Consumer Reports Blasting Turbo Mileage Claims - When Are They Going To Figure Out EPA Estimates Are Junk?

Perspective check, the EPA does not just measure the gas consumed in a test(too logical). They measure the emissions and backwards calculate the amount of fuel burned. Rarely has it been accurate to the real world results. Why CR is just now picking up on this odd:

Throughout the test, a hose is connected to the vehicle's tailpipe and collects the engine's exhaust. The amount of carbon present in what's spewed from the exhaust system is measured to calculate the amount of fuel burned. The EPA claims this is more accurate than using a fuel-gauge to physically measure the amount of gasoline being burned. Still, the final fuel economy figures are adjusted downward, by 10 percent for city driving and 22 percent in highway mileage, to help reflect the differences between what happens in a lab and out on an actual road.

It all depends on how you drive it. Even relatively inefficient motors can deliver decent fuel mileage if you don't accelerate fast and baby it. If you put your foot down in a smaller motor, it isn't going to deliver good fuel mileage.

Agreed. I have achieved 22-23 MPG traveling consistently at 55-60 MPH - Route 13 in Deleware, if anyone else has had the pleasure to drive on that road...they'd know.

EPA rates it 19. City? They say 13 MPG. I have never averaged below 14 MPG in seriously bad stop-n-go (morning commute). Mixed, I'm usually between 17.5-19 MPG.

Take that, EPA.

It all depends on how you drive it? They're all subject to the same drivers.....which means the turbo's don't have any advantage. (other than being more expensive)

I thought the manufacturers test and the EPA just takes their word for it, and occasionally checks to see who's fibbing?

Noticed that only the Japanese meet or exceed EPA ratings, everyone barely meets or falls short of their claims.

Toyota and the Japanese should advertise this. Too bad about Ford.

EPA Only spot checks after the automaker estimates. So right there you have a problem. Plus the EPA itself says in their loop they can get up to a 30% difference depending on the driver.

So how can CR honestly say they are getting anything outside the normal variables?

Really it all appears to be smoke and mirrors.

Agent. How do you explain that certain manufacturers are always on one side of the "variation" and some on the other?

EPA ratings are grossly overestimated compared to milage a normal person would get. One hopes that you can at least compare EPAs between car companies but even this is fraught with error. If you want to save gas ride a bike.

In my experience, EPA estimates are rarely accurate, however they can be either over-estimated or under-estimated (but that's also why they call them "estimates"). Case in point was my 2005 Ford Escape 2.3L auto 4WD; EPA estimates were 19 and 22. I regularly got 28mpg highway at 70mph (cruise controlled) with the A/C off.

Automakers conduct mileage tests according to the EPA mandates (obviously Hyundai did not do so hence their admission of guilt by paying customers after the fact). The fact that CR can't get to the EPA ratings just proves what the rest of already know. Everyone can save themselves some time and stop reading CR. Too many people pay entirely too much attention to what CR says.

i guess you're missing the whole point of the article. CR test's everything with the same drivers. THey found that ALTHOUGH the EPA's numbers we're better for the Turbos they found no difference. You can't chalk that up the how the vehicles are driven.

First of all, I'm not sure I believe much from Consumer Reports. They make a name for themselves on this reporting.

Secondly, I tend to drive in a spirited manner. My 2005 Acura RL in today's figures would get 16/24. I get 16 city, and more like 27-28 on the highway, and that's driving a steady 80.

I also have a 2011 Porsche 911 Carerra. I think it's rated at 18/25. I consistently get 18 around town, and I get 27+ on the highway.

Driving styles vary widely. They-Consumer Reports-are testing brand new cars, and I have never gotten my best gas mileage on any car until I get at least 10,000 miles on it.

The point is that the turbo options had lower real world performance (acceleration and mpg) than the non-turbo options in same models and in comparable competitor models. It appears that some manufacturers are fudging their costly eco and hybrid mpg figures. CR tests and reports. My experience is I beat the average mpg ratings on my vehicles, though I don't drive in a congested area.