What's the point of a turbocharged engine if it gets bad fuel economy?

Your Monte also had 54% less power and less weight.

I legitimately think most people that drive Ecoboost F150s just have no idea how to drive it so that they're not at full boost every time they accelerate.

I can do this cruising down the highway empty even on insanely heavy 35x12.50 tires and keep it above 20 even with mixed driving.

>Shouldn't the money sunk into developing a new engine and aluminium body panels translate into better mileage than it's getting right now?

Smaller engines "game the legal system" where cars have efficiency targets set during negotiations with the government for tax breaks, subsidies, safety goals, and environment goals.

Another plus of small turbo engines is that they are worked much harder than large engines. Thus these overworked engines will fall out of tolerance sooner, which means no more cars with bulletproof engines hanging around for decades causing consumers to not buy more new cars. It's called planned obsolescence and the car manufacturers were not playing that game as well as they could have since they were not cooperating with each other. But now you see different companies (GM and Ford) are even willing to work together and badge cars with "Eco", "EcoTEC", and "EcoBoost" and other similar badges with regards to their engines. So it makes sense for both to work together to implement planned obsolescence so the consumers have no real alternative.

With planned obsolescence, if just one company does it but the other does not, the consumers will go to the company with the longer-lasting engines. But if both companies use engines that wear out fast, then the consumers have no escape hatch unless they are going to get a giant RAM from FiatDaimlerDecepticonChrysler or whatever that company is named now. The trick is to do it legally to avoid lawsuits that a product was deliberately designed to fail sooner than it otherwise could have.

PLANNED OBSOLESCENCE:
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Planned_obsolescence

EXAMPLE:
hww.independent.co.uk/life-style/gadgets-and-tech/company-breaks-open-apple-watch-to-discover-what-it-says-is-planned-obsolescence-10203822.html

>But now you see different companies (GM and Ford) are even willing to work together and badge cars with "Eco", "EcoTEC", and "EcoBoost" and other similar badges with regards to their engines.
You do know that GM's Ecotec engines and Ford's Ecoboost engines are completely unrelated, right?
GM and Ford have recently collaborated, but not on engines. It was for a FWD 6 speed automatic transmission. The transmission from the Buick LaCrosse and the Ford Taurus, whether FWD or AWD. are the same transmission.

WHATS THE POINT OF A GT IF ITS A V6

whats the point in putting a puny engine in a 2 ton shitbox of a """"muscle car""""

all new cars suck with fuel economy.

fucking 2016 tuscon. 35-38mpg if I use cruise control on a flat highway doing 60-65mph with no strong wind.

as soon as I start driving it with a purpose, or cruise at 80mph I get 23-26mpg

My old Civic, doesnt matter how I drove it, each tank averaged to 32mpg

>What's the point of a turbocharged engine if it gets bad fuel economy
it only has better economy off boost
and allows a smaller engine to be useful on the open road

on a related note, I took this on a 4,000 mile trip a few weeks ago and averaged 31 mpg overall even though there were several stretches where I had the cruise set at 90 or 100 miles an hour.

Yeah my 98 Civic gets 42mph on the highway going 75-85mph which is better than damn near any other new car.

New cars are tall and heavy as fuck for no reason.

>S A F E T Y
>A
>F
>E
>T
>Y
You're fucked if you crash your Civic

>crashing

There's a specific way you have to drive a boosted car to get the most out of it. The turbocharger is basically there for power on demand but while cruising it doesn't need that extra power or displacement so the turbocharger isn't active.

The problem is, you have to drive like grandma to not activate boost. I have a 300 whp Focus ST and to drive for best fuel economy I have to drive so fucking slow it's unbearable. I can't go past like 5% throttle or boost kicks in. Even on the stock map, boost is pretty much always on. I only get the advertised MPG on the highway cruising with CC on.

Consumer perception/needs and taxes/incentives.

Cars were really heavy and inefficient.
Then they got lighter and efficient with simple engines because the market couldn't afford anything else.
Then extra safety came and cars got heavier again, old motor configurations started consuming more.
Because public perception sees more cylinders and displacement as bad, plus lab standardized tests, and certain rules and taxes set by governing bodies across the world were implemented, we are left now with turbocharged engines.

If fuel consumption was everything, we would still be riding little sedans or hatches with inline 4s. Stuff like the Metro or past Civic gens for example.

>heavy shell with pillars as big as ones found in roman mausoleums, can't see shit
>airbags everywhere
>electronics everywhere, giant ipad in the middle, power everything, heated everything
>muh fluid and striking lines that also hide safety bumper zone in body are xbawks HUGE
>cars are tall, wide, big
But people and gov still want a small displacement few cil as possible engine.
But engine can't keep up.

Ideally for practical purposes we would need a mechanically simple engine that's detuned, or not pushed at least, so it lasts and lasts and lasts and companies don't need to put R&D money into it and avoid warranties.
So in tests turbos do well, but irl it doesn't for what they are advertised.

Planned obsolescence is not what I would think of to be honest, like said.
That is already "done" by this cycle of "sell your car in 2-3 years and buy new again", or "lease lease lease" etc. marketing tactics.
You see, planned obsolescence is terrible for auto manufacturers because manufacturers are hit by recalls, and they get sued the fuck out if there's shit gone wrong in huge batches.
The returns for common brands is terrible, it's really small, so it's not a good plan to have a little chance of that little return going to zero because you fucked up or planned to fuck up.

>eco errything

>Where's the eco?
'Ecology' not 'Economy'. Emissions.

The real reason for ecoboost engines is to fuck with european insurance and tax policies that are calculated on engine capacity.
When your 1.0 engine makes as much power as the old 1.6 due to efficiency and technology, it's cheaper. AND you can use a cheap, quick-heating cast iron block instead of aluminium alloy, because it's barely any weight penalty.

>mfw people are surprised that stringent fuel economy standards have brought about a generation of cars which only get advertised fuel economy doing EPA testing cycles

>22yo W202 2litre 140hp NA
>2yo astra 75hp turbo
>literally the same exact petrol consumption
i'm sure the astra is more economical in city driving conditions, but on the autobahn it takes 10l/100km just as the mercedes does on 20 years older technology

In my case potential good gas milage is drowned by the fact that I have a 365 hp ecoboost, and I drive that car the same way that I drive my old mustang: all out all day erry day