Consumer Reports states that claims about fuel economy and acceleration in small turbo engine power cars are often false:

Consumer Reports tests many cars with small, turbocharged engines, and lots of competitors with traditional, naturally aspirated engines, big and small. Based on the EPA fuel-economy estimates, which are calculated based on laboratory tests, some of these cars’ turbocharged engines look better. But CR’s engineers found those results don’t always translate to the real world driving and in Consumer Reports’ own fuel economy tests.

The latest example of underperforming small turbocharged engines is the collection of 2013 Ford Fusions with EcoBoost engines — small, turbocharged four-cylinders with direct injection — which were recently tested by Consumer Reports. The smaller engine — a 1.6-liter producing 173 hp — is a $795 option over the basic conventional 2.5-liter Four on Fusion SE models. But that car’s 0-60 mph acceleration time trails competitive family sedans, and it delivers just 25 mpg, placing it among the worst of the crop of recently-redesigned family sedans.

A tough day for Ford Motor Co. (NYSE: F) management.

Thank you for reading! Have some feedback for us?
Contact the 24/7 Wall St. editorial team.