Automakers Question Consumer Reports Criticism Of Turbocharged Vehicles

They’re billed as being the perfect automotive solution, able to deliver both improved fuel economy and solid performance, but do turbochargers live up to their billing? A review by Consumer Reports magazine has touched off a fierce debate.

According to a new report by Consumer Reports magazine, turbos are more hype than help, generally failing to deliver. In fact, the non-profit publication claims, turbocharged engines are often slower and less fuel-efficient than the conventional engines they replace.

Read Article

MorePower - 2/6/2013 7:35:14 PM

+1 Boost

If you like high-speed cruising(75+ mph), a small displacement turbo can less efficient than a bigger displacement engine.

In the city, my turbo 4 beat my modern displacement 6 cylinder engine in fuel economy, but once I hit the highway(assuming no/light traffic), the 6 cylinder blows the four cylinder away in efficiency.

My six also has more usable power, the turbo is very peaky.

knowitall1985 - 2/7/2013 5:34:34 PM

+1 Boost

Turbo's cause more heat and are more complex. Trouble out of warranty.....

mrpiii - 2/15/2013 2:51:32 PM

+1 Boost

In the military we used turbos on many engines. There were procedures we had to observe in shutting the engines down such as idling for a few minutes to allow the turbo to spin down. In addition we had nitrogen-charged accumulators (normal engine oil pressure would charge them with oil -- there was no need to add nitrogen) that kept the oil pressure for a time after the engine was shutdown to ensure the bearings in the turbo didn't burn up and that oil in those bearings didn't over heat and carbonize.

I find it strange that automakers do not provide the same safeguards. I guess I can understand their reluctance to specify a shutdown procedure -- few people read their manuals, but adding an accumulator would increase turbo life, reduce maintenance and warranty claims.