Turbocharged engines aren’t all they’re cracked up to be, according to an article that appeared today week in the Chicago Tribune. The article references J.D. Power’s 2016 Vehicle Dependability Study, which is based on 2013 vehicle owner responses after three years of ownership. According to the study, turbocharged engines had nearly 30% more consumer complaints than nonturbos. That includes all types of complaints, such as responsiveness and fuel economy, not just mechanical failures or warranty claims. They did not have more complaints in Power’s 2016 Initial Quality Study, which assesses problems in the first 90 days of ownership of 2016 model year vehicles. J.D. Power said that that could indicate manufacturers have improved the overall performance and responsiveness of turbo engines.
“The caveat is that on the EPA’s test cycle, these engines look fantastic from a fuel efficiency standpoint for the window stickers, but some consumers are saying, my fuel economy is horrible, because they have to sink their foot into it more because the engine has to work harder to generate that power,” a representative from J.D. Power told the paper. Recall that EPA had projected a 54% penetration rate of these kinds of engines to meet the fuel economy standards; 33% for the GHG standards.
The article notes that Consumer Reports magazine also has found in its real-world driving tests that turbo engines may not live up to the higher fuel economy estimates generated in the EPA tests. “What we’ve found in some situations is that they may have better EPA fuel economy (estimates), but when we’ve tested the fuel economy in our regimented test cycle we’ve found that they don’t always deliver. Sometimes they’re actually worse than the larger, normally aspirated engines in our testing,” said a representative.
The difference, he added, is that the EPA tests simulate real-world driving and “are very gentle, so you’re not pushing the engine very hard.” In the real world, drivers will often use a heavy throttle foot to activate the turbo for a burst of acceleration. Nor do turbo engines always provide better acceleration than the naturally aspirated engines they replace. Fisher said turbo engines have been “all over the map” as far as acceleration and fuel economy — including Ford vehicles with EcoBoost engines. Some are better than naturally aspirated engines, some not as good and others about the same.
