Turbochargers, hailed as a way to deliver extra performance from small engines with more fuel economy, aren't all they are spun up to be, Consumer Reports says.



The magazine blasts a raft of vehicles in the market with turbocharged engines, saying their promises of more power and less fuel consumption are often hype. Turbos work by pumping more air into engine, but their efficiency can be cut by the extra fuel that it takes to do it.



The finding is significant because many automakers are banking on turbos to help them achieve better fuel economy at a fraction of the cost of hybrids.



"While these engines may look better on paper with impressive EPA numbers, in reality they are often slower and less fuel efficient than larger four and six-cylinder engines," said Jake Fisher, director of automotive testing for Consumer Reports, in a statement.



Examples cited by CR:

• Ford's 2013 Fusions sedans with EcoBoost turbocharged engines cost $795 more than a conventional engine, but the zero to 60 mph acceleration time isn't as good as some other family sedans. It's rated at 25 mpg, among the worst of the crop.
  
• Chevrolet Cruze comes with a choice of a 1.8-liter conventional four-cylinder or a 1.4-liter turbocharged engine. The turbocharged engine felt a little peppier in day-to-day driving but was "barely faster" in hard acceleration.
  
• Hyundai Sonata Turbo, Kia Sportage Turbo, and Ford Escape 2.0T -- the T is for turbo -- aren't as powerful as models with V-6 engines, the magazine says.