backtop


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

160BHP?
By radium69 on 2/27/2011 6:00:54 PM , Rating: 0
Impressive?
Not talking about fuel economy here.
But my 1998 Pulsar with an SR20DE makes 155 with its 2.0 Litre engine.

I call that far from impressive...
Offcourse mine doesnt do 40MPG. But then again.
The new Nissan Juke even gets 34MPG with its 190BHP DIG-T engine.




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
quote:
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).

-------
Chillin


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.

http://www.euroncap.com/tests/daihatsu_sirion_2005...

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


"We can't expect users to use common sense. That would eliminate the need for all sorts of legislation, committees, oversight and lawyers." -- Christopher Jennings














botimage
Copyright 2014 DailyTech LLC. - RSS Feed | Advertise | About Us | Ethics | FAQ | Terms, Conditions & Privacy Information | Kristopher Kubicki