Source: New Vehicle Fuel Economy Improved in January | TheDetroitBureau.com This is a good news BUT story. A turbo-charged engine can achieve a high EPA result with better mileage than the same vehicle 'in real life' . . . the difference between fuelly.com numbers and the EPA sticker. Yet no one is complaining when the driver has to dip into high power mode, not drive it per-EPA protocols. This is different from the Ford 'math' error and Hyundai 'tweaks' but a clever application of technology to achieve a regulation advantage. Still, we should not look a 'gift horse' in the mouth. Now turbines are a technology that would be a game changer: Wrightspeed Technical summary: The Route | Wrightspeed turbo-generator - microturbine won't have ICE efficiency but cycling ON/OFF mitigates the low BSFC. Tweaking can minimize the NO{x}. significant battery-electric - lets the microturbine go OFF while the vehicle continues to perform in lower power profiles: constant speed and stopping/stopped. Bob Wilson
Most of the articles that I have come across do explain that dipping into the boost will drop the mpgs. It is just fun to do so. I don't think you see many complaints about low real life fuel economy because many of the drivers realize they can get better fuel economy if they choose to do so, whereas in the case of Ford and Hyundai, people were trying to get the EPA numbers, but not doing so.
Honda's duel-lift cams on the HCHII (and first gen as well?) were a similar tactic. The car has a 1.3 liter engine, and when it starts to lose it, say accelerating up a grade, hydraulic fluid shifts higher lift cam lobes over, gives a temporary kick.
