Turbocharged Vehicles Fall Short of Promised Mileage: Study

Fact or fiction here? No mention about "life expectancy" and replacement cost of these fast spinning turbines. Turbochargers, especially in cold climates, are also critical on warm-up and oil circulation before driving off.... At least 2 minutes idle time is recommended before driving away; also, a spool-down (idle) time of 2 minutes is recommended prior to turning the engine off when you park it...

 

I've noticed a style and pattern of your posts. I swear you're running a social experiment.

 

If by style and pattern, you mean simply recycling material from other websites? He has been doing that since he joined the site.

 

Heard this article on the news this am so I found and read it. Mostly centered around the small turbo engines in cars. The only comparison for F150 trucks is at the very bottom of the results table. IMO, this article does not do a good job comparing differences in trucks whereas threads on this forum have already talked extensively about the advantages and disadvantages between a turbo V-6 or NA V-8. The author seems to not even know what a torque curve is. Information found on forums within FTE provides much more valuable info than this article. For the record, choose what you like, then drive the he$$ out of it!

 

This post is for those who own one of these engines. Studies show that all is not golden with these auto producers data. Maybe just maybe they're skewed in favor of more sales? It's called information based on independent studies. To you? Who knows? And I don't really care what you think of my posts. I don't argue with people. If you don't like what you read that's your business and I'll leave it at that.

I did not purchase the EcoBoost for it's not offered in the regular cab configuration that I just purchased. To say I'm not sold on turbocharged engines would be accurate.

wyo...I haven't read many posts on Ford's new turbocharged engine as much as have you. But from what I read in that article it's obvious that they don't believe in the numbers the auto makers are putting out regarding MPG. The jest of their article is aimed at the smaller turbos as you stated. One of them being Ford's new turbos. And last time I looked I didn't think style and pattern was an issue here either. Unless this forum has been turned into a seamstress one???

 

Back in the 60's, advertised HP ratings for certain cars were misleading on a lower scale to help save buyers on insurance costs.

I wouldn't be surprised if MPG's weren't typical for every application.

Then again, it's always been known that the MPG ratings are based on the lowest-optioned vehicle on the totem poll.

 

Anyone who has ever read a Consumer Reports auto review would know that CR is firmly in bed with the japanese auto industry, every article they write brings them to climax over the japanese cars.

Take a look at how many japanese turbocharged cars are on that list of tested vehicles.....................none. Even though many japanese cars are turbocharged like Subaru's WRX, Mitsibishi's EVO, Mazda's 3, Nissan's GTR etc....

Don't get worked up over a biased source trying to undermine the competition.

 

It is utter nonsense to compare EPA numbers with "real world" testing. The EPA itself says the numbers are simply to compare one vehicle to another. The EPA test is a dyno test and is constructed in such a way as to avoid variables, something that is impossible to do on the road.

This is a non-story and CR ought to know better than to compare EPA numbers to actual results at least.

As for how long turbos last, that's another issue. Our company has thousands of Cummins and other turbo diesels in the fleet. Every morning, they are started cold, run flat out, and then shut off without cool down, restarted and run hard, shut down etc, over 100 times per day. Not many turbo problems surface. YMMV.

 

And if you look at the WRX, EVO etc and compare EPA numbers to real world numbers, you will get the same result as the article.

Showing their pinhead side, CR did call the 2009 Tacoma a "Used car to avoid" due to a radio problem that was fixed for free under warranty. (Talk about something that doesn't get it's EPA rating...at the risk of admitting on a Ford site that I have a Toyota, I can tell you it's rated 20/26, and only by driving like a grandma can you get 20 out of it in a mixed city/freeway run, and 24 on the highway) Not a word about mpgs though.

 

I do believe Consumer Reports has been skewed over the years in favor of imports in large part by its reader base, who it counts on for its user reports. I believe that owners of imports might be more likely to report to CR when their vehicles are doing well, and people with American cars might be more likely to report when their vehicles have a problem. Still, I have, over the last 20 years, found that buying cars (especially used cars) on the basis of CR's recommended lists has gotten me vehicles that generally are more reliable.

I also believe that the pressure of Consumer Reports (along with the cost to them in warranty repairs) has forced the domestic companies, including Ford, to get their reliability up and I believe that has been a good thing for everybody. (I am cringing at CR recommending Korean cars these days, but I am guessing the Koreans are getting their QC together).

As for gas mileage reports, EPA ratings have long been manipulated, and I believe the domestic companies have built cars to "test well" rather than do well in the real world because of the pressure of the CAFE standards--they build a lot of larger cars. In the late 70's and thru the 80's, I remember having American trucks that were so overgeared as to be stupid. (A '78 Ford pickup with a 300 inch six and a 4 speed OD with a 2.75 rear axle, giving a final drive of 2.18 in OD, an '86 GMC van with a 305 and a 2.73 axle that could not get up an upgrade without shifting into 2nd gear on a Turbo 350 trans.)

CR's mileage tests are to be taken with a grain of salt, but the reality is that a turbocharged engine uses a LOT of gas if you get into the turbo, and can be very economical if you don't get into the turbo. My contention is that mfrs who are fighting CAFE will still calibrate their drivetrains to do well in the EPA tests, and if you drive at 10% or 20% more intensity than the tests, your mileage will fall off rapidly.

I am watching the EB engines closely and like the idea of the 1.6 EB and the upcoming 1.0 3-cylinder EB for possible use in my wife's next small car. But since we have a while before she needs another car, I will wait and see. I think Car and Driver tested the 1.0 EB in a Euro Focus and it really did not do that well compared to a normally aspirated 2.0 liter, again, because they probably had their foot on the pedal pretty hard...

George

 

Got link for this info? Ford actually addressed this issue to prevent premature turbo failure.

When I first bought my truck, I couldn't keep my foot out of it and my MPG's sucked. Eventually I became accustomed to the power on demand and I drive it normally now and I achieve stellar MPG's, in fact, better than advertised.

But, we've had this discussion before and I have nothing to prove.

 

Tim,

The quote you are referring to is somewhat misleading

If you read the comments below the article, the 4th guy down named "GlueBall" made that statement.

It is not from the article at all.

 

Trying to compare a big rig or construction equipment turbo to the turbo on an EB is like comparing Apples to Uranium. The only commonality is they both use exhaust to spin them. The water cooled design of the EB turbo is actually a far better design IMO to oil cooled turbos. However, only time will tell how well the turbo's stand up to everyday use. I'll say again (just because there's a troll who follows me around on here talking crap all the time and has for years now) if I had a reason for it, I would have bought an EB, but I only tow 5000lbs once a month or so, so the 5.0 is all I needed.

 

I got the Ecoboost because I wanted a Max Tow truck and that's the way it came. Great power curve in that engine and it does everything without drama. But I have to say the mileage sucks. Nowhere near advertised. Although, I should be on the bottom of the heap because I have the heaviest truck you can buy (crew with longer box) with 4WD and most aggressive gears (3.73). I just wish Ford had better managed expectation of fuel economy with a truck equipped like mine. I think people with freeway gears and less weight are actually quite pleased, if not exceeding expectations.

 

Yes sir I'm aware of that. The OP is simply regurgitating an opinion from an article he found. I'm simply asking the OP if he has any hard evidence or facts to back that statement. Clearly he does not.

IMHO, CR is not a good automotive research source for those seeking to buy new or used.

It's well known that an EB engine requires 7500-10,000 miles for full break-in and in that time frame the MPG's will finally blossom, barring any issues.

CR needs to stick to TV's and washing machines and let the professionals handle the automotive reporting.