Classy Vehicle You Would Be Proud To Drive, Laser Straight, Runs Like New on 2040-cars

Auto blog

Consumer Reports criticizes small turbo engines for misleading performance, fuel economy claims [w/video]

Consumer Reports has taken aim at at small-displacement, forced-induction engines, saying the powerplants don't manage to deliver on automaker fuel economy claims. Manufacturers have long held that smaller, turbocharged engines pack all power of their larger displacement cousins with significantly better fuel economy, but the research organization says that despite scoring high EPA economy numbers, the engines are no better than conventional drivetrains in both categories. Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, says the forced induction options "are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines."
Specifically, CR calls out the new Ford Fusion equipped with the automaker's Ecoboost 1.6-liter four-cylinder engine. The institute's researchers found the engine, which is a $795 option over the base 2.5-liter four-cylinder, fails to match competitors in acceleration and served up 25 miles per gallon in testing, putting the sedan dead last among other midsize options.
The Chevrolet Cruze, Hyundai Sonata Turbo and Ford Escape 2.0T all got dinged for the same troubles, though Consumer Reports has found the turbo 2.0-liter four-cylinder in the BMW 328i does deliver on its promises. You can check out the full press release below. You can also read the full study on the Consumer Reports site, or scroll down for a short video recap.

Smaller Cars Endure Big Problems On Crash Test

In a crash test of 11 of the smallest cars on the market, only one vehicle received an acceptable rating. The rest received marginal or poor ratings in the study, providing evidence that supports a widely held notion that smaller cars are among the least safe on the road. No other vehicle group has performed as poorly on a new crash test than these mini cars, says the Insurance Institute for Highway Safety, the nonprofit group that conducted the testing. The latest results of which were released Wednesday. The Chevrolet Spark was the only car earning an overall "acceptable" rating on the small-front overlap test, and even that vehicle had its shortcomings, IIHS said. "Small lightweight vehicles have an inherent safety disadvantage," said Joe Nolan, the senior vice president for vehicle research at IIHS. "That's why it's even more important to choose one with the best occupant protection. Unfortunately, as a group, minicars aren't performing as well as other vehicle categories." The Mazda2, Kia Rio, Toyota Yaris and certain Ford Fiesta models all received "marginal" overall grades on the test, while the Mitsubishi Mirage, Nissan Versa, Toyota Prius C, Hyundai Accent, Fiat 500 and Honda Fit all earned "poor" ratings. Results from these sub-compact cars fare much worse than vehicles sized just a little bit bigger, IIHS said. Among 17 cars evaluated in the small category, five earned "good" ratings and five more earned "acceptable." Only introduced a year ago, the small-front overlap test has quickly become a key indicator of differences in automotive safety. IIHS introduced it as a way to replicate what happens when the front corner of a vehicle collides with a tree or utility pole at 40 miles per hour. In the real world, these sorts of accidents are more dangerous than others, in part because they bypass the front-end crush zones on most cars. TOP 5Most Researched Sedans 2013 Honda Accord MSRP : $21,680 2013 Hyundai Sonata MSRP : $20,895 2013 Nissan Altima MSRP : $21,760 2014 Honda Accord MSRP : $21,955 2013 Toyota Corolla MSRP : $16,230 Automakers have been rushing to make design changes to the front ends of their cars. Without a grade of acceptable or better, they cannot qualify for the IIHS' overall Top Safety Pick+ honor, given annually to the safest models on the market.

GM's MPG overstatement could affect 2 million vehicles

Late last week, GM admitted that three of its large SUVs fuel economy window stickers did not match their actual efficiency ratings, and so the vehicles couldn't be sold. The stickers on the 2016 Chevy Traverse, GMC Acadia, and Buick Enclave said their ratings were one to two miles per gallon better than they should have been. Officially, the number of affected vehicles sits at about 60,000. But Consumer Reports makes a good point: what's up with all of the previous model year SUVs that are basically the same vehicle? To wit: the 2016 model year vehicles are not substantially different than the 2015 or the 2014, or even going all the way back to 2007. On the EPA's fuel economy website, all of these older models will "have better stated fuel economy numbers than the new vehicles in GM's dealerships," Consumer Reports noted. CR's best point, and the one that makes the 60,000 number potentially grow to 2 million if all of the vehicles built on this platform are affected, is that "[i]t seems unlikely that the company would change the powertrain on these carryover models so late in their model cycles in a way that would cause a dramatic, negative impact on fuel economy." GM says that earlier model year SUVs are not affected and the EPA did not respond to CR's question about the potential for more discrepancies. We've seen automakers reverse course before, so if GM has to come out with a mea culpa soon, don't be surprised. GM is rushing corrected stickers to dealers so that the SUVs can be sold again, but a fix for the already-sold vehicles could be trickier to solve. Related Video: Related Gallery 2013 GMC Acadia View 16 Photos News Source: Consumer Reports Government/Legal Green Buick Chevrolet GMC Fuel Efficiency mpg gmc acadia chevy traverse