[Chad]

I see no reason why the focus couldn't pull off 33mpg minimum highway.

The Focus ST has the 2.0L EcoBoost I-4 engine. The 2012 Explorer does, The 2012 Escape does and the 2012 Edge does..


The 2012 Explorer
2.0L I-4 EcoBoost™
Fuel Economy 20 city / 28 hwy / 23 combined


The 2012 Edge
2.0L EcoBoost™ I-4 Twin-Turbocharged, Direct-Injection
Fuel Economy FWD: 21 city / 30 hwy / 24 combined


The 2012 Escape
Also has the 2.0L EcoBoost
Predictions .. 23/32


The Escape is smaller than the Edge and Explorer.


So 33 for the Focus ST is definitely a possibility.

What do you guys think about the Focus ST's EPA Rating?

 

[ST?]

23 city / 35 highway

Someone from Ford said the new ST would get 20% better mileage than the old one. When I did the math, it equaled 35mpg. Sounds right too, you aren't using boost on the highway, so a 3mpg drop from stickier/larger tires and wheels plus lower gearing (I'm assuming) doesn't sound far fetched.

 

[STephan]

2,0l to 2,5l = 20%
so it´s simple mathematics that the car must use 20% less....

 

[dem778]

2,0l to 2,5l = 20%
so it´s simple mathematics that the car must use 20% less....

Not necessarily. Yes, the displacement is 20% less, but the fuel usage could be the same. It depends what the fuel/air ratio is they use and if they decide to run the engine rich to keep it cooler. Mazda runs the 2.3l DISI rich to keep it cooler and one of the main problems with that is soot caused by the turbo.

 

[Chad]

If the escape has 33 hwy I will believe 35 MPG for the Focus ST. It seems like Ford has figured out how to really harness the forced induction engines.

EcoBoost:
Variable Cam Timing
Direct Injection Fuel
Turbo Charger

Its nothing new, but Ford has put it together better I suppose. I won't be long until every company follows suite. By 2015 Ford wants their Ecoboost engine in every car lineup.

2,0l to 2,5l = 20%
so it´s simple mathematics that the car must use 20% less....

The legacy Focus ST also has 5 pistons. Liter wise, is just engine size. So all in all a 2.0 L could get some same fuel economy as a 2.3 or 2.5. Its all how its built and works.

 

[STephan]

yeah but you can do the same calculation is with 4 and 5 cylinders.
and ford also mentioned in a lot of PDF´s.

Anyway if we change exhaust, air-filter, intercooler, we increase the fuel usage or maybe we got a good new software with more power and less fuel usage

 

[Chad]

Can someone tell me what the 2005-2007 Focus ST MPG was? City and Highway?

 

[neekit]

I also think that the ST will be able to get around 25mpg city and 35 and up on the highway(depending on how you drive). My 2012 focus SE gets me 29mpg and i use it 5/7 days to deliver food to people stop and go and i think thats great. I also think the ST just like the regular focuses will be underrated in fuel economy.

 

[STephan]

Chad, the old ST was about 12,5 liters/100km, this must be 18mpg in 60miles. But 12 only when you drive like your grandfather

 

[Craig9080]

I agree with your assessment of 23 city/ 35 highway, but when I did the math this is what I got

Old ST = 30 miles per IMPERIAL gallon *1.2 = 36 miles per Imperial gallon = 30 US MPG

BUT - the old Volvo engine did not have VVT or DI last I checked. So essentially with a dash of optimism I say that adds 5mpg

 

[ST?]

The Taurus with the 2.0EB is rated at 32mpg highway and weighs 1,000lbs more than the ST. It makes me believe my 35mpg prediction will be correct.

 

[JdubST13]

I will be completely satisfied if it gets between 30-35 mpg. Performance is my number one priority anyway

 

[petraman]

Just remember, it's not just about the specs, it's more about how you drive and what kind of driving you do. It very well might be that high, but even if it is, I'm sure after the first time you get into boost, your fuel mileage won't be as good as what they say it will be, haha.

 

[JdubST13]

Yep, and I plan on uping the boost ASAP!

 

[Chad]

The Taurus with the 2.0EB is rated at 32mpg highway and weighs 1,000lbs more than the ST. It makes me believe my 35mpg prediction will be correct.

Me too I am going to update my MPG table now

btw, where is your source on that. It does not seem to be at the ford.com website. That says 'TBA'.

Yep, and I plan on uping the boost ASAP!

I will try hard as hell to get aftermarket vendors here to sell you whatever you need to do that :O:

I want to add boost too.

 

[ST?]

Me too I am going to update my MPG table now

btw, where is your source on that. It does not seem to be at the ford.com website. That says 'TBA'.

Ford for Mobiles

Fords mobile site says 22/32mpg projected EPA rating.

 

[SalesSteve]

Utilizing my German language skills, the recently released Swiss literature on the ST, and comparative analysis. I am predict a 22/32 EPA rating(subject to engine computer tomfoolery and if Ford publishes the rating vs the EPA actually testing it) In the foreign brochures it states that the ST is rated at(L/100 km Urban/Extra Urban/Combined) 9.9/5.6/7.2 The closest car I can find a rating under the same system that is sold in the US The VW GTI it is rated at 10/5.8/7.3 and has US rating of 21/31(Manual) 24/32(DSG Auto) Strangely enough in Germany, the DSG GTI is rated for slightly worse fuel consumption than the manual. That said most state run fuel economy tests are garbage. Also in brochures it states the St will do 0-100kph in 6.5 seconds. The GTI has an official 0-100kph time of 6.9 seconds. Given that most stateside reviews of the GTI having it doing 0-60 in 5.8-6.2 seconds I would say this a very good sign the ST should crack 6 seconds 0-60 in automotive magazine testing which should help it move some units. Well break time from getting stuff done over, like the rest of you I cannot wait for more information.

 

[ScorpioWRXST]

Utilizing my German language skills, the recently released Swiss literature on the ST,

Pretty much bang-on to my thinking. This car, with good tires and perfect launch will be well into the 5 second time bracket. Not that I really care about 0-60 times and hard launches in a fwd car, but it is a good indication of overall fun factor. It wouldn't surprise me to see magazines flogging these cars in the 5.7 second range.
Same with fuel economy, I"m seeing this similar engine in the Edge and much heavier vehicles being rated at 32mpg....surely it can only be much better in such a light car. That rating of 5.6L/100 is basically 40mpg!!! That's using US gallons conversion. I wouldn't be surprised at all to see average highway cruising of like 38mpg in the ST...and that absolutely murders the current WRX which I was considering getting. Talking about a $1,000+/year cheaper in fuel costs, think about over 2-3 years....I can find a lot of uses for $3,000. Like MODS to go faster!!

 

[SalesSteve]

Same with fuel economy, I"m seeing this similar engine in the Edge and much heavier vehicles being rated at 32mpg....surely it can only be much better in such a light car.

Scorpio while the ST is much lighter than those other cars it has two things working against it for the EPA tests. 1) a manual transmission which always will test lower than an automatic whose shift points are optimized to do good on the test 2) Performance tires which tend to eat into fuel economy. That said I would think that with the tall 5th and 6th the ST should be able to touch the mid thirties on the highway if it is kept steady and under 70 mph, possibly better with all season tires. Of course the EPA could not test the ST and then Ford could pretty much say whatever they want......

 

[ScorpioWRXST]

I'm mostly going by the Swiss document which looks very official....and 5.6L/100 is basically 41mpg. I think the EPA is a little over-aggressive with it's ratings. The GTI is rated 31mpg HWY (6MT) yet many GTI drivers can show average mpg of 37mpg with very conservative highway driving.
Anyway, maybe with a tail-wind down hill one can dream of pushing 40mpg. Having said all that, the car is a bit heavier than I expected. I'd be pretty happy if on my flat 2 hour commute I could just break over 35mpg on average.