too. While the Honda was better, it wasn't like 5x better.

 

[lambertsonic]

Link to story-->

Consumer Reports finds small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy claims - Yahoo! Autos

What's your take on this? I've always felt that Consumer Reports has a tendency to slant their reviews based on their editors' personal opinions, and will only publish data that supports their opinions. For example, I don't think there's a member among us who will argue that, in the Sonic anyway, the 1.4T delivers not only better performance, but better fuel economy. Much better. Where was the reference to the Sonic in CR's article?

Another vehicle that comes to mind is the VW Jetta. I've owned and racked up lots and lots of miles on both a NA and turbo version of their last gen Mk5 platform. While not exactly an apples to apples comparison, driving over 40,000 miles in each car (both had manual transmission) I averaged 25.4 lifetime MPG's with the 2.5L naturally aspirated 5 cylinder engine, and 28.9 lifetime MPGs with the 2.0L turbo (gasoline) 4 cylinder engine. In addition to the huge difference in MPGs, the difference in driving them was an even greater contrast. Despite a not horrible 0-60 time in the high 8s, the 150 HP version of the 2.5 I had felt completely gutless most of the time. The 2.0T? I think you know how the story goes.

Any other examples that come to mind? Do you think this is just another biased CR article trying to stir up trouble, or do you think people should take this "Small turbo engines don't deliver on fuel economy [and performance] claims" article seriously. One last note, I find it interesting that CR was able to achieve or exceed EPA fuel economy numbers in their perennial darlings (Accord, Camry, Altima).

Great find , a lot of their findings reflects the reality . Putting the smallest engine possible in a midsize sedan and small crossover is not the best idea . Those vehicles are too heavy for those small displacement engines . The Camry , Accord and Altima are very good cars and are also very fuel efficient without using turbos . The mpg numbers they achieved are probably very close to what an average driver will accomplish driving those cars . I find it odd that they did not include the new Malibu with the 2.0t for comparison . To answer your question regarding the sonic , I think they left out all the small cars and therefor did not see the need to test the sonic . I can see a small displacement turbo engine being efficient in a small subcompact like the sonic but anything bigger and it is not . I had a Audi a4 1.8t and a Volvo c70 2.3 5 cyl turbo and those cars were no were close to being very efficient and were built for speed and performance .

 

[sx sonic]

wow what a well thought out a quantified article they compiled, :roles eyes:

agreed, it reads a bit of opinionated writing. They failed to look at what these powerplants are designed to accomplish: slightly better mpg and power while not feeling any different than an N/A motor to the average motorist.

What i find hugely suspect is the lack of information on how they conducted their testing. "well the turbo engines got almost identical mpg and 0-60 as their N/A counter parts in our testing" really how the f**k did you test it??? not even a mention of it?!? Usually a tell tale sign of biased information. even more so with such a bold statement.

 

[ungawd]

That article certainly is crap. There's got to be a difference between how they're driving the turbos vs the NAs. I find it hard to believe a 1.4t cruze can only muster a measly 26mpg. They had to be running them ragged and not a typical commute.

 

[mitdr774]

CR has a habit of being very biased, yet claiming they are not.

 

[Papasonic]

Are some of the guys on the Cruze forum telling whoppers with their claimed > 50 MPG 1.4 ECO's?
There seems to be a huge discrepancy between owner claims, manufacturer EPA results, and Consumer Reports real world testing.

 

[River_Rat]

I would think there tends to be more people complaining about poor fuel economy than there are lying about good economy.

 

[Opticon]

They tested a large car (over 1.5 tons) with the smallest turbocharged engine, an automatic trans, stock boost levels, and with regular gas. They do not account for how easy it is to greatly increase power from a forced induction car at absolutely no change to fuel economy during normal driving.

Their observations/opinions do not apply to anybody that knows anything about any car that is worth driving... you know, like everything else they have ever published.

 

[Bogus]

Can we make an SOF article trashing CR?

 

[slitzell]

I would think there tends to be more people complaining about poor fuel economy than there are lying about good economy.

I wouldnt say that. Id say most poeple on here are getting factory speciations or better few mileage with a couple reporting less than factory specs

 

[River_Rat]

I would think there tends to be more people complaining about poor fuel economy than there are lying about good economy.

I wouldnt say that. Id say most poeple on here are getting factory speciations or better few mileage with a couple reporting less than factory specs

On SOF, yes. I was responding to the above post directed at Cruzetalk.

Are some of the guys on the Cruze forum telling whoppers with their claimed > 50 MPG 1.4 ECO's?

More to the point, I don't think the Cruze Eco owners are lying about their claimed > 50MPG. If the Eco owners from Cruzetalk are to be believed, then a small displacement turbo, in an appropriately engineered vehicle, can deliver both power and economy (significantly exceeding EPA estimates), contrary to the claims of Consumer Reports.

Even here, there are more owners complaining about lower than expected economy (not very many) than owners "telling whoppers."

 

[Opticon]

Can we make an SOF article trashing CR?

The problem is that they're a rating outfit for appliances. If you buy cars like you buy a dishwasher then their articles are great! ... and you are boring.

 

[cndctrdj]

cr is a horrible source for information. they dont know what they are talking about and generally are very biased to whatever they think will be good based on what they thought was good at some point. great example is " a toyota camry is great because it has a nice trunk and they used to be reliable "

 

[Dragcamaro]

ive been getting better mileage with my rs than im rated to, and as far as reliability goes, i only worked as a mechanic for gm for about a year before going back to an independent shop. and in that year (which ended about a month or so ago) I NEVER had to work on a 1.4t for anything other than the washer fluid recall and oilchanges. i had a 1.8 with a serious oil leak, a 1.8 with a defective intake manifold, i never saw a broke 1.4. Thats just a year though and theyre still pretty new, i really like how that engine is designed though, ive got a lot of faith in it

 

[RichieRocket]

I was going to post a thread about the CR article, good thing I searched, didn't know it was already on the OTL.

I think the CR article does not apply to people on this forum. But we are a tiny portion of the general public. The regular person is just going to buy a car and drive it. They will not get a tune, run super, short-shift and utilize the good low-end torque...Unless the automatics are properly set-up, don't know about autos.

Their point is the turbo downsized engine costs extra, in our case $700 (list price). You can do the numbers, depending on how many miles you drive per year and what gas prices are....if you get a few more mpg, it could take a while to pay back the initial $700 extra. For me it's a 3-4 year pay back, but I'm glad I did it.

They do say on paper the downsized turbo will be more efficient. Like the article I found from Ford: http://www.sonicownersforum.com/forum/t4489/

The turbo has to be driven correctly to take full advantage, something most people are clueless of...

 

[GeneralZod]

I was going to post a thread about the CR article, good thing I searched, didn't know it was already on the OTL.

I think the CR article does not apply to people on this forum. But we are a tiny portion of the general public. The regular person is just going to buy a car and drive it. They will not get a tune, run super, short-shift and utilize the good low-end torque...Unless the automatics are properly set-up, don't know about autos.

Their point is the turbo downsized engine costs extra, in our case $700 (list price). You can do the numbers, depending on how many miles you drive per year and what gas prices are....if you get a few more mpg, it could take a while to pay back the initial $700 extra. For me it's a 3-4 year pay back, but I'm glad I did it.

They do say on paper the downsized turbo will be more efficient. Like the article I found from Ford: http://www.sonicownersforum.com/forum/t4489/

The turbo has to be driven correctly to take full advantage, something most people are clueless of...

Your turbo paid for itself the second you bought it. You won't be doing annual timing belt changes. There are some that don't trust a chain over 100k... However, every car maker has claimed to have a 100k TB, then changed the interval after valves get bent. Barring an oiling issue with your timing chain, it should be there indefinitely without change.

CR has become a plug-o-la machine. Whoever pays them gets a spun and slanted view. The have also focused on the rube demographic. Those people that beat their tools and have no ideal of the maintenance.

As far as small engines with turbos, nonsense. Blanket generalizations are proof CR focuses on the rubes. The OP's VW 1.8 vs 2.5 is great and true. Most of this involves how well the engine was engineered. There are many small forced induction engines out performing the larger option. The only case is cost to own. What if the turbo fails? However, are there hidden costs in larger NA. Commonly, transmission issues.

See, you just can't generalize unless you are gearing to a segment that is potentially ignorant and do not want such details.

 

[$ub$onic]

You said Dont trust a chain over 100k. I think that's a typo

 

[GeneralZod]

I said some. Some people don't, I do.

 

[sx sonic]

Richie you should do reviews on cars G*d blees it if you don't take in atleast 5X the parameters these so called reviewers do. You might not get many viewers unless you put up pics of Pualie D-bag but i'd sure follew them.

You make an excellent point that those of us getting better mpg than aadvertized understand intrinsically/instinctuvely. It requires maximizing the small engine coupled to a turbo to get good MPG. Otherwise your just driving around in a vehicle with an engine that is 1.5X bigger than what its posted as (arbritrary numbe, could be more or less).