Detroit rebuts Consumer Reports' turbo results
Ford and GM say their vehicles have better fuel economy than the magazine's tests indicate.
By Tim Parker In light of Consumer Reports' recent determination that turbocharged vehicles, like those made by Ford (F) and General Motors (GM), "have slower acceleration and no better fuel economy than the models with bigger, conventional engines," investors are left to wonder what, if any, impact this latest finding will have on sales.
If the latest news out of China is any indication, Ford has little to worry about. The Associated Press reports that Ford said sales of Ford-brand vehicles, including imports, rose 135% to 44,439 vehicles there in January.
General Motors said earlier that its sales of GM-brand vehicles in China rose 26% in January to a monthly record of 310,765.
Consumer Reports magazine tested a wide variety of these turbocharged vehicles, and even contests the EPA fuel-economy estimates on the vehicles, saying the cars didn't match up.
The Los Angeles Times reported that Ford released a statement in response to the turbo testing saying that the magazine's "findings are not consistent with our internal and external feedback. It shows EcoBoost vehicles lead in customer satisfaction for fuel economy across segments -- including surveys by J.D. Power."
General Motors also released a statement implying that the testers might have driven more aggressively than the average Cruze owner does. "If you have a heavy foot on a turbocharged engine, you're not necessarily going to see a lot of fuel economy benefits."
Since the middle of 2009, Ford has been aggressively marketing its EcoBoost engines, which feature a turbocharger and promise greater fuel efficiency. The company has sold more than a half million models with EcoBoost engines.
"Our customers are very happy with their EcoBoost vehicles," said Sherwood. Many of those customers paid between $700 and $900 extra to buy a model with an EcoBoost engine.
Stricter government policies are putting pressure on automakers to improve mileage. As standards change over the next seven years, results will reveal which manufacturers make the grade.
Ford hopes the fuel-cell technology it will produce with Nissan (NSANY), Daimler AG (DDAIF), and Renault will ultimately be the answer to its problems. With Toyota (TM) and BMW also working on fuel-cell systems -- not to mention the competition from alternative hybrid technologies and the possibility of poor acceptance of fuel-cells, the road ahead will not be smooth.
Ford finished Thursday down about 1% while GM was down about 0.2%.
The question for Consumer Reports is why they tested this particular correlation in the first place. If the reason was based on a preconceived assessment that auto companies are inflating the statistics on their vehicles, then CR testers are obviously going to skew the test towards proving that preconceived assessment.
As such, much heavier foot driving leading to lower MPG. Even with a turbo-booster, you will not get the same acceleration from a 4-cylinder as a 6 or 8. Most people buying this type of engine are not looking for the extra power of a turbo so they can speed all over. They want to extra power to be available if/when they need it. THEIR MAIN REASON FOR BUYING THE CAR WAS THE MILEAGE!!!
Let one of the buyers conduct the testing. I think your results will be more in line with the auto maker's results.
In the old days......We had 2 or 4 bbl carburetors...If you drove on just the 2 bbl part, you would get pretty good mileage 20-25 mpg...Kick in all 4 and maybe 15-16 mpg..?
Think my "first car"only had a single barrel carb and a "flat head engine."
Some cars if ordered, had 2-3 Carbs...Others could get Fuel Injection...
Needless to say their mileage,MPGs were not as good.
Foot on the Pedal, is the main determining factor of Mpg..?
Unless you are stuck in a traffic jam/backup.
MORE ON MSN MONEY
DATA PROVIDERS
Copyright © 2013 Microsoft. All rights reserved.
Quotes are real-time for NASDAQ, NYSE and AMEX. See delay times for other exchanges.
Fundamental company data and historical chart data provided by Thomson Reuters (click for restrictions). Real-time quotes provided by BATS Exchange. Real-time index quotes and delayed quotes supplied by Interactive Data Real-Time Services. Fund summary, fund performance and dividend data provided by Morningstar Inc. Analyst recommendations provided by Zacks Investment Research. StockScouter data provided by Verus Analytics. IPO data provided by Hoover's Inc. Index membership data provided by SIX Financial Information.
Japanese stock price data provided by Nomura Research Institute Ltd.; quotes delayed 20 minutes. Canadian fund data provided by CANNEX Financial Exchanges Ltd.
STOCK SCOUTER
StockScouter rates stocks from 1 to 10, with 10 being the best, using a system of advanced mathematics to determine a stock's expected risk and return. Ratings are displayed on a bell curve, meaning there will be fewer ratings of 1 and 10 and far more of 4 through 7.
133 | 268 | 459 | 583 | 668 | 590 | 672 | 429 | 258 | 140 |
| 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | 10 |
LATEST POSTS
When it comes to efficiency gains, a watt saved is a watt earned.
FIDELITY VIEWPOINTS
- How to sell covered calls - Fidelity Investments
- Savvy year-end tax moves to consider now - Fidelity Investments
- Seven ways to prepare for tax changes
- Five reasons an annual review is crucial - Fidelity Investments
- Take a look at mid caps now - Fidelity Investments
- State of the sector: Health care - Fidelity Investments
VIDEO ON MSN MONEY
ABOUT
Top Stocks provides analysis about the most noteworthy stocks in the market each day, combining some of the best content from around the MSN Money site and the rest of the Web.
Contributors include professional investors and journalists affiliated with MSN Money.
Follow us on Twitter @topstocksmsn.