A short while ago, we posted about the powerful, smaller, turbo-charged engines that are becoming so popular with car companies.  Ford, for example, has its 4-cylinder EcoBoost engine in most of its cars.  Or a look at the specs on the most popular cars of 2012 will show that most of those were 4-cylinders and claimed high gas mileage.

Which is giving you the most bang for your buck? Turbo engines do tend to cost a pretty penny extra.

However, Consumer Reports magazine claims (as published in Reuters) that the new engines are less fuel-efficient and less powerful than older engines.  Your used engine may have better fuel economy while giving your car more of a boost than the popular turbo engines.

Engine Debates:  What They Claim

Consumer Reports has been performing tests of fuel economy and power of comparable cars with different engines for the past two years and says that the turbo engines consistently  performed with a fuel efficiency that was 1-4 mpg lower than expected, and their acceleration speed was generally slower than their non-turbo counterparts.

Upon hearing this claim, Ford responded, “We cannot answer for how Consumer Reports tested the Fusion, but its findings are not consistent with our internal and external feedback.”

The discrepancy may be due to the fact that the tests were performed differently.  Consumer Reports tested on a highway at a speed of 65 mph, while EPA testing averages 40 mph, and never reaches speeds above 60 mph.

In other words, don’t put too much trust in a turbo-charged engine; and if you’re driving a car with an older engine, y

Tags: 4, 4-cylinder, 6, 6-cylinder, cylinder, efficiency, efficient, engine, Ford, fuel, power, turbo, turbocharged, used engine, used engines