tjl

Looks like Ford's web site finally has the 2015 Focus build, price, and inventory search up as the main one for the Focus (instead pointing to the 2014 Focus build, price, and inventory search with the 2015 Focus as a future vehicle).

Here it is: http://bp3.ford.com/2015-Ford-Focus?branding=1&lang=en#/Technology/

http://www.ford.com/cars/focus/specifications/exterior/indicates that the hatchback is shorter than the sedan.

http://www.ford.com/cars/focus/specifications/capacities/indicates that the hatchback is 12 pounds lighter in the 2014 SE and Titanium models. S: 2935 (sedan) SE: 2960 (sedan), 2948 (hatch) Titanium: 3055 (sedan), 3043 (hatch) Electric: 3640 (hatch) ST: 3223 (hatch)

Looks like http://www.fueleconomy.govlists the 2015 Focus fuel economy. 110/99 electric (MPGe) 30/42 1.0L turbo, M6 (SFE) 29/40 1.0L turbo, M6 27/40 2.0L, A6 26/38 2.0L, AS6 (probably the version with SelectShift) 26/36 2.0L, M5 23/32 2.0L turbo, M6 (ST) The order guide posted in the other thread indicates that the 1.0L turbo package comes with an SFE badge on the sedan, but not the hatchback. Perhaps the aerodynamics are different enough to matter?

Recently, I got a 2014 Focus as a rental car. It had the Powershift dual-clutch automatic transmission (being in the US, automatic transmission in rental cars is expected). I could find none of the commented-about problems with it, even when intentionally trying to see if it would be rough and jerky in very low speed parking lot driving.

Unfortunately, that seems to describe a lot of drivers on the road today who are looking at their cell phones or are otherwise not paying attention.

CR's actual review was quite positive. They did get 37mpg in their tests, rather short of the 47mpg EPA rating at the time, but still excellent in comparison to other cars they tested (though not as good as the 41mpg they got on the Prius V). The negative press is more in terms of falling short of expectations set by the 47mpg EPA rating, rather than the fuel economy actually being "bad".

Seen them on some Toyota (Lexus), BMW, Volkswagen (including Audi), and Tesla vehicles. GM DRLs these days do not seem to be the poor implementations used by GM in the 1990s (e.g. high beam DRLs that were annoying to others if the driver did not turn on the regular low beam headlamps at night, or the turn signal DRLs that can give misleading "turn signal" indications on a quick glance if one of them is burned out).

The order guide (see post #4 of http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/49801-c-max-hybrid-order-guide/ ) lists a "Tire Mobility Kit" as a standard feature. Does this mean that there is no spare tire? If not, is there even a space to put a spare tire?

Post #4 of this thread: http://www.blueovalforums.com/forums/index.php?/topic/49801-c-max-hybrid-order-guide/

Going "leading edge" "green" does have its price, but you can go "green" the old fashioned way and save money, such as buying a car no thirstier than you actually would use, or buying recycled auto parts to repair your car.

If a SYNC upgrade takes 40 minutes, does the car have to be idling the whole time? Or can it just be "on" without the engine running while upgrading the SYNC? Or can you be driving somewhere while upgrading the SYNC?

Here are the weight classes used for EPA fuel economy testing (based on the actual vehicle weight + 300 pounds): http://ecfr.gpoaccess.gov/cgi/t/text/text-idx?c=ecfr&sid=32a17d143446f8a0dc75fa7ce7193ca4&rgn=div8&view=text&node=40:18.0.1.1.2.2.1.44&idno=40

Automatic transmission programming for light acceleration (common in EPA test cycles, designed for slow accelerating 1970s cars). If you normally don't accelerate that slowly, it may have no effect on your actual fuel economy. Lowering the weight to get under the threshold for the next 250 pound weight class. If a vehicle is at the bottom of the weight class, dropping just a few pounds may make it "250 pounds lighter" for EPA test purposes, even though the difference is much smaller in real life.