Focus Fanatics Forum banner

1 - 20 of 23 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
207 Posts
Discussion Starter · #1 ·
The EPA published the 2015 Focus MPG figures in the last couple days. The new 1.0 has two different sets of numbers. One under the "Focus SFE" dropdown 35/30/42 and one under the normal "Focus" 33/29/40 (see second photo).

Not sure the difference. One with just the 1.0/6M option and one with the full SE EcoBoost Package (1.0/6M + sport bumpers, bigger wheels, rear discs, etc.)? Anyone know?

Some side-by-side comparisons. Just 1 MPG off the Fiesta 1.0 and nearly as good as the Golf TDI.


 

·
Registered
Joined
·
207 Posts
Discussion Starter · #2 · (Edited)
Found some window stickers from the Ford Inventory website. Here's a non SE Ecoboost package hatch at 33/29/40.

http://m.inventory.ford.com/services/inventory/WindowSticker.pdf?vin=1FADP3KE1FL210837

An SE EcoBoost package sedan also listed at 33/29/40.
http://m.inventory.ford.com/services/inventory/WindowSticker.pdf?vin=1FADP3FE1FL210864

Also found a Sedan without the SE EcoBoost package and it was 33/29/40 too, that's the one listed as the "SFE" car on the order guide. ???

How do you get the full 35/30/42 rating? Hatch + SE EcoBoost Package? Still haven't found one yet.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
207 Posts
Discussion Starter · #4 ·
Need the "SFE" model or pkg.
There is no SFE package for 2015 anymore. The order guide says the only cars with an "SFE" badge are SE Sedans with the 1.0/6M option but without the SE EcoBoost package. Here's one, but it's still listed as 33/29/40, not 35/30/42 as it apparently should be.

http://m.inventory.ford.com/services/inventory/WindowSticker.pdf?vin=1FADP3FEXFL210720

Eh, I'll chalk it up to being very early in the process and they haven't straightened it all out yet. Doesn't matter anyway - it is what it is. :) Just a few days ago these 1.0 window stickers actually had the MPG rating from the 2014 2.0 cars as placeholders. Looks like the window stickers are actively created upon request - they seem to always have the current date at the bottom.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,290 Posts
Focus SE
99E = 1.0L EcoBoost® Engine SFE with Start Stop with 6-Speed Manual Transmission Only
Note: Not Available with 67S=SE Sport Package
Note: SFE badge Not Available on 5-Door

So the 1.0EB is available only on the SE trim level, 200A pak, with the only bundled package offered the "SE EcoBoost Package". 67E

I think it is safe to assume that the SE 1.0EB 99E should be showing the 35combined/30city/42hwy EPA #s.

I notice the window sticker of the SE with EcoBoost Package is incorrect as well as it lists the brakes as front disc/rear drums.Unless of course if Ford USA has deleted the rear disc brakes in the SE EcoBoost Package option.

67E = SE EcoBoost® Package
● 1.0L EcoBoost® Engine with Start-Stop
● 17” Machined-Aluminum Wheel with Black Painted Pockets
● Body Kit – Front Lower Valence & Splitter – Painted Body-Color Rocker Panels – Rear Valence & Diffuser
● Fog Lamps
● Leather-Wrapped Steering Wheel
● Rear Disc Brakes
● Rear Spoiler
Note: Not Available with Exterior Protection Package (90C) or Exterior Paint Colors White Platinum Metallic Tri-Coat or Blue Candy Metallic Tinted Clearcoat
Note: Not Available with SE Sport Package (67S)
Note: Not Available with 6-speed PowerShift Automatic Transmission (44W)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
48 Posts
The EPA published the 2015 Focus MPG figures in the last couple days. The new 1.0 has two different sets of numbers. One under the "Focus SFE" dropdown 35/30/42 and one under the normal "Focus" 33/29/40 (see second photo).

Not sure the difference. One with just the 1.0/6M option and one with the full SE EcoBoost Package (1.0/6M + sport bumpers, bigger wheels, rear discs, etc.)? Anyone know?

Some side-by-side comparisons. Just 1 MPG off the Fiesta 1.0 and nearly as good as the Golf TDI.


In Denmark there is an 100bhp and 125bhp version of the 1.0 maby thats the difference.
I have the 2015 1.0 125bhp version in a station wagon
 

·
Focus Preacher
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
I kind of find that odd that few years ago 110-120 hp was the norm for regular cars...

Now its around 150-160 hp...

And we are going back to 120 hp stock cars :)


I remember my old 96 golf with a gutless 90hp 1.8L engine (ACC)... it was a boring car but indestructible engine compared to the 2.0L 115hp (ABA)
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,458 Posts
125 bhp would be OK if the power/torque at lower rpm was decent. The problem with lower power cars in my view is that they're a bit of a pain if you happen to live or drive in hilly or mountainous areas as the lower power and torque in top gear at cruising speed means you're going to have to do a lot more shifting. This is an area where diesels have an advantage as they tend to have more power/torque at those driving speeds than regular gas engines even when they have less peak power.

Brian
 

·
Focus Preacher
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
125 bhp would be OK if the power/torque at lower rpm was decent. The problem with lower power cars in my view is that they're a bit of a pain if you happen to live or drive in hilly or mountainous areas as the lower power and torque in top gear at cruising speed means you're going to have to do a lot more shifting. This is an area where diesels have an advantage as they tend to have more power/torque at those driving speeds than regular gas engines even when they have less peak power.

Brian
Not only that... 5 persons in my 90hp golf was a joke [hihi] and don't get me started with hills... better start walking [grinking]
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,249 Posts
125 bhp would be OK if the power/torque at lower rpm was decent. The problem with lower power cars in my view is that they're a bit of a pain if you happen to live or drive in hilly or mountainous areas as the lower power and torque in top gear at cruising speed means you're going to have to do a lot more shifting. This is an area where diesels have an advantage as they tend to have more power/torque at those driving speeds than regular gas engines even when they have less peak power.

Brian

And that's exactly why the 1.0L will do well. Like the other Ford Ecoboost engines, there's torque available pretty much off idle. I'm not sure how it compares to the DI TI-VCT 2.0L , but compares to my port injected 2.0L duratec, the 1.0L has a much more usable torque curve.

Reasonably geared transmission + low end torque. I like it. Don't trust timing belts and belt driven oil pumps, though.
 

·
Focus Preacher
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Don't trust timing belts and belt driven oil pumps, though.
This one is bathed in oil tho...

I prefer chain especially when this kind of timing belt is internal...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1 Posts
Why the difference in trannys . Unless the fiesta 5spd has too short of an overdrive maybe. In which case the 6spd should be standard on both cars
 

·
Focus Preacher
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Why the difference in trannys . Unless the fiesta 5spd has too short of an overdrive maybe. In which case the 6spd should be standard on both cars
This is really a stupid thing if they continue to keep the 5spd version on the 2.0L and the 6spd on the 1.0L [?|][nono]

What are the excuses now Ford?
 

·
-----<M>-----
Joined
·
2,724 Posts
The regular auto Focus gets a hwy bump to 38 but the other numbers stay the same. Disappointing they couldn't improve the combined number with a major refresh like this.
 

·
Focus Addict
Joined
·
14,132 Posts
This is really a stupid thing if they continue to keep the 5spd version on the 2.0L and the 6spd on the 1.0L [?|][nono]

What are the excuses now Ford?
They have already EPA and CARB certified the 2.0L NA with the MTX75, since the power train carries over unchanged they don't need to spend the money on the emissions testing on re-certifying the engine with the 2.0L engine with the IB6 gearbox for the 2015 model.

Why waste the money for minimal gains? The majority of cars sold are sold with the automatic transmission not one of the manual transmission models, and the 1.0 L being new gives them a new market for being the most fuel efficient model.
 

·
Focus Preacher
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
They have already EPA and CARB certified the 2.0L NA with the MTX75, since the power train carries over unchanged they don't need to spend the money on the emissions testing on re-certifying the engine with the 2.0L engine with the IB6 gearbox for the 2015 model.

Why waste the money for minimal gains? The majority of cars sold are sold with the automatic transmission not one of the manual transmission models, and the 1.0 L being new gives them a new market for being the most fuel efficient model.
6th gear is always welcomed for highway coasting...
 

·
Focus Addict
Joined
·
14,132 Posts
6th gear is always welcomed for highway coasting...
To the customer if the gearing is right then yes, but Ford wasn't about to waste the money on this for something that sells less than 10% of their production volume of a mainstream product.
 

·
Focus Preacher
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
To the customer if the gearing is right then yes, but Ford wasn't about to waste the money on this for something that sells less than 10% of their production volume of a mainstream product.


It's about economy of scale... the less configuration you sell ... it's cheaper because in the end you only sell one transmission instead of two...

discontinue the MTX75 for the IB6...
After all those great years, the MTX needs to be put to rest [:)]

Marketing strategy win bonus: You only sell 6spd cars because people only care the more gears you have the better the car is. *sigh*
 

·
Focus Preacher
Joined
·
3,417 Posts
Yes , see the ST for reference
it use a getrag B6 tranny on the duratec 2.0 turbo
 
1 - 20 of 23 Posts
Top