silvrsvt Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Highly efficient new 2.0-liter EcoBoost® engine helps 154-mph Ford Focus ST achieve 32 mpg highway, 23 mpg city and 26 mpg combined http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=36781 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Highly efficient new 2.0-liter EcoBoost® engine helps 154-mph Ford Focus ST achieve 32 mpg highway, 23 mpg city and 26 mpg combined http://media.ford.co...rticle_id=36781 That seems kind of disappointing to me. Especially when you consider it's a compact, only FWD, and only about 240hp with 6 speed manual. I was expecting 35mpg highway and 25mpg city. Looks like Focus ST could use some fuel saving electronics on it. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 You are been sarcastic right FB? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 You are been sarcastic right FB? Unfortunately, he's not. Mazda3 2.5L with less power is 20/28. VW GTI with 2.0L (less power) is 21/31. I'd say those are great numbers compared to the competition. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 You are been sarcastic right FB? No, the new Taurus 2.0EB gets 32mpg highway with slushbox and 800 more pounds of weight. And the new Boxsters that are much faster get as good or better fuel mileage too. And both models have considerably more hp. My Boxster has gotten as much as 35mpg highway and it has no latest electronic fuel saving controls. I've averaged as high as 28mpg in combined driving if I lay off the high revs. I'm still not completely sold on EB as fuel mileage increases seem marginal at best. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Looks like Focus ST could use some fuel saving electronics on it. Looks like it has some fuel saving electronics on it, compared to the competition. Looks like you have unrealistic expectations. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 And the new Boxsters that are much faster get as good or better fuel mileage too. And both models have considerably more hp. My Boxster has gotten as much as 35mpg highway and it has no latest electronic fuel saving controls. I've averaged as high as 28mpg in combined driving if I lay off the high revs. I'm still not completely sold on EB as fuel mileage increases seem marginal at best. I'm a Porsche Slappy! My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Looks like it has some fuel saving electronics on it, compared to the competition. Looks like you have unrealistic expectations. So explain to me how Ford's biggest sedan with EB2.0 gets same highway mileage as its next to smallest sedan/hatch? And the Focus ST has lighter weight manual trans that soaks up no torque either. Or is the Taurus geared for fuel mileage only which I hope is not the case as it would be a real dog. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 My Boxster has gotten as much as 35mpg highway and it has no latest electronic fuel saving controls. And I've seen as high as 34 MPG through town in my F250, and regularly see 31-32. And it has more HP and a $hit-load more torque than your Boxster! So, what's your point again? Of course, this is right after a fuel up on a 3 mile straight drive through town with speed limits of 25-35 MPH and no stop signs with 95% of the drive down hill. But, we're aren't interested in WHOLE truths here, are we? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I'm a Porsche Slappy! My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . My Boxster has . . . Oh, we can only use certain vehicles for comparison, and my real world experience doesn't matter? Last I heard, making autos was a competitive business and EB was somehow supposed to replace hybrids. Focus ST fuel mileage figures aren't terrible, but I for one expected more with the Ford hype of EB. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 So explain to me how Ford's biggest sedan with EB2.0 gets same highway mileage as its next to smallest sedan/hatch? And the Focus ST has lighter weight manual trans that soaks up no torque either. Or is the Taurus geared for fuel mileage only which I hope is not the case as it would be a real dog. Really? We have to explain it to you? First off, 32 MPG != 35 MPG Second, the Taurus is geared for fuel economy whereas the ST is geared for fun. Third, weight is not a big factor when it comes to highway fuel economy numbers. Fourth, today's autos get better fuel economy than the manual counterparts. Fifth, neither is a Porsche, so that are just crap anyway! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 So explain to me how Ford's biggest sedan with EB2.0 gets same highway mileage as its next to smallest sedan/hatch? And the Focus ST has lighter weight manual trans that soaks up no torque either. Or is the Taurus geared for fuel mileage only which I hope is not the case as it would be a real dog. It's a PERFORMANCE vehicle geared for PERFORMANCE with a MANUAL TRANSMISSION. It has a much higher power to weight ratio and worse gearing (from a fuel economy standpoint). Apples and oranges. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 And I've seen as high as 34 MPG through town in my F250, and regularly see 31-32. And it has more HP and a $hit-load more torque than your Boxster! So, what's your point again? Of course, this is right after a fuel up on a 3 mile straight drive through town with speed limits of 25-35 MPH and no stop signs with 95% of the drive down hill. But, we're aren't interested in WHOLE truths here, are we? My point is that I will take on a new Focus ST anytime any place straight line and curves, and beat it plus have more gas left over, and I don't have EB and two more cylinders and about 20 less hp and 40 pounds less torque. I knew I could still beat the ST, but I figured it would get better fuel mileage than me with its more modern technological advanced EB engine with far more torque. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
aneekr Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) My youngest nephew (who returned home from his military duties in the Middle East last month) recently placed an order for a 2013 Focus ST with no additional options. His previous car was a modified Mk4 VW GTI, which he sold prior to being deployed. He's very keen about the performance capabilities of the new Focus ST out of the box, and I am as well. I certainly look forward to seeing his new car at a future family gathering! He is also planning to attend a pre-release Focus ST driving event at the Washington DC area NFL stadium this weekend. I'll ask him about observed fuel economy. :lol: :shades: Edited July 12, 2012 by aneekr 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I can't get the article so I don't know what it reads. IIRC, it gets 252hp on Premium fuel (VW GTI uses premium too IIRC). For a performance car, this is not a bad rating if it's using the newest EPA system. It's a sports car, where potential buyers will assume a FE penalty which is over what 3 MPG as you FB were expecting? I think the 'overboost' feature may play a part. If the FE rating does not count that feature (try to be real world) I'd probable cry foul. Regarding Taurus, IIRC the gearing is towards FE but the torque comes on at a lower rpm and it's curve is pretty flat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Really? We have to explain it to you? First off, 32 MPG != 35 MPG Second, the Taurus is geared for fuel economy whereas the ST is geared for fun. Third, weight is not a big factor when it comes to highway fuel economy numbers. Fourth, today's autos get better fuel economy than the manual counterparts. Fifth, neither is a Porsche, so that are just crap anyway! Actually, the Cruze and new Dart do BETTER with manual than auto. Something Ford hasn't mastered yet. And Dart turbo easily beats Focus non turbo and turbo in fuel mileage ratings, although Dart turbo in smaller engine with less hp. And I did say it must be gearing with Taurus and will be interesting to see its performance numbers. Focus ST does 0-60 in about 6.3 and Taurus V6 does it in about 7.0. We will have to see what Taurus EB 2.0 does it in to see how conservatively its geared. I never cared for turbos back in the 80's before they fell into disfavor, andf again it looks like they are more hype than anything. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 My point is that I will take on a new Focus ST anytime any place straight line and curves, and beat it plus have more gas left over, and I don't have EB and two more cylinders and about 20 less hp and 40 pounds less torque. I knew I could still beat the ST, but I figured it would get better fuel mileage than me with its more modern technological advanced EB engine with far more torque. Boxster - $50K low slung sports car EPA estimates 20 city 30 highway Focus ST - $30K tallish hatchback EPA estimates 23 city 32 highway END OF DISCUSSION 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 He is also planning to attend a pre-release Focus ST driving event at the Washington DC area NFL stadium this weekend. I'll ask him about observed fuel economy. :lol: :shades: I'll be there also at 11AM, I'll take photos and post here 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Hugh Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Oh, we can only use certain vehicles for comparison, and my real world experience doesn't matter? Last I heard, making autos was a competitive business and EB was somehow supposed to replace hybrids. Focus ST fuel mileage figures aren't terrible, but I for one expected more with the Ford hype of EB. Where did it say EB would replace hybrids? The original number of hybirds Ford was supposed to build was ambitious that BF Jr had to retract to focus on saving the family farm. IIRC, the EB, Hybrid and Electric was an encompassing strategy of the company to meet FE targets. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 And Dart turbo easily beats Focus non turbo and turbo in fuel mileage ratings, although Dart turbo in smaller engine with less hp. Seriously...are you that f'ing stupid? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 It's a PERFORMANCE vehicle geared for PERFORMANCE with a MANUAL TRANSMISSION. It has a much higher power to weight ratio and worse gearing (from a fuel economy standpoint). Apples and oranges. I get it. However, I was still expecting better fuel mileage with its modest 0-60 time of about three ticks over 6 seconds. Maybe C&D will pull a 5.5 second time out of it and a 14 second quarter mile, and then I will be more satisfied with its blend of perfmance and fuel mileage. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
fordmantpw Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 My point is that I will take on a new Focus ST anytime any place straight line and curves, and beat it plus have more gas left over, and I don't have EB and two more cylinders and about 20 less hp and 40 pounds less torque. I knew I could still beat the ST, but I figured it would get better fuel mileage than me with its more modern technological advanced EB engine with far more torque. Boxster - $50K low slung sports car EPA estimates 20 city 30 highway Focus ST - $30K tallish hatchback EPA estimates 23 city 32 highway END OF DISCUSSION ^^^^ This! Oh, and I have to take back something I said in my earlier post. I thought I had read the ST gets 35 MPG highway and not 32. The rest of the argument still stands though... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Where did it say EB would replace hybrids? The original number of hybirds Ford was supposed to build was ambitious that BF Jr had to retract to focus on saving the family farm. IIRC, the EB, Hybrid and Electric was an encompassing strategy of the company to meet FE targets. Seems to me Ford used new Escape HIGHWAY mileage quote to say it didn't need Escape hybrid anymore which disappointed many. Ford conveniently forgot to use combined mileage comparisons in jettisoning hybrid model as if EB could replace hybrid. So all those that bought Escape hybrid over many years will probably move on, maybe to C Max, but maybe not. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 However, I was still expecting better fuel mileage with its modest 0-60 time of about three ticks over 6 seconds. Your expectations need to be grounded on Earth: Focus Titanium with Stick (one less gear to boot): 2L engine 160 HP/146 ft lbs 26 mpg city, 36 highway and 30 combined Focus ST with 6 speed: 252 HP / 270 LB-FT 23 mpg city,32 mpg highwayand 26 mpg combined So your giving up 3-4 MPG for nearly an extra 100 HP and more then 100 lb-ft of Torque....sounds like a good trade off to me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonM Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Actually, the Cruze and new Dart do BETTER with manual than auto. Something Ford hasn't mastered yet. Actually, the Cruze and new Dart do BETTER with manual than auto. Something Ford Porsche hasn't mastered yet Did you not notice the 2013 Boxster manual gets 2 mpg less than the 2013 Boxster auto? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts