Comments on: Consumer Reports questions turbocharged engines

By: Huh

Huh — Thu, 07 Feb 2013 12:15:11 +0000

The testing done to government standards in both the US and Canada is a joke. Who drives 48 mph on what highway? It’s easy for car makers to hit big numbers with a stupid test that does not even come close to real world conditions. Until they create a test that even remotely resembles daily driving, and start to supervise the testing, these numbers mean nothing. Another example of government colluding with big business to screw us over. Unacceptable.

By: MK

MK — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:15:42 +0000

But at least they write in correct English using correct grammar. Take note next time you post.

By: MK

MK — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 16:13:26 +0000

In Europe where the roads are curvy and not built for dummies (i.e grid patterns….(excluding Milton Keynes) handling is paramount to straight line speed. So the Chryco battleships like the 300C are irrelevant for example.

Often journalists and aficionados praise smaller turbo engines over their v6 brothers due to the superior balance and handling afforded by the weight change and difference in overall ‘chuckability’ and it is a sensible favour.

So there…

By: Alan

Alan — Wed, 06 Feb 2013 11:31:03 +0000

I tend to trust Consumer Reports but I think in this case I think they need to be more clear on how they measure the difference. Having had a turbo charged car, I know the turbo only kicks in at a certain RPM. So having said that if a driver has a lead foot, then the turbo will kick in and use more gas than if said driver is a bit more conservative. The EPA’s method of highway driving would not activate the turbo hence the car operates as a 4 cylinder whereas the Consumer Reports speed may just be high enough that the turbo is working and thus more fuel consumed. The whole point of the turbo is it behaves like a 4 cylinder when driving ‘normally’ but a 6 cylinder when necessary, ie accelerating but will be back to a 4 cylinder when cruising. I think the manufacturers should explain their technology better and how they come up with such “low” fuel mileage numbers so consumers is not shocked when they don’t achieve the same numbers.

By: Paul Yue

Paul Yue — Tue, 05 Feb 2013 18:06:00 +0000

They are comparing fuel economy and performance of turbo vs nonturbo in cars from two different makers. This makes no sense.

Totally stupid article.

Consumer Reports writers don’t have technical understanding of cars. There are different transmissions, weight, tires, options.