Consumer Reports says small turbo engine inefficient

[Wishcumstrue]

To those driving the small cc models with turbo like Ford's Ecoboost or VW's TSI, do you agree with their report?

 

http://pressroom.consumerreports.org/press...my-entry-2.html

 

Edited February 10, 2013 by Wishcumstrue

[LoverofCar]

When I drive a Turbo car...I don't really mind the FC... I just love the surging of Turbo kicks in...

[Givechance]

I agree with the report fully.

Power = fuel consumed.

More power is a smaller turbo engine = need more fuel to produce the power.

 

A smaller turbo engine is designed to meet emission rules that are set by various gov.

A smaller cc engine can satisfy car buyers who are limited by CC categorization set by various gov( like Singapore Cat.A and B)

A smaller turbo engine engine is technically lighter, yet can produce power like bigger(heavier) engine, so the lighter car weight and momentum will lead to obvious fuel efficiency.

A smaller engine will allow car designer to produce a short front, big passenger space, more unique car design.

 

 

[Thedream]

I agree with the report fully.

Power = fuel consumed.

More power is a smaller turbo engine = need more fuel to produce the power.

 

A smaller turbo engine engine is technically lighter, yet can produce power like bigger(heavier) engine, so the lighter car weight and momentum will lead to obvious fuel efficiency.

 

seems like you don't agree with the report fully.

 

They're saying that they tested actual fuel efficiency of the cars, so the weight would be factored in, and these smaller engines with turbo still fared worse than the larger engines without turbos.

[Friendstar]

I Disagree with the report.

 

A small turbo engine minimizes Energy waste by tapping on exhaust power.

[ChickenMob]

actually all also depending on the R & D of the manufacture.

smaller engine with turbo but heavy load also increase FC.

 

 

[Jamesc]

actually all also depending on the R & D of the manufacture.

smaller engine with turbo but heavy load also increase FC.

Thats very true! A small engine in a big heavy car is always worse for

 

fuel economy even if it has a turbo as the small engine has to be used

 

at its higher rev range. A bigger more powerful engine in a big heavy car

 

will be able to be used in the lower rev range hence less fuel consumed.

 

The real advantage of small turbo engine is in countries where they charge

 

per cc like us so people pay less tax.

 

[ChickenMob]

Ya but i just change car.. light footed also only managed to get 360km for 56L..

now petrol kiosk is my best friend liow.. regret changing car

[XenonWhite]

Ya but i just change car.. light footed also only managed to get 360km for 56L..

now petrol kiosk is my best friend liow.. regret changing car

 

 

Er.. What car are you driving now?

[ChickenMob]

just upgraded from Honda edix to 07 forester 2.5T.

really drinks alot manz.

[Maseratigood]

When I drive a Turbo car...I don't really mind the FC... I just love the surging of Turbo kicks in...

Agree! Even if my wallet gets hit by flooring the gas pedal of the tc car, I still do it until i really have to drink plain water for lunch. :D

 

More seriously, it depends on a few thing regarding the report. Let's say the weight of the car really needs the power of a NA 1600cc engine to do moderate speed for most of the time the driver uses the car, ie he only goes fast very rarely, if he drives a light tc 1300cc to churn out the same power and continue driving mainly at moderate speed ie not pushing the light turbo real hard, the fc may be same or better than an NA 1600cc, depending on also how the turbo setup is calibrated eg high boost 1300cc to deliver the same power as the NA 1600cc, or mild boost to deliver the same. This is over and above the general equation of power output = energy consumed/expanded regardless of tc or NA.

 

If the driver is heavy footed and wants the light turbo 1300cc to max out most of the time, faster than a maxed out NA 1600cc, the fc is like to be worst than the NA ie driving habit is an important factor.

Edited February 11, 2013 by Maseratigood

[Celicar]

just upgraded from Honda edix to 07 forester 2.5T.

really drinks alot manz.

This fc is city or highway driving?

[Yattokame]

Thats very true! A small engine in a big heavy car is always worse for

 

fuel economy even if it has a turbo as the small engine has to be used

 

at its higher rev range. A bigger more powerful engine in a big heavy car

 

will be able to be used in the lower rev range hence less fuel consumed.

 

The real advantage of small turbo engine is in countries where they charge

 

per cc like us so people pay less tax.

 

 

sounds legit....

 

I monitor my fuel consumption rather closely

 

My grand picasso on the 1.6 turbo is averaging 10-11km/h over the past 2.5 yrs 33000km.

 

But big engine wise I don't know......previously I had the Brera 3.2 V6 averaging 5.5km/L....... I once tried during my ICT from one end to the other end of the island - best was 9km/L for that one seamless journey.

 

I also had a MINI cabriolet that gave me about 12km/L.

 

 

[Kiadaw]

just upgraded from Honda edix to 07 forester 2.5T.

really drinks alot manz.

Becasue you are using the older type of Turbo, & are design for for power over fuel efficent. The modern engines like the VAG TSi, are very fuel efficient. Of course the snail are much smaller also.

 

I used to drive an evo, & the fuel economy was rather bad, so I thought no way add turbo give better fuel economeic, until I change to may current Audi, 1.8TFSi. Its not as powerful for sure, but the fuel economy are fanastic, better also than the 1.6 NA lancer GLX I had before, while being much heavier. Athough driving condition are difference, but still you cannot knock down the engine. Not to mention it doesn't required frequent servicing.

[ChickenMob]

I used to drive an evo, & the fuel economy was rather bad, so I thought no way add turbo give better fuel economeic, until I change to may current Audi, 1.8TFSi. Its not as powerful for sure, but the fuel economy are fanastic, better also than the 1.6 NA lancer GLX I had before, while being much heavier. Athough driving condition are difference, but still you cannot knock down the engine. Not to mention it doesn't required frequent servicing.

 

i am on 70% highway 30% city..i am not sure also what mods the previous owner had done.

but i agree that the power over FC part, older turbos engine are more for performance rather, with the current COE hikes, it

will be sometime before i save enough to get a newer car with newer technology.

[Mjklbkldl]

Chickenmob

 

I thought my 07 Forester SG9 2.5T was bad at 7.5-8.0km/l. Yours is worse.

But the power when the turbo kicks in is fun.

Mine is mildly modded. My 7.5km/l kicks in if its city driving. On the highways, it improves to 8-8.5km/l...still s--t.

[Relagsingh]

seems like you don't agree with the report fully.

 

They're saying that they tested actual fuel efficiency of the cars, so the weight would be factored in, and these smaller engines with turbo still fared worse than the larger engines without turbos.

 

It's how one drives.

 

Give him a hybrid, a 25km/l car, or even a full electric. All will be useless if his right foot is made of lead.

[Boo_saa]

I am driving an auto Rex.. FC is about 360 on a good day.. Feels like wacking, that tank can goes only to about 320...my take is that if one chose to drive one don't complain/ worry about the FC. Just enjoy. If not sibei miserable...