FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Seriously...are you that f'ing stupid? You may be. I just read sticker of new Dart Rally with 1.4L turbo with manual. Combined was something like 31mpg+ and 40mpg highway, same as Focus SFE, but better than any other Focus model. The Dart also had decent feature list and barely $22,000 sticker price. The SFE Cruze has manual standard and gets 40mpg highway and better combined mileage than any Focus. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 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? OK, I will admit not an apple to apple comparison. But don't forget the PDK is a $4,000 option with many modes and 7 speeds. And it's DCT. It will even blip on downshifts like double clutching into tight curve. Anway, the H6 gets pretty decent fuel mileage considering it's a full racing engine with most versions over 300hp and over 400hp. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 12, 2012 Author Share Posted July 12, 2012 You may be. I just read sticker of new Dart Rally with 1.4L turbo with manual. Combined was something like 31mpg+ and 40mpg highway, same as Focus SFE, but better than any other Focus model. The Dart also had decent feature list and barely $22,000 sticker price. The SFE Cruze has manual standard and gets 40mpg highway and better combined mileage than any Focus. man I hate it when facts get in the way of poor argument: the Dart gets WORSE MPG and needs PREMIUM fuel! The Cruze is barely better highway Mileage and has the same COMBINED Mileage as the Focus! Lets see how the 1.6L EB does in the Focus...or even the 1L 3 cyc EB does.... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Food for thought: If the 2.0 EB Focus gets 23/32 mpg, what will the 2013 Fusion 2.0 EB get? Ford is projecting the 1.6 EB to get up to 37mpg highway, but no word on city. I sure hope the 2.0 gets better than 32mpg even though Fusion is bigger and heavier than Focus, and I would imagine hp numbers will be similar, but I suppose gearing different. Looks like maybe 34mpg if lucky. Better than V6 Fusion, but just marginally better than 2.5L I4 if does indeed get 34mpg highway and 24 city. I know, it does have much more power and about same fuel mileage, and much better fuel mileage than V6 with same power. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JasonM Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Too bad the Boxster is down so much torque (206 on the Boster to 270 on the ST) yet still gets so much worse gas mileage compared to the ST (20/30 vs 23/32) even though the Boxster weighs less than the ST. I guess it just proves that paying twice as much doesn't guarantee you top mileage performance (or much torque for that matter). Maybe Porsche needs to add some fuel saving electronics on their Boxster. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Too bad the Boxster is down so much torque (206 on the Boster to 270 on the ST) yet still gets so much worse gas mileage compared to the ST (20/30 vs 23/32) even though the Boxster weighs less than the ST. I guess it just proves that paying twice as much doesn't guarantee you top mileage performance (or much torque for that matter). Maybe Porsche needs to add some fuel saving electronics on their Boxster. They did, it will do coast mode when you let up on throttle and it has Start/Stop technology when you push clutch in. 30mpg highway is not bad on a 170mph slot car with H6 racing engine behind your ear. It also comes with torque vectoring and full suspension activating modes with exhaust and response modes. The vehicle will definitely put a smile on your face and be more addicting than any drug. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Too bad the Boxster is down so much torque (206 on the Boster to 270 on the ST) yet still gets so much worse gas mileage compared to the ST (20/30 vs 23/32) even though the Boxster weighs less than the ST. I guess it just proves that paying twice as much doesn't guarantee you top mileage performance (or much torque for that matter). Maybe Porsche needs to add some fuel saving electronics on their Boxster. H6 engines don't have a lot of torque (a handicap), but enough for Porsche to win at Limerock ALMS GT race last weekend against the best Corvette, BMW, and Ferrari V8 power could throw at them. Gave up a lot of torque to them, but Bergmeister and Long are terrific drivers and drove the wheels off their Porsche racing car with its engine that could motor. NASCAR could hope to be even close to what GT racing is at ALMS level. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) 30mpg highway is not bad on a 170mph slot car with H6 racing engine behind your ear. And 32mpg highway is not bad on a 154 mph ST compact hatchback with more torque than your beloved H6. Jesus, my Cobra had a factory top speed of 153 and only got 23 mpg highway. Edited July 12, 2012 by NickF1011 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 And 32mpg highway is not bad on a 154 mph ST compact hatchback with more torque than your beloved H6. Jesus, my Cobra had a factory top speed of 153 and only got 23 mpg highway. No harm, no foul. You guys got what you expected from Focus ST and I expected more and was surprised with EB hype and all. I'm done and will shut the f..k up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock 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. 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 . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NickF1011 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 No harm, no foul. You guys got what you expected from Focus ST and I expected more and was surprised with EB hype and all. I'm done and will shut the f..k up. And as we have established, your expectations are unrealistic. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 H6 engines don't have a lot of torque (a handicap), Depends on the H-6 engine. Some, like the big turbo Lycomings, have lots of torque. 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 . . . Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Deanh 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. SERIOUSLY?.......one hint, its MANUAL, second, its 252hp so its TUNED more for performance, thirdly, the tires arent low resistance....and PPS, when driven conservatively it WILL get better mileage than published, slushboxs have an EPA advantage where sas manuals translate better in actual on the road numbers....that said screw it, if i owne dthe car Id be enjoying the shite out of it and wouldnt expect ANYTHING even close to the numbers... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
spudz64 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) Food for thought: If the 2.0 EB Focus gets 23/32 mpg, what will the 2013 Fusion 2.0 EB get? Ford is projecting the 1.6 EB to get up to 37mpg highway, but no word on city. I sure hope the 2.0 gets better than 32mpg even though Fusion is bigger and heavier than Focus, and I would imagine hp numbers will be similar, but I suppose gearing different. Looks like maybe 34mpg if lucky. Better than V6 Fusion, but just marginally better than 2.5L I4 if does indeed get 34mpg highway and 24 city. I know, it does have much more power and about same fuel mileage, and much better fuel mileage than V6 with same power. Here's a recent Fusion PDF sheet that shows the anticapted FE for all engines: http://media.ford.co...2013_Fusion.pdf 2.5-liter iVCT four-cylinder: Anticipated 22 mpg city, 33 mpg highway 1.6-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder: Anticipated 26 mpg city, 37 mpg highway 2.0-liter EcoBoost four-cylinder: Anticipated 23 mpg city, 33 mpg highway Edited July 12, 2012 by spudz64 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
BB390fe Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 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 You forgot to mention the number of seats might make a difference... especially for a daily driver. " But once 13 years ago I got 40 MPG hiqhway out of my 2.0 manual mercury milan.... that trumps the Porsche and it handled pretty well... so I guess it's a direct comparison, right?" Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
twmalonehunter Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 No harm, no foul. You guys got what you expected from Focus ST and I expected more and was surprised with EB hype and all. I'm done and will shut the f..k up Thank you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RichardJensen Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) I haz Porsche? See all of the photographer's other images here: http://www.flickr.com/photos/porschista/ Edited July 12, 2012 by RichardJensen 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
timmm55 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Where's the damned penguin? Fordbuyer, you hijack a thread for you own aggrandizement...........AGAIN! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Extreme4x4 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 Food for thought: If the 2.0 EB Focus gets 23/32 mpg, what will the 2013 Fusion 2.0 EB get? Ford is projecting the 1.6 EB to get up to 37mpg highway, but no word on city. I sure hope the 2.0 gets better than 32mpg even though Fusion is bigger and heavier than Focus, and I would imagine hp numbers will be similar, but I suppose gearing different. Looks like maybe 34mpg if lucky. Better than V6 Fusion, but just marginally better than 2.5L I4 if does indeed get 34mpg highway and 24 city. I know, it does have much more power and about same fuel mileage, and much better fuel mileage than V6 with same power. What in heavens name does a purpose built hot hatch have to do with a plebian family sedan?? One has an engine, tuning, and gearing optimized for performance............... and gets pretty good mileage at the same time. The other is tuned/geared to be a optional engine offering in a family car. You really don't see the difference?? I guess not, since you also brought up the Taurus with the 2.0. Jeepers man. You know, I am really disappointed in the fuel economy of my 34ft Class A motorhome with the Triton V10 engine. After all, my V10 superduty can get up to 14mpg on the highway, and the best the motorhome can get on the highway is 11mpg. Boy, that V10 in the motorhome must have something wrong with it. :rolleyes: 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
StevenCaylor Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 I believe a much better comparison would be from the last SVT Focus to the new Focus ST. Same configuration, 2.0 Liter, 4-valve, 6-speed manual, premium fuel (Don't remember what the hp/tq was) SVT Focus 18 city/21 highway Focus ST 23 city/32 highway Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
stpatrick90 Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 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. 2001 Porsche Boxster 2.7L manual 17city/25hwy 2001 Porsche Boxster 2.7L auto 16city/23hwy 2001 Porsche Boxster S 3.2L manual 17city/23hwy 2001 Porsche Boxster S 3.2L auto 16city/23hwy If you can beat the EPA estimates by as much as you claim, doesn't it stand to reason that the ST should be able to do the same? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FPVFalcom Posted July 12, 2012 Share Posted July 12, 2012 (edited) 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. The VW would surly get 32 MPG if it's engine had a cute little 'Eco' engine name... Edited July 12, 2012 by FPVFalcom Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
FordBuyer Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 2001 Porsche Boxster 2.7L manual 17city/25hwy 2001 Porsche Boxster 2.7L auto 16city/23hwy 2001 Porsche Boxster S 3.2L manual 17city/23hwy 2001 Porsche Boxster S 3.2L auto 16city/23hwy If you can beat the EPA estimates by as much as you claim, doesn't it stand to reason that the ST should be able to do the same? 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. 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Edstock Posted July 13, 2012 Share Posted July 13, 2012 The VW would surly get 32 MPG if it's engine had a cute little 'Eco' engine name... When you got fahrvernooooooogen, you don't need no cute anything. See? Fahrvernooooooogen über alles. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
silvrsvt Posted July 13, 2012 Author Share Posted July 13, 2012 I believe a much better comparison would be from the last SVT Focus to the new Focus ST. Same configuration, 2.0 Liter, 4-valve, 6-speed manual, premium fuel (Don't remember what the hp/tq was) SVT Focus 18 city/21 highway Focus ST 23 city/32 highway 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! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts