Print 54 comment(s) - last by Dr of crap.. on Mar 2 at 8:41 AM

2012 Ford Focus sedan and hatchback

2012 Ford Focus interior
Ford creates special trim level to play with the big boys in the compact sector

It appears that 40-mpg is the "must have" fuel economy threshold for today's compact cars in the North American market. Ford is joining the fray with its 2012 Focus now that the official EPA numbers are available. 

Ford is going the Chevrolet and Honda route by making a special, hyper-optimized trim level that gets higher fuel economy instead of going the Hyundai route by making every single trim level achieve the same high fuel economy ratings. In this case, the Focus SFE (Super Fuel Economy) achieves 28 mpg in the city and 40 mpg on the highway. 

The Focus SFE makes use of a 2.0-liter direct injection inline-four engine that produces an impressive 160hp. In order to get the best fuel economy from the vehicle, Ford uses a dual-clutch PowerShift transmission, special 16" steel wheels with aero covers, and active grille shutters (to improve aerodynamic efficiency). 

"Our customers tell us that fuel economy is the top reason for purchasing a Focus," said Derrick Kuzak, group vice president, Global Product Development. "The all-new Focus meets that demand with great fuel economy, class-leading technologies and features, exceptional standards of craftsmanship and driving dynamics typically reserved for larger, more expensive vehicles."

As for the competition, the 2011 Chevrolet Cruze can achieve 42 mpg on the highway with the Eco trim level, the 2011 Hyundai Elantra gets 40 mpg highway in all trim levels (with automatic and manual transmissions), and the 2012 Honda Civic HF gets 41 mpg on the highway (39 mpg in other trim levels, with the exception of the hybrid). 

Regardless of how each auto manufacturer reaches the “magic” 40-mpg mark, it’s good to see them going for more fuel efficient gasoline engines than having to resort to more expensive hybrid powertrains.

Comments     Threshold

This article is over a month old, voting and posting comments is disabled

I really like the look of the 2012 Focus Hatchback
By Hulk on 2/27/2011 2:08:23 PM , Rating: 2
But then again I'm a hatchback guy as my current car is a 2005 Mazda 3s hatchback. I absolutely can't stand the smiling grin on the new Mazda 3's. Normally one feature wouldn't be a deal breaker for me on a car but in this case I just can't stand it. Also I have to admit I'm a little tired of the road noise in the 3.

I don't know if I'll be into this hyper-mileage version of the Focus but the normal car or perhaps the upcoming ST turbo version might be a serious contender for my next car. I have to say I'm a little skeptical of the durability of the dual clutch automated transmissions though.

Ford's doing a good job and the Focus in my opinion is a better looking car than the Cruze with much better technology. A 138HP 1.4L turbo that is slower and gets worse gas mileage than the Focus. Yeah I'll pass on that. I feel bad for Government Motors. Despite the flash in the pan hype we're seeing from the Volt it's the same "missing the mark" cars we've seen from them for the past 10 years. Always a generation behind the competition. And why didn't they pay back the rest of their loan to the tax payers before distributing it to their workers? Anyway, like I said I feel bad for them as they'll be going down for the 2nd and probably last time in a few years I predict.

Chrysler will be a goner too if I had to make a prediction. Unless GM has a real re-organization, ie cut loose the unions to get wages back in line with the competition they'll be finished soon enough.

Just the thoughts from a guy who has been following earnestly (apologies to the grammar Nazi's for the split infinitive but I like the way that rolled off the keys) the automobile industry for the last 30 years.

By headbox on 2/27/2011 5:04:56 PM , Rating: 5
There are not many "hatchback guys" in North America, especially ones prone to fragmented yet lengthy news article comments.

By czarchazm on 2/27/2011 11:18:20 PM , Rating: 2
Why are you skeptical of the reliability of the new dual clutch transmission? This technology has been around for years and years, back when Porsche invented the wet-type dual clutch transmission in the 1980s. When Audi and VW developed theirs, they had reliability issues because they designed the cooling-oil delivery systems poorly.

This clutch is a dry clutch system, much like the types of clutches that have been used since the dawn of the automobile transmission systems. And then on top of all of that, you have a finely tuned computer that is perfect in its timing every shift and every launch. These dual clutch transmissions are lighter and more reliable than normal automatics too by virtue of the many fewer moving parts.

Do you have an interesting article that you might link that talks about the reliability or durability of the new Ford dual dry clutch transmission or the dual wet clutch transmission systems? I would be interested to read it.

By Samus on 2/27/2011 11:28:38 PM , Rating: 2
I agree that DCT's can outlast manual transmissions, but the jumpy feel of initial acceleration in every Audi A4 2.0T I've ridden in (3) has really turned me off. It just feels sloppy; I could do it smoother in my old Mazda Protege and sold it with the original clutch intact at 160,000 miles. It wasn't automatic, but it was smooth and dependable.

DCT's are simply not as smooth as automatic 'vacuum-based' transmissions (GM 4T40E, Ford AOD-E, 4R75, etc) and although automatic transmissions get a bad rap for reliability, it is 99% of the time the fault of the owner. People do not get it, change your transmission fluid at LEAST every 30,000 miles, more often if you do city driving or towing. I've changed the fluid in my Mercury Mountaineer (which has an AOD-E, a transmission with a terrible history of reliability) about 7 times since owning the vehicle from new. It has 226,000 miles on it, is 13 years old, and the ORIGINAL transmission still shifts sharp.

I've never had an automatic transmission fail on me because like all components of my vehicles, I take care of them.

By FITCamaro on 2/27/2011 11:44:11 PM , Rating: 2
Agreed. Most of the problems people have with vehicles are because of their lack of maintenance. I just bought a 2002 Saturn Vue 5-speed with 140,000 miles on it and it still has original struts and shocks. So definitely replacing those. Also had a bad wheel bearing that the dealership selling it didn't mention, but got them to cover that and fixed it before I drove it home. Gonna flush the transmission and clutch fluids as well.

By Dr of crap on 2/28/2011 10:38:36 AM , Rating: 1
I've NEVER changed tranny fluid in any car of any mileage and have NEVER had any tranny trouble.

And until you say I don't drive much, I drive all my cars to over 175,000 before I'm done with them, and they run like new when that time comes.

By FITCamaro on 2/28/2011 1:08:00 PM , Rating: 2
You were lucky then. Any transmission should be serviced at least once every 50,000 miles or so. Even manuals. And especially clutch fluid. It's proper color is not black.

By Dr of crap on 2/28/2011 1:10:45 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry I stick by my, leave the tranny fluid alone posting.
I have a 1998 with 168,000 miles no tranny problems, and no fluid changes, and it runs like new.
Not too many can say that.

By Samus on 2/28/2011 4:48:51 PM , Rating: 1
You're right, not too many can say that, because most un-maintained transmissions fail around 90,000 miles because the original filter clogs of metal fragments (wear of bands and clutches in the throttle body) which inevitably causes the pump or torque convertor to fail; transmission pump failure is the most common transmission failure I've seen and it goes quickly and without warning, because it has to work against unneccessary restriction caused by a clogged filter.

Some transmissions will last longer than others without fluid exchange and maintenance (particularely filter changes) factors being more fluid capacity, deeper sumps, larger filters and/or larger transmission coolers. Some vehicles, like the Chevy Cavalier, have no transmission cooler and almost all of those 4T40E transmissions fail around 100,000 miles if not flushed. The fluid breaks down from tremendous heat and eventually the bands burn up and it starts whining. The first band to go is always the overdrive band, which is a pathetic 20mm thick. Most OD bands in Japanese and European slushboxes are 36-50mm depending on vehicle power/weight. Even a Ford Explorer as a 2" overdrive band in its AOD-based slushbox.

The age-old myth "If you've never changed your transmission fluid, don't , because the fluid in there is all that is holding it together" reaks of redneck idiology. That's not how mechanical vacuum driven machines work. Change the fluid as OFTEN as you can afford and you WILL get one million miles out of a well-engineered slushbox.

I would guess you have a Toyota with a transmission built by Aisin-Warner. One of Aisin's engineering design goals when building the first A-series transmission in the 1970's for Toyota was minimal maintenance. It came at a cost of weight and performance, which is why Toyota's are typically underpowered, have underwhelming automatic-equiped fuel economy (when compared to Honda's, for example) and cost more to manufacture. These trade-off's are unacceptable, as all people have to do is spend $100 every 30,000-50,000 miles to change the fluid and filter. The saved fuel economy over this mileage timeframe with a well built, light weight, low fluid capacity transmission virtually cancel this expense out.

But Toyota's are made for idiots who have no passion for driving and treat their vehicles like shit, so it makes sense to make them as reliable and boring as possible at the cost of everything else, such as safety, performance, fuel economy, etc.

I'd bet almost every Toyota on the road with beyond 250,000 miles has a manual transmission since by this point most of the automatics have failed, whereas every Volkswagen, Mercedes, or Ford with beyond 250,000 miles has an automatic because these people probably maintain their vehicles.

By FITCamaro on 3/1/2011 8:01:41 AM , Rating: 2
"If you've never changed your transmission fluid, don't , because the fluid in there is all that is holding it together" reaks of redneck idiology.

Most shops won't change the fluid on a transmission with extremely high miles that has never had the fluid changed. Because it can come apart once the gunk that is the original fluid is removed. And the shop doesn't want to risk the transmission no longer working once they change the fluid and then they're blamed for it.

I know my buddy who runs a Firestone wouldn't change the fluid on one.

By Andrwken on 3/1/2011 1:47:11 PM , Rating: 2
The problem with changing transmission fluid on transmissions that haven't regularly is the high level of detergents used. They will break up debris and lodge it in your valve body (blocked passages where the check balls are located is common), causing failure. The old oil lost those additives years ago.

I still don't change my trans fluid. (father runs a transmission shop on top of it) I have 3 vehicles with 125k, 175k, and 200k right now. Christ, I need to buy a new vehicle!

By Dr of crap on 3/1/2011 12:53:27 PM , Rating: 2
Sorry - I've only owned US brand cars.
So your theory doesn't work, does it.
Yes I see how it might be that fluid changes could be good.
I'd also say over 70% of the cars on the road have not had the fluid change done.
Since I don't drive like an ass maybe my trannys last.
All I'm saying is I make sure it's full and that's all.

By Dr of crap on 3/2/2011 8:41:17 AM , Rating: 2
"I'd bet almost every Toyota on the road with beyond 250,000 miles has a manual transmission since by this point most of the automatics have failed, whereas every Volkswagen, Mercedes, or Ford with beyond 250,000 miles has an automatic because these people probably maintain their vehicles."

Man, you must have the wool pulled over your eyes to think that all these VW, Mercedes, and Ford owners service their cars on schedule.

And every 30,000 - are you on crack? Every 30,000? That will by far make the $$ investment not worth the extra cost of a Toyota.

By robertisaar on 2/28/2011 11:49:13 AM , Rating: 2

the real difference is a torque converter compared to a computer applying a PWM operated clutch.

that's the difference you're feeling.

RE: I really like the look of the 2012 Focus Hatchback
By Hulk on 2/28/2011 12:44:44 AM , Rating: 1
I'll tell you why I'm skeptical of dsg's?

First of all while the technology has been around for a while the number of units in production is very small and only goes back about 10 years. Do a search for VW or Audi DSG issues and you'll be skeptical too. Or look at this article: Or visit a VW of Audi forum and look at owner stories.

The current torque converter based automatic transmission first developed by GM 60 years ago took a good 30 or 40 years to reach the nearly bulletproof units we see today. As a Mechanical Engineer myself I have some experience with the mechanics of the dual clutch automated transmission and it is one complicated piece of engineering. I'll be convinced of the reliability of the technology when we see a plethora of cars with these driving around with 100,000 plus miles on them without issues.

The act of pushing in the clutch letting of the gas, shifting, shifting, and releasing the clutch depends on speed, load, how fast you're trying to accelerate, whether you're going straight line or on a curve, uphill/downhill, and on and on. I've driven a variety of DSG's and they are pretty darn good but you get a lot more "clunky" shifts than a normal auto. And this clunking, to my reasoning, is not a good thing when it comes to reliability and longevity.

In addition the Mechtronics units in the VW's and Audi's are not serviceable and cost $5000 I have read to replace. Scary if you ask me.

Porsche and Ferrari owners don't care about reliability or service costs as much as someone buying a 20k car. They don't put on the miles and can afford the repairs. Or won't own the car beyond the warranty.

Is that enough to warrant skepticism? I'm not saying they're bad, or will never prove themselves but I'm skeptical at this point in time. Is that a crazy statement?

No manufacturer will warranty them for more than 60k miles either. Why's that? Why won't they stand behind them for 100k or more miles?

Eventually I think we'll see them mainstreamed but not before a lot of people get burned with expensive repairs and having their cars having long stays in the garage, and/or getting stuck on the road because the damn thing won't go into gear, or out of gear or whatever.

I don't want to beta test one.

By FITCamaro on 2/28/2011 7:03:47 AM , Rating: 3
Yeah I definitely will wait for that to mature before I ever think about owning a car with one. But ultimately I enjoy having a man pedal in my cars. If I have my way, I'll never own another automatic.

By darkhawk1980 on 2/28/2011 7:29:13 AM , Rating: 2
You should probably do more research before commenting...

Yes, Audi/VW has had problems with them, but what you completely fail to mention is that they actually take care of their customers and replace OR refund them the money spent on the Mechatronics unit. Do a search, you'll find the recalls. I have first hand experience with this, having a 2008 R32 with a DSG. Honestly, I came from a long line of manual cars, the DSG in my R32 is great. While I may not have as much fun shifting the car, it's more reliable than my manual's were, and can handle quite a bit more power than the manual's can. The DSG in my R32 is documented as handling more than double the power the car can provide in stock form. And when I say handle, I mean it can do that as a daily driver with occasional track launches.

It's great you don't like DSG's, just don't feed so much mis-information to support your side of the story without providing the other side. Just shows you only wanted to research enough to support your claim.

By bah12 on 2/28/2011 9:23:23 AM , Rating: 2
You should probably do some basic logic research, and realize that what you have posted is not a rebuttle, but a confirmation of his concerns.
Do a search, you'll find the recalls.

No crap, that is exactly what he is concerned about. We aren't talking about HOW the company responds to the failures, rather that there ARE failures. Now you can debate whether those failures are abnormally high, but you cannot discount his concerns by providing further proof that the technology is not bulletproof.

Also if you've read this thread at all you'd see that most of the posters concerned are expecting 100K+ hassle free miles. Are you saying Audi/VW are going to honor their issues past the warranty? Believe it or not a good portion of people keep their car past the warranty.

So quit spreading your misinformation that there is nothing to be concerned about, and go troll elsewhere.

By Hulk on 2/28/2011 10:39:51 AM , Rating: 2
You have me in the wrong category sir.

I like the DSG a lot. I test drove a GTI and loved it. And I know all about that one recall. But if you search around you'll find lots of people with problems that had to pay for replacement units.

As far as "what it can handle power-wise." In case you didn't know every part in a car is designed to handle the loads it will receive plus some safety/wear factor. A transmission's capacity is based on torque, not power or hp. The R32's unit is simply selected off the shelf by VW as a unit to handle that car's torque. Or designed for that car if no unit is available in the VW inventory.

How many miles do you have on your R32? It's a great car. A friend of mine had one and I drove it. Really nice. I think the Golf R is going to be a show stopper too.

Anyway to boil it down. I'm saying that a DSG transmission on average will be less reliable than a normal auto or standard. I don't think that's a wild claim. There are lots of manuals out there with 200+ miles on them with the original clutch. Same for conventional autos. Let's see how many DSG's make the 200k mark. Or even 150k. Or even 100k.

You want anecdotal evidence? One dealer told me the DSG for them has been totally reliable. Another told me that if you plan on keeping the car past 50k miles don't buy the DSG. Now I realize that the one dealer may be wanting to move the DSG's and the other needed to move the manuals, but saying things like that surely doesn't help the DSG's case!

40mpg city
By AjCazz on 2/27/2011 2:06:12 PM , Rating: 2
the 2011 Hyundai Elantra gets 40 mpg city in all trim levels

You mean highway?

RE: 40mpg city
By Brandon Hill on 2/27/2011 4:11:34 PM , Rating: 2

RE: 40mpg city
By MonkeyPaw on 2/27/2011 11:01:15 PM , Rating: 1
It's a shame only Hyundai gets it--make your base model the one with good fuel ratings. Good, sane people don't want to pay $25k for a slow car (Cruze eco) that gets 40MPG. It doesn't appear that this Focus will be as slow, but I hope it's not as expensive.

RE: 40mpg city
By jharper12 on 2/28/2011 7:49:57 AM , Rating: 5
Why do idiots hate on Chevrolet when they know nothing about the vehicles or the brand?

Chevrolet Cruze Eco: $18,175 MSRP

$25k? That'll get you a loaded LTZ (top trim level) Cruze, which yes, gets 36 MPG, but you also get heated seats, remote start, automatic climate control (you set a temperature and forget it), navigation, bluetooth, steering wheel controls, leather seats, and the list goes on and on. From a review, "has an interior that rivals the best on the market with a long list of standard features, no matter the price." First, you can't even get stuff like that in most compact cars (like ten airbags), so you typically would have to buy a mid-size car to get those features. Then you're looking at worse mileage and low $30ks for price.

Here's the real deal, the Cruze Eco gets the best fuel economy of ANY gas-only car in the United States. That's for bragging rights, and it's an impressive accomplishment. The Cruze Eco was designed for hyper-milers. People who are all about getting the maximum amount of miles from a gallon of gas in a vehicle. Most of us just want a standard Cruze, why, thanks for asking. Because the Cruze Eco's combined mileage is 33 MPG. Standard Cruze is 28 MPG. Over 200k miles, that'll cost you about $3,645 more in fuel costs. That's $364.50 more a year if you put 20k miles a year on your car, or $218.70 more a year with a reasonable 12k miles a year. The Cruze Eco costs $1,180 more, and deletes some features for weight savings. So, Chevrolet lets you pick, best gas mileage in the US or great mileage and best features in class. Sounds pretty good to me.

"The Cruze Eco showed no signs of lag, and with the turbo, off-the-line performance was strong. With the automatic transmission, the turbocharged Eco has a 0-60 mph time in the 8.9 second range. The ultra-low-rolling-resistance tires don’t seem to have a negative effect on handling and braking, and from behind the wheel, the Eco feels nimble and responsive."

"Matched with a new in-house-developed six-speed automatic, the Elantra hits 60 mph in 9.1 seconds, 1.1 seconds quicker than before, and 0.5 seconds slower than the turbocharged Chevrolet Cruze.

Read more:"

So, your price was off, your complaints about speed were off, and your fuel economy was off, because the Cruze Eco gets 42 MPG on the highway. You sir, know nothing about cars, but just choose to hate on a brand for no particular reason. Have a lovely day.

RE: 40mpg city
By Madlyb on 2/28/2011 8:18:56 AM , Rating: 1
Why do idiots hate on Chevrolet when they know nothing about the vehicles or the brand?

Because most of us have owned General Motors vehicles (1 Chevy, 2 Pontiacs in my case) and have found them to be sacks of crap. My worst Ford lasted twice as long as my Chevy. My Pontiac Sunbird was in the shop the day after I got it and before I got rid the POS, the dealer spent more money fixing it than I paid for the car.

And last time I checked, Ford was the only major US Car Company that hadn't had their ass picked up off the floor by the US government.

So, tell me how it's different this time, that GM finally gets it and I will tell I heard that in the 80's...and the 90's...and...

RE: 40mpg city
By cjohnson2136 on 2/28/2011 9:01:51 AM , Rating: 2
How does having one Chevy qualify as being able to determine all Chevy suck?

RE: 40mpg city
By Iaiken on 2/28/2011 10:55:14 AM , Rating: 2
Pick your brain up, dust it off and realize:

Pontiac = GM = Chevy

What planet are you from?

RE: 40mpg city
By theapparition on 2/28/2011 9:19:37 AM , Rating: 3
Everyone is entitled to their opinion, but your anecdotal evidence is not fact.

Just as many horror stories could be told about Chevy owners with bad Ford experiences, or Audi owners with bad BMW experiences, or yes, even Chrysler owners with bad Honda experiences.

And just so everyone doesn't forget, Ford did go to Washington with hat in hand and only backed off when it became a PR nightmare. Don't make them out to be more altruistic than they are.

As to GM, no one is going to defend the crap all 3 US automakers came up with in the 80's. You mentioned Sunbird, which stopped production in 1994 as a Chevy Cavalier twin (so in other words, another 80's car).

But if you haven't seen the cars that both GM and Ford are putting out, then you are seriously burying you head in the sand. GM cars have come a long way, with many of their new models winning some serious awards. Chevy has some seriously good models right now. Cruze, Malibu, Equinox, Traverse, Camaro, and of course, the Corvette. And so does Ford. Chrysler? Well, maybe someone else can comment. I'm glad the competition and marketplace has forced these automakers to adapt and make better products.

Just to reiterate, your few bad experiences do not make it fact.

RE: 40mpg city
By jharper12 on 2/28/11, Rating: -1
RE: 40mpg city
By jharper12 on 2/28/2011 9:30:37 AM , Rating: 2
Ohh dear Lord, I really just said, "Anecdotes are hardly facts."

You win this round... but not because of anything to do with car brands. Only because I wrote today's "Worst Sentence on Daily Tech."

I apologize to the world. Anecdotes are facts, but by no means indicative of expected results.

RE: 40mpg city
By Madlyb on 2/28/2011 10:32:51 PM , Rating: 1 word...Decaf.

As you said, they are my personal experiences and they drive my opinions, but excuse me if I don't expect my brand new car to go into the shop three times in the first month, but I guess I should think about all the other drivers who didn't have $16K worth of warranty work done on a $15K car (Pontiac) or have to replace the transmission at 38K miles (Chevrolet)or have to have a port rethreaded because the spark plug was crossthreaded at the factory (First Pontiac), no problem. So, would you like some real hard numbers by an independent third party?

Consumer Reports just released their annual report and GM was next to last just ahead of Chrysler, another perennial pile of bolts.

BTW, in your elongated rant, you slipped and and said we, so it kind of becomes obvious why you get so worked up.

So, go ahead and defend Chevy all you want, call us all idiots because we didn't make the same choice as you or have an opinion different from yours, but don't ever expect your opinion to change mine. Because at least my opinion is my personal one and not the company line.

RE: 40mpg city
By Hulk on 2/28/2011 10:30:42 AM , Rating: 2
I'm not an idiot.

I said that GM products in my opinion are a cycle behind the competition. Not bad but not great either. We owned an Alero years ago and it was a solid car. Besides a leaking in the sunroof the dealer eventually fixed (4 trips) and those crappy brake pads we had no problems with it.

I wish GM all the best but I see dark clouds on the horizon for them.

RE: 40mpg city
By Dr of crap on 2/28/2011 10:31:10 AM , Rating: 1
Thanks for that marketing spewing crap.
Learned how to copy and paste did we?

You must work for Chevy or GM - right.

RE: 40mpg city
By Iaiken on 2/28/2011 11:33:01 AM , Rating: 1
Looks like somebody working for an dealership that's empty of potential customers...

It's OK man, maybe you can get a job at a Ford dealership when this is all over. :P

By radium69 on 2/27/11, Rating: 0
RE: 160BHP?
By radium69 on 2/27/2011 6:04:13 PM , Rating: 1
And to add:
My Pulsar does 28MPG average.
And the Nissan Juke easily does 35MPG, i've witnessed results that topped over 40MPG average with sturdy driving.

RE: 160BHP?
By sprockkets on 2/27/2011 8:17:32 PM , Rating: 2
peak hp doesn't tell the whole story; plenty of current cars all feature close hp values yet are slower to 60mph by over a second, like the current elantra vs. mazda3.

the old honda s2000 had 240hp for a 2.0l NA engine, but if you wanted to get it you had to rev it to 9000rpm, and has a weak torque curve. Still fun to drive.

RE: 160BHP?
By Samus on 2/27/2011 11:20:59 PM , Rating: 5
Your pulsar, like many 80's and 90's platforms, may get great mileage and make decent power compared to current platforms, but safety, ride quality, N.V.H., and equipment have come a long, long way.

I crashed a 2002 SVT Focus into concrete at a very acute 70+mph angle last year in autocross, door opened and I got out. In a previous generation (Escort) platform I'm sure my knees would have been crushed and the EMT's would have needed the jaws to get me out.

All this safety (high boron steel, crumple zones, pretentioners, airbags, beams and added rigidity) comes at a cost of weight. We've comphensated the weight with modern engine/transmission technology and aerodynamics, but not entirely, which is why some old cars still achieve slightly better fuel economy than modern ones, but in the end, its anything but a wash. I'd always pick a modern car over an older one for daily driving.

RE: 160BHP?
By radium69 on 2/28/11, Rating: 0
RE: 160BHP?
By FITCamaro on 2/28/2011 8:39:04 AM , Rating: 1
Now if they could just build a car that doesn't look like complete ass. Do they have Picasso's retarded cousin designing their vehicles or something?

RE: 160BHP?
By Spuke on 2/28/2011 2:59:59 PM , Rating: 2
Also, it easily achieves 35MPG while driving with spirit.
I just visited Nissan's website and did not see a 35 mpg rating. I DID see 24/31, 27/32, and 25/30. Are we comparing owner numbers EPA ratings again? Sh!t, if that's the case, I'm not impressed with the Juke either. My Solstice sports car gets 33 mpg with a barn door .44 CD and 21 sq ft frontal area.

RE: 160BHP?
By Keeir on 2/28/2011 3:00:42 PM , Rating: 2
Radium... are you slightly thick?

The 2011 Nissan Juke gets on paper a 188 hp engine and a rating of 27/32 Maximum on the EPA cycles. It will not get "35 MPG" when driven with spirit, unless your using imperial gallons?

The 2012 Ford Focus is a large car. (Check out wheelbase, length, cargo space, curb wieght, etc). It gets an EPA rating 28/38. Glad your impressed with your friend's Juke. But I think that you'd find that the Focus is a larger car with significantly more cargo space and interior refinment which gets 10-20% better fuel economy... at a price of engine power tis true.

Your Pulsar? Well, the closest car rated by the EPA was the 1998 Nissan Sentra 200SX, rated as 3/4 star ratings in crash tests and got 20/28 on EPA testing.

Not sure why your comparing EPA ratings to random testing. Thats not really a very good scientic method.

RE: 160BHP?
By FITCamaro on 2/28/2011 3:24:10 PM , Rating: 2
A Focus is a large car? By what standard? A SMART car?

It's in the compact category. I guess something like the Fusion is a gigantic car and the Taurus is a gargantuan car then?

RE: 160BHP?
By Keeir on 2/28/2011 6:03:09 PM , Rating: 2
Compared to a 2011 Juke and a 1998 Sentra (Pulsar), the Focus IS a larger car. Context Fit, Context.

Lets do a little bit of research eh? Looking at the 2012 Focus Sedan/Hatch
FS: 53.9 cubic feet
RS: 39.2 cubic feet
Trunk: 13.2 cubic feet
Hatch: 23.8 cubic feet

2011 Nissan Juke
FS: 51.7 cubic feet
RS: 35 cubic feet
Hatch: 10.5 cubic feet.

Gosh. It appears to me that the Focus Sedan/Hatch is in a whole different class than the Juke. The Juke is a "B" Segement crossover. I would call the ~8-10% more interior volume of the Focus Sedan and 20% of the hatch, a reason to call the Focus a "larger" car than a Juke.

I don't understand the Juke. Its an ugly tiny crossover that may have a turbo... but has a CVT. Overall it gets poor fuel economy. I guess its a car for 20-30 somethings that don't have the money for a more extravengent waste of money? Is this the new sport coupe craze? At least the sport coupes had a low center of gravity, manual option, and decent fuel economy when driven slow.

RE: 160BHP?
By Chillin1248 on 2/28/2011 1:00:24 AM , Rating: 2
MY 2006 Dihatsu Sirion does 50MPG using a plain old gas engine (no hybrid stuff).


RE: 160BHP?
By Samus on 2/28/2011 3:37:37 AM , Rating: 2
The 1.0l 3-cylinder can achieve up to 46MPG (good) with a 0-60 time of *cough* 15 seconds. It is also quite small, smaller than every production car currently available in the United States (except for the not-yet-released Fiat 500.)

If it were to come here, and were modified to meet our pedestrian safety requirements and crash standards (which differ from its NCAP qualifications) it would likely come with a 1.3l or 1.5l engine, which achieve 36mpg and 32mpg respectively. That's unacceptable for such a small car. Speaking of NCAP, its ratings are also completely unacceptable. The front doors didn't even open after a 40mph collision. The Fiat 500 and Mini Cooper performed substantially better, achieve better fuel economy, and have higher resale value, making them a better buy in this category.

I guess that's why Toyota calls it the Passo. Pass.

40MPG is barely "economic"
By stephenbrooks on 2/27/2011 7:55:00 PM , Rating: 2
Just shows how different the US and UK markets for cars are, I guess. Here, 150 horsepower is considered a fair amount -- a lot of people have cars like the Toyota Yaris hatchback with say 88 horsepower and 56MPG(US) (67 in UK gallons).

RE: 40MPG is barely "economic"
By sprockkets on 2/27/2011 8:21:54 PM , Rating: 2
with gas prices jumping 20 cents in the past 2 days (30 cents in like a week) where I live we may be headed back shifting to small cars.

dang libyans...

RE: 40MPG is barely "economic"
By FITCamaro on 2/28/2011 7:06:38 AM , Rating: 2
Yeah they killed Doc Brown.

RE: 40MPG is barely "economic"
By fishman on 2/28/2011 7:45:56 AM , Rating: 2
The tests by the US EPA give lower mpg numbers than the European tests, so that Yaris with 88hp would probably do much less than 50mpg on the EPA tests.

Heck, my 68 Battle got 40 MPG highway
By fictisiousname on 2/27/2011 4:59:19 PM , Rating: 2
and it was as aerodynamic as a brick.

By fishman on 2/28/2011 8:06:16 AM , Rating: 2
Your 68 had few pollution control devices, and had 54 HP. That engine if rated the way current engines are rated would probably be quite a bit less - maybe even as low as 40 HP. The 1968 beetle weighs 1900 lbs.

In comparison, a Hyundai Elantra has 138 HP, weighs around 2700 lbs, and gets 40 MPG highway.

I got 28 mpg with my 1974 superbeetle.

By Shadowself on 2/28/2011 8:50:07 AM , Rating: 2
And I got an *average* across city and highway of 52+ mpg from my 1979 diesel Rabbit over the almost nine years I owned it.

The point is, as others have stated here, that cars have changed both for the better (safety) and worse (mileage) over the past 32 years. Hopefully the economy will get significantly better in the next decade while not hurting everything else. We can dream, can't we?

I can't figure out why...
By Beenthere on 2/27/2011 5:53:54 PM , Rating: 2
...the front end styling on this car is so horrible. What were they thinking?

By stlrenegade on 2/28/2011 12:43:38 PM , Rating: 2
Ford site says $18,790 to start with the little font "as shown $23,490"

Seems a little high, but then I looked at their other cars, and from Fiesta up to Taurus, their starting prices appear to be fairly aggressive. I'd still like to see lower starting prices across the board, but everything costs more.

The Focus hatchback does look nice. I'm in my first hatchback, a Honda Fit, and love it.

"I want people to see my movies in the best formats possible. For [Paramount] to deny people who have Blu-ray sucks!" -- Movie Director Michael Bay

Most Popular ArticlesTop 5 Smart Watches
July 21, 2016, 11:48 PM
Free Windows 10 offer ends July 29th, 2016: 10 Reasons to Upgrade Immediately
July 22, 2016, 9:19 PM

Copyright 2016 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki