FordBuyer Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Sorry, my Taurus is 20/27, not bad for 2002 and they are realistic with my experiences with vehicle. Around town, I get 22-24mpg depending upon traffic conditions, lights, and whether I do any freeway driving and how much. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Ok let's try a slightly different approach, V6 Mustang gets 19/31 mpg If Ford put the 2.0 Ecoboost in there, would we expect more than 32 mpg on the highway cycle? Have we become that preoccupied with lofty highway figures that we stop realizing how good 32 mpg is on that EPA test loop? and that on steady highway running close to 40 mpg is in fact achievable... Let's also not forget the recent correction factor applied to newer EPA figures which imakes them considerably lower causing confusion when comparing figures like on Fordbuyer's DN101 Taurus.. Edited July 13, 2012 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 The SVT Focus got HORRIBLE gas mileage for a I4...heck my 98 Mustang GT got similar numbers and my 06 Mustang GT gets even better MPG! Watch out for secretary over in next lane with $25,000 Mustang V6 that gets 31 mpg highway and will do 0-60 in about 5.3 seconds and beat most Mustang GT's up to about 2010 or so. Best bang for buck on planet and sounds decent also. Hard act to beat. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ajcomputer Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Your numbers are wrong. Mine is 19/27 ... My reference is my sticker that was on car when new. Owner's manual says same. You forgot they changed the testing methods starting in the 08 model year which are more aggressive. Since then they have updated their website for the older cars which were tested with the old methods. http://www.fuelecono...lumn=1&id=16461 Edit: http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/ratings2008.shtml Edited July 13, 2012 by ajcomputer Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Your numbers are wrong. Mine is 19/27, No, your numbers are wrong. Well, they're not wrong but they're not adjusted for the new calculation method. The numbers posted above are the corrected numbers that are calculated the same way as the current new vehicles. Just quit while you're 124 laps down. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Ok let's try a slightly different approach, V6 Mustang gets 19/31 mpg If Ford put the 2.0 Ecoboost in there, would we expect more than 32 mpg on the highway cycle? Have we become that preoccupied with lofty highway figures that we stop realizing how good 32 mpg is on that EPA test loop? and that on steady highway running close to 40 mpg is in fact achievable... Let's also not forget the recent correction factor applied to newer EPA figures which imakes them considerably lower causing confusion when comparing figures like on Fordbuyer's DN101 Taurus.. Why bother putting EB 2.0 in Mustang with Mustang V6 more potent and not a significant difference in fuel mileage? That was my point. Mustang V6 is unbeatable in about every way. Price and performance can't be beat by anyone including Ford with different cars. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 I can't believe someone is actually complaining that the ST ONLY achieves 32 mpg on the highway test loop... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Why bother putting EB 2.0 in Mustang with Mustang V6 more potent and not a significant difference in fuel mileage? That was my point. Mustang V6 is unbeatable in about every way. Price and performance can't be beat by anyone including Ford with different cars. Because Ford has one under development?I don't know that for sure but the rumors are strong and it was one of Kuzak's desires to see the 2.0 EB in as many products as possible, Heck, even the Falcon Ecoboost achieves similar fuel economy as the 2.0 EB Mondeo/ 2.0 EB Fusion. BTW, the 3.7 V6 Mustang is brilliant, I just think Ford could capture more of the younger market with a 2.0 EB... Edited July 13, 2012 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
akirby Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Why bother putting EB 2.0 in Mustang with Mustang V6 more potent and not a significant difference in fuel mileage? 2012 Fusion 3.5L FWD - 18/27 2013 Fusion 2.0L EB ------ 23/36 2012 Edge 3.7L FWD - 19/26 2012 Edge 2.0L EB ---- 21/30 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 It could be a combination of performance gearing or shift pattern causing less than ideal fuel economy on the Focus ST But it does seem strange that the figure acheived is not more like the Fusion's 23/36...could Ford be sand bagging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 It could be a combination of performance gearing or shift pattern causing less than ideal fuel economy on the Focus ST But it does seem strange that the figure acheived is not more like the Fusion's 23/36...could Ford be sand bagging? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 Watch out for secretary over in next lane with $25,000 Mustang V6 that gets 31 mpg highway and will do 0-60 in about 5.3 seconds and beat most Mustang GT's up to about 2010 or so The only way the current V6 will match up to GT prior to 2010 is if they have the performance package etc added to them...and guess what? that makes them about the same price as those GT's and not get 31 MPG either... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) let me explain, I recall Mustang V6 was "re tested straight after Camaro v6 tried to claim class leading fuel economy. Ford obviously knew the V6 had more economy there if needed... Maybe Ford puts the ST out there with "class leading" 32 mpg knowing they have more there if needed... no point in showing your whole hand in the first round and could allow for incremental increases as needed... Further to that, info from FoE website focus ST Vs 2.0 EB mondeo suggests that the St is a lot better on fuel economy, I Know the Euro tests don't align with US tests but for the purpose of comaprison between ST-Fusion-2.0EB Mondeo they are valid. Focus ST: Urban - 9.9 l/100 km = 24 US mpg Extra Urban - 5.6 l/100 km = 42 US mpg Combined - 7.2 l/100 km = 33 US mpg 2.0 EB Mondeo (2.0 EB Fusion): Urban - 10.7 l/100 km = 22 US mpg Extra Urban - 6.0 l/100 km = 39 US mpg Combined - 7.7 l/100 km = 31 US mpg Also from Australia, 2.0 SIDI Focus with Euro fuel consumption tests Focus Trend 2.0SIDI: Urban - 9.4 l/100 km = 25 US mpg Extra Urban - 5.1 l/100 km = 46 US mpg Combined - 6.6 l/100 km = 36 US mpg Not conclusive I know but looking through the trends in figures it looks like US Highway figure appears to be somewhere between the Euro Combined and Extra urban figure whick suggests the ST would achieve more like 36 mpg on the US highway test. Edited July 13, 2012 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 You forgot they changed the testing methods starting in the 08 model year which are more aggressive. Since then they have updated their website for the older cars which were tested with the old methods. http://www.fuelecono...lumn=1&id=16461 Edit: http://www.fuelecono...tings2008.shtml Oh, he didn't forget. Trust me. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Oh, he didn't forget. Trust me. As they say, ignorance is bliss. Granted, I get a bit heated amd stick my foot in my mouth from time to time, but FB is... a troll. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stpatrick90 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Your numbers are wrong. Mine is 19/27, same as my Taurus 24 valver, but I can get much bettter fuel mileage on my Boxster in cruise control than my Taurus. Tops highway on my Taurus in cruise at about 70mph is 30, and Boxster in fifth gear about 35. Of course the Boxster weighs 2770 and my Taurus about 3300 or so. Most other Boxster ownerss I've talked to get about same on highway with cruise on and in fifth gear. The S for my year 18/26. My reference is my sticker that was on car when new. Owner's manual says same. Umm no they are right and you are wrong. If you look closely you will see that each Boxster variant that I listed is blue and underlined...in the world of the internet that generally means they are a hyperlink and if you just so happen to click on them you will see that it takes you to the EPAs official website. Unlike you I provide proof for my claims. Also it still stands that if you are able to beat the MPG ratings for your current car that the ST would do the same. You can ignore the new ratings all you want but at the end of the day I am going to listen to the EPA more than a man who drivels about his Porsche Boxster. Edited July 13, 2012 by stpatrick90 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Umm no they are right and you are wrong. If you look closely you will see that each Boxster variant that I listed is blue and underlined...in the world of the internet that generally means they are a hyperlink and if you just so happen to click on them you will see that it takes you to the EPAs official website. Unlike you I provide proof for my claims. Also it still stands that if you are able to beat the MPG ratings for your current car that the ST would do the same. You can ignore the new ratings all you want but at the end of the day I am going to listen to the EPA more than a man who drivels about his Porsche Boxster. Funny how Fordbuyer throws out numbers and we seem to be the ones having to do all of the proving.... Edited July 13, 2012 by jpd80 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Umm no they are right and you are wrong. If you look closely you will see that each Boxster variant that I listed is blue and underlined...in the world of the internet that generally means they are a hyperlink and if you just so happen to click on them you will see that it takes you to the EPAs official website. Unlike you I provide proof for my claims. Also it still stands that if you are able to beat the MPG ratings for your current car that the ST would do the same. You can ignore the new ratings all you want but at the end of the day I am going to listen to the EPA more than a man who drivels about his Porsche Boxster. Yeah, your internet googles are so much more important than my real world experience with 2001 Boxster. I have no problem with the Owner's manual 19/27 figures because I best them everytime when I drive it unless I go crazy with the revs which I do from time to time. Ditto with Taurus 24 valver that bests the EPA figures of 20/27 that were used then. Not going to sue either Porsche or Ford for giving false mpg numbers as both vehicles beat those figures easily. I see that Hyundai is facing lawsuit over its numbers and Honda lost its case. I use only 93 Octane on Boxster even though it has anti knock sensor, and only 87 regular on 24 valver in my Taurus. Both get BP fuel only with high detergent content and I believe claims that high detergent fuel gives about 1-3% better fuel mileage than low detergent fuel. In combined driving, my Taurus does about 22-24mpg as I stated, and the Boxster 26-27mpg when I drive it sanely. That's real world driving by someone who lives with these two vehicles, not someone googling saying he knows more about the vehicles in question than me that maintains and drives the vehicles everyday. I'm also a cheap bastard and keep record of my fuel purchases and know how much I spend/month on fuel and maintenance. If you want to know anything about 2002 Taurus SES Sport or 2001 standard Boxster with 5 speed manual, let me know. Because I doubt if there is anything of note you could tell me about either one including real world fuel mileage. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) What you typed: Yeah, your internet googles are so much more important than my real world experience with 2001 Boxster. I have no problem with the Owner's manual 19/27 figures because I best them everytime when I drive it unless I go crazy with the revs which I do from time to time. Ditto with Taurus 24 valver that bests the EPA figures of 20/27 that were used then. Not going to sue either Porsche or Ford for giving false mpg numbers as both vehicles beat those figures easily. I see that Hyundai is facing lawsuit over its numbers and Honda lost its case. I use only 93 Octane on Boxster even though it has anti knock sensor, and only 87 regular on 24 valver in my Taurus. Both get BP fuel only with high detergent content and I believe claims that high detergent fuel gives about 1-3% better fuel mileage than low detergent fuel. In combined driving, my Taurus does about 22-24mpg as I stated, and the Boxster 26-27mpg when I drive it sanely. That's real world driving by someone who lives with these two vehicles, not someone googling saying he knows more about the vehicles in question than me that maintains and drives the vehicles everyday. I'm also a cheap bastard and keep record of my fuel purchases and know how much I spend/month on fuel and maintenance. If you want to know anything about 2002 Taurus SES Sport or 2001 standard Boxster with 5 speed manual, let me know. Because I doubt if there is anything of note you could tell me about either one including real world fuel mileage. What I see: Yeah, your internet googles are so much more important than my real world experience with 2001 Boxster. I have no problem with the Owner's manual 19/27 figures because I best them everytime when I drive it unless I go crazy with the revs which I do from time to time. Ditto with Taurus 24 valver that bests the EPA figures of 20/27 that were used then. Not going to sue either Porsche or Ford for giving false mpg numbers as both vehicles beat those figures easily. I see that Hyundai is facing lawsuit over its numbers and Honda lost its case. I use only 93 Octane on Boxster even though it has anti knock sensor, and only 87 regular on 24 valver in my Taurus. Both get BP fuel only with high detergent content and I believe claims that high detergent fuel gives about 1-3% better fuel mileage than low detergent fuel. In combined driving, my Taurus does about 22-24mpg as I stated, and the Boxster 26-27mpg when I drive it sanely. That's real world driving by someone who lives with these two vehicles, not someone googling saying he knows more about the vehicles in question than me that maintains and drives the vehicles everyday. I'm also a cheap bastard and keep record of my fuel purchases and know how much I spend/month on fuel and maintenance. If you want to know anything about 2002 Taurus SES Sport or 2001 standard Boxster with 5 speed manual, let me know. Because I doubt if there is anything of note you could tell me about either one including real world fuel mileage. Edited July 13, 2012 by RichardJensen 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Again, as you guys prattle on and on about this....all I said is that I thought the super hyped EB could do better than 23/32 on one of Ford's lightest vehicles. You guys are fine with it and I'm disappointed, especially comparing it to Mustang V6 with its 31mpg number and much more powerful and quicker and heavier. And again, if the Focus ST throws down a 5.2 0-60 time, then I will eat my words. Estimates though are 6.3 and that is significantly slower than V6 Stang. Give me super performance or give me outstanding fuel mileage if times are a lot slower. 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Again, as you guys prattle on and on about this....all I said is that I thought the super hyped EB could do better than 23/32 on one of Ford's lightest vehicles. You guys are fine with it and I'm disappointed, especially comparing it to Mustang V6 with its 31mpg number and much more powerful and quicker and heavier. And it's funny that you think that the economy figures quoted by Ford are the absolute best the ST gets,........ And again, if the Focus ST throws down a 5.2 0-60 time, then I will eat my words. Estimates though are 6.3 and that is significantly slower than V6 Stang. Give me super performance or give me outstanding fuel mileage if times are a lot slower. How about we wait and see what the real world observations are before going off the deep end.. FoE website is suggesting that in gear times 31-65 mph is 5.7 seconds, so we'll see if the ST is quicker when on the roll. I'll eat my hat if an untouched factory V6 Mustang can get anywhere near the ST's 154 mph top end.. Edited July 13, 2012 by jpd80 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
papilgee4evaeva Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Imagine this, FB... you constantly quote old EPA ratings about your cars, even though time and time again we point out that the cars have been re-rated in the past 4 years. Ever wonder what the Focus ST would be rated under the old system? I'd wager somewhere in the neighborhood of 26/35. Probably a little higher. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Imagine this, FB... you constantly quote old EPA ratings about your cars, even though time and time again we point out that the cars have been re-rated in the past 4 years. Ever wonder what the Focus ST would be rated under the old system? I'd wager somewhere in the neighborhood of 26/35. Probably a little higher. Let me try another angle. The 2013 Fusion with 250hp 2.0EB supposedly gets 36mpg, and I would estimate about a 6.5 0-60 time with the Camry V6 slightly quicker. Now if the Focus ST with 32mpg does 0-60 in 6.3 which is estimate, then it's NOT geared to go quicker than Fusion with same motor. Now if Focus ST throws down a sub 6 second 0-60 time, then I'm all wet and you guys made your point. Losing 4 mpg highway, the Focus ST better be much faster than EB 2.0 Fusion. 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jpd80 Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 (edited) Let me try another angle. The 2013 Fusion with 250hp 2.0EB supposedly gets 36mpg, and I would estimate about a 6.5 0-60 time with the Camry V6 slightly quicker. Now if the Focus ST with 32mpg does 0-60 in 6.3 which is estimate, then it's NOT geared to go quicker than Fusion with same motor. Now if Focus ST throws down a sub 6 second 0-60 time, then I'm all wet and you guys made your point. Losing 4 mpg highway, the Focus ST better be much faster than EB 2.0 Fusion. Ecoboost Mondeo puts down 0-100 kph in 7.5 seconds, there is no way a 2.0 EB fusion will do 0-60 mph in 6.5 seconds.the torque in the FWD set up is limited......that's the reason for the less than thrilling launch times. Under Euro fuel economy tests the 2013 Focus ST at 7.2 l/100 km is 20% more fuel efficient than the previous 2.5 I-5 turbo version with 9.2 l/100 km Edited July 13, 2012 by jpd80 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Versa-Tech Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 Pshh... Don't you guys get it? FB is far smarter than us, his boxster far more refined than our plebian Fords. He wins... Duh :P Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts