Does the Focus just have low mpg?

[suss6052]

Originally Posted by poorblackfocus

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).

Unless you're talking about the 5 speed manual in the Focus, the 6DCT will be turning over at only 2600 rpm at 70 mph, and 2000 rpm at 55 mph in 6th.

The 5MT does come closer to 3000 rpm at 70 mph with the 16" wheels and tires.

[Supramk3]

Originally Posted by Slo86GT

Hate to stir the pot, but Honda did it... for at least 6 years running.

85-91 CRX HF.

yep my grandma bought an 87 off the showroom floor and justy sold it this year with 80,000 original miles and pulled 50mpgs all the time. and my '12 Focus S pulls 42mpg highway when its clear out and 55-65mpg and moderate driving.

[CDNFocusFan]

I just did a 900 km drive and my average was 38MPG over the whole trip, all highway, cruise set to 105 KPH. (90 zones) Only have about 4600 KM on the car.

[michaelwb]

Originally Posted by zx3matt

I get mid 40s on a regular basis and I am NOT an eco-conscious driver.

Interesting. I played with the trip computer today, resetting it several times on the highway to see what MPGs I got at constant speed.

I stayed in the far right lane and kept my speed between 52 and 57 mph, letting the car slow down as it went up nearly imperceptible inclines and gliding as much as possible. My MPGs stayed around 45 MPG.

Perhaps it's my 18" Titanium wheels and 5-speed transmission. An SFE might do better.

[kam327]

Originally Posted by michaelwb

Interesting. I played with the trip computer today, resetting it several times on the highway to see what MPGs I got at constant speed.

I stayed in the far right lane and kept my speed between 52 and 57 mph, letting the car slow down as it went up nearly imperceptible inclines and gliding as much as possible. My MPGs stayed around 45 MPG.

Perhaps it's my 18" Titanium wheels and 5-speed transmission. An SFE might do better.

My steady state MPG at 55 mph is around 47 mpg and I have the DCT and stock 17" tires. So you're pretty much right on. ZX3's mid-40's claim seems a little far fetched but steady state MPG at 45 mph is almost 60 mpg so if he's spending a lot of time on country roads around 45 mph then I can see it being possible.

[foh-kuhs]

Originally Posted by Slo86GT

Hate to stir the pot, but Honda did it... for at least 6 years running.

85-91 CRX HF.

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

[kam327]

Originally Posted by foh-kuhs

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

Very interesting. I too went to the site and noticed that the dozen or so versions of that car in 1987 varied widely in gas mileage, with as little as 26 city / 30 hwy with a 5MT just like the subject car and same engine displacement. How the hell did they increase fuel economy by 70% for the "HF" version?

The only light the wikipedia page sheds on it is that the HF version weighed about 150 lbs less than the regular version, which since the regular version weighed only 1,865 lbs is a substantial reduction.

Of course those cars all weighed so little back then due to a lack of any safety features or creature comforts, that's how they stood a chance of getting reasonable mileage despite a lack of direct injection and other technical goodies.

Which leads us to the fact that you may have gotten close or in some limited cases even better mileage than the '12 Focus in your 25-year-old compact but you would've been toast in any sort of accident whereas the Focus will keep you relatively safe as shown by several posts on this site.

[pozi240]

Originally Posted by kam327

Very interesting. I too went to the site and noticed that the dozen or so versions of that car in 1987 varied widely in gas mileage, with as little as 26 city / 30 hwy with a 5MT just like the subject car and same engine displacement. How the hell did they increase fuel economy by 70% for the "HF" version?

The only light the wikipedia page sheds on it is that the HF version weighed about 150 lbs less than the regular version, which since the regular version weighed only 1,865 lbs is a substantial reduction.

Of course those cars all weighed so little back then due to a lack of any safety features or creature comforts, that's how they stood a chance of getting reasonable mileage despite a lack of direct injection and other technical goodies.

Which leads us to the fact that you may have gotten close or in some limited cases even better mileage than the '12 Focus in your 25-year-old compact but you would've been toast in any sort of accident whereas the Focus will keep you relatively safe as shown by several posts on this site.

Hey Kam!
I can shed a little more light on that, the "HF" Civic's and CRX's had a completely different drivetrain , they used a special 1.5 3valve VTEC-E (the "E" being a very different design than the regular VTEC systems of the day). Whereas the regular VTEC was designed to adjust timing and lift for power, the "E" system was for economy only(lots of overlap to reburn exhaust gases)... they used a small 1.5 motor, that got a measly 60hp (the regular 1.6EFI motors in the other civics were around 91hp by comparison), and had an aggressive EGR system that reburned the spent gas over and over again making it quite the gas mizer. These cars were pathetically slow, even though they wieghed less than 2300lbs. They also used special lighter wheels (they had expensive forged aluminum wheels and hard LRR type tires). I think their may have even been some underbody plastic covers (completely covering the lower side of the engine and car) as well. (back then, no cars had the undertrays like they do today. It wasn't a very "fun" car to drive, but, they were quite amazing on gas... LOL.

[Slo86GT]

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:

[kam327]

Originally Posted by pozi240

Hey Kam!
I can shed a little more light on that........

Originally Posted by Slo86GT

Your statements are valid, I agree. It was a toy car compared to cars now...........

Thanks for the good contributions guys/gals. I also read on Yahoo answers I think that the gears in the HF were more widely spaced on the 5MT. Not the most reliable source I know.