CR: Small Turbocharged Engines Are No Bargain

Carmakers routinely claim their smaller turbocharged four-cylinder engines delivers similar power and better fuel economy than larger naturally aspirated powerplants.

But Consumer Reports says its tests show that such engines typically accelerate more slowly and offer no fuel economy improvement compared to larger non-turbocharged 4- or 6-cylinder engines.

CR acknowledges that small forced-air engines may generate impressive Environmental Protection Agency fuel economy ratings. But it says those ratings don't compare well with real-life driving results.

The magazine complains that the 1.6-liter turbocharged EcoBoost engine offered in Ford Motor Co.'s 2013 Fusion sedans costs $795 more than a naturally aspirated 2.5-liter four-banger. But CR says the turbo is more sluggish than conventionally powered comparable sedans and delivers an unimpressive 25 mpg.

Similarly, the magazine's tests show the Chevrolet Cruze small sedan with 1.4-liter turbocharged engine is no more fuel efficient and only slightly quicker than the car's base 1.8-liter engine. CR adds that turbocharged four-cylinder versions of the Hyundai Sonata sedan and Kia Sportage and Ford Escape crossovers are less fuel efficient than V-6-powered models in the same class.

The magazine finds a few cases where turbocharged engines do provide competitive fuel economy and acceleration. It cites 2.0-liter turbocharged four-cylinder engines from BMW and Volkswagen.