Focus Fanatics Forum banner

Does the Focus just have low mpg?

5K views 32 replies 22 participants last post by  VOLDAR 
#1 ·
I used to have a 2006 cobalt coupe base model, and when I wrecked it I got a 2013 focus base. Both have roughly the same # of gears, are standard, amount of hp. is equal, and the power to weight is about the same (did the math). However I could drive like a dick with a 2.2 L and get 38 mpgs on average, and mid 50's when I tried. Now with a salvage title it gets 33 mpg with dented fender and sides, in town. Dents make it get 31 on highway. (miss the econ gauge and oil life meter which worked of the number engine revolutions) My new focus is nowhere near that which i will admit to the break in but drive the same way. What I want to know is that will driving the same with a standard get me less or more for results of mpg? I mean if a car with a bigger direct injection engine of the same weight can get better mpg where did ford go wrong?
 
#4 ·
#16 ·
Mid 50's were in a very hilly area actually and normally done at night with a just waxed car on a normal 30 mile trip I take. But i really don't see how answers any questions beyond the break in.
I mean yeah how i drive is the biggest effective contributor to mpg. but even to use the fuely website as a reference would leave you with the fact that it gives the 2006 cobalt a higher mpg than the 2013 focus. I mean realistically i think its in the gearing at this point. cobalt does 5th at 40 mph, while the focus can go into fifth much earlier. The gearing allows it to run at 2.5k rpm at 65, while in the focus the rpms are well above that(anything above 500 rpm means its using more gas).
 
#5 ·
Me and a friend drove to the city here while back we each took our own cars he has a 08 cobalt LT and my 2012 Focus SEL both driving the speed limit when we got to the city we both fueled up at the same gas station and he was getting 28 mpg and i was getting 39 mpg.

So i don't understand how your cobalt could have been doing so much better.
 
#6 ·
...However I could drive like a dick with a 2.2 L and get 38 mpgs on average, and mid 50's when I tried...
Excuse me, do you talk about UK mpg ? Because I don't believe anything about 50' unless you are talking UK mpg. And even then, I doubt a Cobalt has beter mpg than a TDi of same type. And I have not yet found a gasoline car doing 50 mpg (US mpg).
 
#26 ·
Still impressive but to keep a comparison apples to apples, new EPA estimates are calculated differently. Converting to new standards, City mpg drops 10 MPG. From fueleconomy.org:

Compare Old and New EPA MPG Estimates
1987 Honda Civic CRX HF
Manual 5-spd
4 Cylinders
1.5 Liters
Regular Gasoline

New MPG tests are more realistic
New MPG
42 City 46 Combined 51 Hwy
Old MPG
52 City 54 Combined 57 Hwy
 
#8 ·
Then, why to get a car ?



WILMAAAAAAA !!!!
 
#9 ·
where are you getting your mpg's from? Sounds like your just reading what your computer is telling you in the car. Which in my experience GM cars over inflate this number big time.

to get accurate fuel mileage you need to fill your tank, reset your trip odometer. Then drive. On your next fill up you take the miles driven and divide by the gallons put into the tank and that gives you REAL WORLD MPG'S!

This is just about the only way to get an accurate number regarding fuel economy.
 
#11 ·
OMG, those were the days. I had a '86 Civic Si and it did nearly as well as long as there wasn't a strong headwind on the highway, and I keep the tach away from the redline....which was difficult. :) The economy cars back then were small and light, like I wish they were today.
 
#12 ·
I had a '91 Si Hatch. Gas mileage was not a primary intent.

B16 DOHC VTEC, forged bottom end, custom t3/t4 turbo kit w/ Inline Pro, Precision turbo, and various other parts. Full 3" exhaust through a 3" Thermal R & D catback. Not bad for a 2200lb shitbox.



 
#14 ·
Weight was a huuuuuge factor in why these mid 80s early 90s cars got such great gas mileage.

Even a simple car like a focus weights +3000lbs these days.

Even American cars did better before all the extra weight from all these emissions and safety features.

I had a '92 Quad 4 grand am that I beat the living piss out of that still got 35mpg.

Just different times.
 
#29 ·
Your statements are valid, I agree. It was a toy car compared to cars now. The car made the best use of archaic tech. 8 valve four cylinder in the earliest models 12 valve later, 1.5 liters, 1800 lb curb weight, and a carburetor, or later very very choked down MultiPoint-FI.

But the original reply was to "No gas car at 50mpg". Maybe not current, but these did it, and did it real world, even after the changes to the window sticker reporting.


The CRX's had no VTEC. They were simply choked down intake tracts to increase efficiency, and decrease the amount of fuel guzzling abuse the owner could impose.

The VTEC-e (efficiency) engines did not appear until 1992 when the hatchback VX came out. It was amazing. Lightweight wheels, 92~ hp, and a manual trans only. Only got high 30's in the MPG department, but was a great platform and actually felt like a real car.

In 1996 the HX is now a coupe with either an 5 speed manual or CVT transmission with a similar high efficiency VTECe engine.

:thumbup:
 
  • Like
Reactions: kam327
#32 ·
My ex-wife had a 1981 Civic 2 dr hatchback with the 1.5L and a 3 speed automatic transmission. Had about 64 hp. Used to get 40+ mpg on the hwy. But geez was that thing underpowered. 0-60 mph was ..... eventually. Top speed was 85 mph.

Yeah new cars are much heavier. And safer.
 
#33 ·
Thank you guys for the info. As I said, I didn't know of any gas car capable of 50+ MPG in real city traffic, without hypermiling, of course.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top