FORD CONFIRMS: '12 focus 160hp 40 MPG

[theoldwizard]

It could also be cheaper for Ford to source all of its 2.0 engines from the one plant

that produces the Ecobost 2.0 and if the plant is already set up for DI fuel injection,

you'd hardly retro fit port injection let alone pay for a modification program.

The 2.0L EcoBoost and the 2.0L DI use basically the same block as the current PFI 2.0/2.3/2.5L so an existing cylinder head, piston, and intake exists. Admittedly without TiVCT.

 

Last I knew, Ford had 4-5 plants around the world building that engine (not including 1 Mazda plant).

 

Concluding that four DI injectors and a HP pump adds significant cost to cars these days is nonsense,

the current sales volume of DI has significantly pushed down the price benefiting the consumer.

Another unsubstantiated claim ! Using your logic, turbochargers should be free also !!

[Biker16]

The 2.0L EcoBoost and the 2.0L DI use basically the same block as the current PFI 2.0/2.3/2.5L so an existing cylinder head, piston, and intake exists. Admittedly without TiVCT.

 

Last I knew, Ford had 4-5 plants around the world building that engine (not including 1 Mazda plant).

 

Ford has 3 plants making I4s.

Dearborn engine Eco boost and DI.

Chihuahua, mexico Fusion and Escape 2.5

and Spain. Eco boost, and DI

 

Another unsubstantiated claim ! Using your logic, turbochargers should be free also !!

 

Traction control and ABS used to be expensive. they are not any more. for is planing to make 750,000 EB engine per year,, add another 200-250,000 Direct injection motors for the Focus and you have Economies of scale.

 

Ford is no longer buying technology in small batches it is, all in on this technology, because it is the only way to make it cost effective.

Edited October 24, 2010 by Biker16

[Swizco]

Isn't the Internet great ?!! People with no credentials can make unsubstantiated claims.

 

So just how does DI make "an engine better able to convert the energy content of its fuel into work" ? Sure, better atomization helps, but you are not giving enough credit to TiVCT for increased power.

 

Can't you run higher compression ratios with DI, as the fuel spray provides a bit of cooling effect to the charge, therefor reducing detonation? As a result, 'better conversion of fuel into work..."?

[Biker16]

Can't you run higher compression ratios with DI, as the fuel spray provides a bit of cooling effect to the charge, therefor reducing detonation? As a result, 'better conversion of fuel into work..."?

yep and the car can run leaner, because the fuel is sprayed closer to the spark plug, under light load conditions you can afford a leaner air fuel mixture.

 

combined with the ability to run a "Atkinson" cycle with the VCT, you can run leaner without the consequence emissions.

 

 

I would imagine as the processing power improves and the technology improves you will consistent improvement in efficiency.

[wildosvt]

I don't think so, it will hve more room than the ZX# did. not much but, there is more space in the hatch area.

 

 

Oh, I think so.I am basing my opinion by personal experience. I have had my hands in the hatch area of the 2012 Focus. It is small.

[jpd80]

yep and the car can run leaner, because the fuel is sprayed closer to the spark plug, under light load conditions you can afford a leaner air fuel mixture.

 

combined with the ability to run a "Atkinson" cycle with the VCT, you can run leaner without the consequence emissions.

 

 

I would imagine as the processing power improves and the technology improves you will consistent improvement in efficiency.

 

Under the EPA city/highway cycle, there are very few occasion where an ultra lean cycle will work effectively.

 

However,

The beauty of IVCT and High compression is as you say, Atkinson cycle which allows the intake valve timing

to close much later making the charge much smaller, broadening the efficiency range of the engine.

That wider efficiency range does several things,

1) Variable Capacity - the 2.0 becomes more like a 1.6 liter engine under light engine load.

2) Leaner at at part throttle - the engine is much more efficient than an Otto cycle engine and can run leaner.

3) Full throttle power and torque figures are very impressive for a 2.0 liter

Edited October 24, 2010 by jpd80

[theoldwizard]

yep and the car can run leaner, because the fuel is sprayed closer to the spark plug, under light load conditions you can afford a leaner air fuel mixture.

In the US, you can only run marginally leaner because of EPA NOx standards.

 

EU standards and test procedures allow much leaner operations.

[theoldwizard]

Traction control and ABS used to be expensive. they are not any more.

ABS is cheaper now because it is a government mandate which increased the volume. It is still a long way from "free".

 

On the other hand, "electronic" traction control IS effectively free (one time software development cost; zero variable cost). Use the antilock brake controller to partially apply the brake to the spinning wheel while limiting the electronic throttle.

[theoldwizard]

Under the EPA city/highway cycle, there are very few occasion where an ultra lean cycle will work effectively.

By US law, there is NO OCCASION when "ultra lean" operation is allowed.

 

In the previous years, Ford has TWICE been heavily penalized for vehicles running lean at highway speeds and exceeding NOx limits. I had to attend the punishment (excuse me, "re-training") session !!

[Biker16]

In the US, you can only run marginally leaner because of EPA NOx standards.

 

EU standards and test procedures allow much leaner operations.

 

I get it.

 

but combined with the displacement lowering effect of the Atkinson cycle. it really isn't running lean.

 

 

the piston used on the older Duratec SCi.

 

the pocket in the piston keeps the air fuel mixture, close to the spark plug, effectively maintaining the proper A/F mixture around the spark plug. Also alot EGR is used to to minimise detonation, Which is why we can use a 12:1 compression ratio.

[Biker16]

Dupe

Edited October 26, 2010 by Biker16

[tjl]

Most people, including myself, report their best mileage on long highway trips where the speed is fairly constant. The EPA highway cycle still has some stops and, I believe, has an average speed of less than 60 mph.

 

The EPA highway fuel economy test stops only at the end, but the speed varies between 30 and 60mph after the initial start and acceleration. Average speed is 48.3mph. Note, however, that this test tends to give unrealistically high miles per gallon numbers, which is why window stickers from 1985-2007 had a 22% adjustment downward on the highway miles per gallon. From 2008, additional tests were added, resulting in further downward adjustment. However, the original unadjusted results are used for CAFE purposes (so "35mpg CAFE" is really something like 26mpg on window stickers).

 

 

For more information about the EPA test cycles, look here: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/fe_test_schedules.shtml

Edited October 26, 2010 by tjl

[MKII]

I do not know the dimensions, But I ca say the hatch area is almost laughable. My 04 ZX5 has more room.

 

Hmm I don't think I would agree with you ar at least would not say "almost laughable"

When I lived in Canada I owned a couple 2005 ZX5's so I have some experience with the cargo space

 

couple of pics showing the hatch area in the new Focus from the Paris show

 

 

 

 

 

I do not have the dimensions but I would be very surprised if the new Focus cargo area in the hatch is smaller then the old C170 ZX5,

maybe in height the ZX5 has it beat but surely not in width or depth. I believe the new Focus exterior width is 4 inches wider then the current

C170 Focus in North America,

[MKII]

...

Edited October 29, 2010 by RichardJensen

[MKII]

...

Edited October 29, 2010 by RichardJensen

[MKII]

I do not know the dimensions, But I ca say the hatch area is almost laughable. My 04 ZX5 has more room.

 

Hmm I don't think I would agree with you ar at least would not say "almost laughable"

When I lived in Canada I owned a couple 2005 ZX5's so I have some experience with the cargo space

 

couple of pics showing the hatch area in the new Focus from the Paris show

 

 

 

 

 

I do not have the dimensions but I would be very surprised if the new Focus cargo area in the hatch is smaller then the old C170 ZX5,

maybe in height the ZX5 has it beat but surely not in width or depth. I believe the new Focus exterior width is 4 inches wider then the current

C170 Focus in North America,

[theoldwizard]

The EPA highway fuel economy test stops only at the end, but the speed varies between 30 and 60mph after the initial start and acceleration. Average speed is 48.3mph.

Thanks for posting accurate data !

[wildosvt]

Hmm I don't think I would agree with you ar at least would not say "almost laughable"

When I lived in Canada I owned a couple 2005 ZX5's so I have some experience with the cargo space

 

 

 

I do not have the dimensions but I would be very surprised if the new Focus cargo area in the hatch is smaller then the old C170 ZX5,

maybe in height the ZX5 has it beat but surely not in width or depth. I believe the new Focus exterior width is 4 inches wider then the current

C170 Focus in North America,

 

"Laughable" was to strong of a word. But with the seat backs in the upwards position, It looked obvious to me that there is less room in the hatch area. And I drive a ZX5 daily.

[ds91776]

The cargo area looks bigger to me.

[Hugh]

Just my 2 cents: I took my step-mother out for a shopping run and her new ride is a 2007 Focus SES ZX5. Now, this is impressional not emperical data: It looks larger but really not in a large way. My former roomate drove a C1 Mazda 3 and I rented a C1 Volvo S40 for a time. I'll wager the materials, sound-deading in the interior looked and felt more robust. In effect, making the space seem smaller.

At the end of the day, this is the 'C' segment we're talking about. It's looking larger overall then the C170 but I don't think current 'C' drivers will notice a major difference.

[92merc]

I was looking at the order guide. Does the new Focus have power adjustable pedals and memory seats? I've been considering downsizing my car and the Focus is perfect. It's just missing the power pedals and memory seats my Montego has.

[GapBoyPCS]

"Laughable" was to strong of a word. But with the seat backs in the upwards position, It looked obvious to me that there is less room in the hatch area. And I drive a ZX5 daily.

 

Since the Build and Price are up, so are the specs.

 

2004 ZX5 (from my old brochures):

- Cargo with seat up - 12.4 cu ft

- Cargo with seat folded - 28.3 cu ft

 

2012 hatchback per fordvehicles.com:

- Cargo behind second row - 23.8 cu ft

- Cargo behind first row - 44.8 cu ft

 

One thing to note is that headroom is DEFINITELY lower, per spec sheets. In a 2004, you're looking at front/rear of 39.1/38.5 in. For 2012, you're now at 38.3/37.9 in.

 

Now I'm just a bit worried about headroom if one gets a sunroof - doesn't that usually reduce headroom a good inch?

[MKII]

Since the Build and Price are up, so are the specs.

 

2004 ZX5 (from my old brochures):

- Cargo with seat up - 12.4 cu ft

- Cargo with seat folded - 28.3 cu ft

 

2012 hatchback per fordvehicles.com:

- Cargo behind second row - 23.8 cu ft

- Cargo behind first row - 44.8 cu ft

 

One thing to note is that headroom is DEFINITELY lower, per spec sheets. In a 2004, you're looking at front/rear of 39.1/38.5 in. For 2012, you're now at 38.3/37.9 in.

 

Now I'm just a bit worried about headroom if one gets a sunroof - doesn't that usually reduce headroom a good inch?

Check out the pictures (slide # 9 ) and you will see quite a tall gentleman sitting in the rear seats of the 5 door hatch Focus with moon-roof. Lots of headroom.

Hip points are quite a bit lower in the new Focus. Also a great pic of the rear suspension & under belly

http://www.autobild.de/artikel/ford-focus-iii-erste-fahreindruecke-1281338.html?bild=12&now=67

Edited October 29, 2010 by MKII

[Jtsford1]

IMHO I don't believe that DI contributed a lot to the vehicle achieving 40 mpg. I give more credit to the 6 speed dual clutch transmission, TIVCT and a host of other things (EPS, etc).

 

At best, DI might account for 1-2 additional mpg over PFI. At what cost ? 4 direct injectors and a high pressure fuel pump certainly add to the total cost.

 

 

Side note, if a vehicle is rated as "flex fuel", then I believe the EPA requires the manufacturer to report at least the fuel economy while operating on E85.

 

Of course, everyone should know that manufacturers use the equivalent of E00 and not E10 (or E15) for their fuel economy and emission testing. What I am implying is that if the test was repeated using E10 (or E15) the fuel economy would be lower.

 

 

Well, Let me start by saying this is my first post on any of these forums.

I work at ford and I happen to know alot about this particular powertrain.

I would like to just say this. If Ford only have enough time to see how much, and how little, people knew of up coming

programs, they would hire people to read and post correct info on these sites. If your looking for future 2012 ford focus info

I can only recommend, visit Fordvehicles.com

 

Now that said, I know for a fact Fuel economy is tested using the same gas as you would buy from any BP gas station. 87 Octane.

It only makes sense, since the EPA will use this to determine the final fuel economy numbers.

Also, Please remember. Big executives, like Jim Farley like to create BUZZ for people prior to launch. For all the sceptics out there.

I am sure FORD will acheive 40 MPG for the 2012 Ford focus with the 6 speed auto. END OF STORY.

Edited October 29, 2010 by Jtsford1

[MKII]

Well, Let me start by saying this is my first post on any of these forums.

I work at ford and I happen to know alot about this particular powertrain.

I would like to just say this. If Ford only have enough time to see how much, and how little, people knew of up coming

programs, they would hire people to read and post correct info on these sites. If your looking for future 2012 ford focus info

I can only recommend, visit Fordvehicles.com

 

Now that said, I know for a fact Fuel economy is tested using the same gas as you would buy from any BP gas station. 87 Octane.

It only makes sense, since the EPA will use this to determine the final fuel economy numbers.

Also, Please remember. Big executives, like Jim Farley like to create BUZZ for people prior to launch. For all the sceptics out there.

I am sure FORD will acheive 40 MPG for the 2012 Ford focus with the 6 speed auto. END OF STORY.

 

Jtsford1.......maybe if Ford N.A. would go to the trouble of listing some details in the fordvehicles.com the interested consumer might not have to

guess what the heck is what with these vehicles. For example under the chassis link on the fordvehicles site for the new Focus not one word if

the "new" torque vectoring control system is on the car.....plus zero mention of EBD, EBA, EBP, HRB, Brake disc dimensions, Turning circle, how about

Passive neck injury protection on the front seats?????

If you don't like an ignorant public it is up to your company to educate and release some freaking information instead of this bare bones 1962 type mentality of

do you dummies buying our cars really need to know this stuff surface information.

 

Get with the program and put out decent details like this http://c-max.fordmedia.eu/documents/FordC-MAX_EU.pdf yes I know its 67 freaking pages of information, even hp torque power graphs.ain't it great

on the new C-Max/Grand C-Max, but some of us car freaks like have a keen interest to know what the heck we are buying.

Edited October 29, 2010 by MKII