Quote:
Originally Posted by Taintedveins
I did not know that! thank you for the information, but is it so unlikely that a new generation of turbos in the newest 4 wouldn't have higher mpg standards with performance benefits?? and I find the EPA estimates incredibly low. I have yet to get lower then 21 in town.
|
Sure, further fuel economy advances will be achieved with turbo-4s as the years go on and technology improves, but the same can be said of NA V6s as well.
Based on what I'm seeing, the downsizing and turbocharging trend is not netting significant economy gains as promised, at least not in the real world. Companies doing it, Ford with Ecoboost in particular, like to advertise the turbo-4 as some miracle engine, with the power of a V6, but the economy of a 4. Well, no, they more closely end up with the power of a V6 with the economy of a V6. Just because the turbo engine may have the displacement and cylinder count as a base Ford Focus certainly does not mean it will get the same mileage as one. If you want the base Focus mileage, you have to accept the base Focus tune and power level, too.
Also, I must have a similar driving style to you, because I too have no problem beating EPA estimates in anything I drive. During the warmer months, I can consistently get upper 30s out of my Alero, and I even got 31 a couple of times out of my 5.0 last summer. One interesting thing I've noticed from experience about EPA ratings from driving many different vehicles is how consistently inconsistent they seem to be, where whole classes of vehicles seem to be underrated more than others, while others seem to get better ratings than they deserve. For example, A typical "car" will usually beat the EPA highway estimate by 15-25% or sometimes more for me, while crossover SUVs with the same driving style usually average out to 5-10% above their rating at best.
I suspect the turbo engines are the same way...i.e. they put up impressive numbers within the narrow parameters of the EPA test, but in the real world, don't perform as well as a N/A engine with the same rating when you start using the gas pedal. A lot of car mags and online reviews post real world fuel economy in reviews now, and it seems that when driven hard (as a sports car like the 6th-gen Camaro will likely be more often than other cars), turbo engines (at least gas ones, diesels seem to do better) end up missing their EPA targets by more than N/A engines. The EcoBoosts seem particularly bad. (I know, we're discussing GM, but the Fords offer the most available data for turbos, and if those are supposed to be mainstream turbos....why would someone else's mainstream turbo be much different?)