|
Powershift posted:I'm beginning to suspect that general motors is only willing to put forth the minimum level of effort required to survive as a car company. Why?
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 22:25
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 08:29 |
|
|
rscott posted:Well now that I've been appropriately schooled on Zeta platform cars, I won't make that mistake again. Thanks! (not being a dick or anything) Interior is also quite different from the Holden. Throatwarbler fucked around with this message at 00:03 on May 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
Apr 30, 2012 23:58
|
|
|
rscott posted:Well now that I've been appropriately schooled on Zeta platform cars, I won't make that mistake again. Thanks! (not being a dick or anything) Sorry if I came off aggressively. Certainly didn't mean it that way. I have a strange fascination with Australian cars because they represent the potential evolutionary outcome of the traditional big American car if that line hadn't been killed off in the 80s. Also, the forbidden fruit angle, since all most Aussies do is complain about them as cars for fleets and rednecks. I also test drove a G8 once and liked it, but didn't end up buying it and now it's dead, too.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 00:56
|
|
|
Pricing on the Focus ST has been announced, $24,495 base (incl dest). http://jalopnik.com/5906471/the-ford-focus-st-will-cost-24495
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 06:53
|
|
|
discstickers posted:Pricing on the Focus ST has been announced, $24,495 base (incl dest). Does anyone know how the overboost function will work? From what I understand you get 15 seconds of extra boost when you push it. How are those dyno numbers going to look?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 16:32
|
|
|
kronix posted:Does anyone know how the overboost function will work? From what I understand you get 15 seconds of extra boost when you push it. How are those dyno numbers going to look? I don't know, but I'd sure as hell rewire it as a toggle switch rather than a button.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 16:41
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:Sorry if I came off aggressively. Certainly didn't mean it that way. I have a strange fascination with Australian cars because they represent the potential evolutionary outcome of the traditional big American car if that line hadn't been killed off in the 80s. Also, the forbidden fruit angle, since all most Aussies do is complain about them as cars for fleets and rednecks. Nah its all cool.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 16:42
|
|
|
Holy poo poo an actual Cruis'n USA button.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 17:05
|
|
|
KozmoNaut posted:I don't know, but I'd sure as hell rewire it as a toggle switch rather than a button. It's not actually a button I just worded it terribly. I meant to say you get 15 seconds of extra boost when you floor it.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 17:21
|
|
|
Oh man I really want a Focus ST. I'd have to drive it though. I wonder how the back seat would be... I'd have to put a couple baby seats back there. Would I get extra AI cred for buying the Recaro baby seats? Anyone know the estimated MPG on highway is on that car? I have a bitch of a commute and put 600 miles a week on my car. My current Fusion Sport gets about 19city/25Hwy/22 mixed and I'm really hoping to find something 30+MPG.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 17:23
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:Oh man I really want a Focus ST. I'd have to drive it though. I wonder how the back seat would be... I'd have to put a couple baby seats back there. Would I get extra AI cred for buying the Recaro baby seats? I think the regular Focus gets up to 40mpg highway, so the ST would be somewhere between 30 and 40 I would imagine. baby seats can easily fit in the back of a Fiesta, they should have room to spare in the back of a Focus.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 18:56
|
|
|
The 1.6l 180hp Ecoboost is supposed to get like 47mpg by the EU numbers, but the ST has a shitload more power so who knows... roughly I'd go with CornHolio's estimate, it could probably get pretty good mileage when staying out of boost.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 19:09
|
|
|
CornHolio posted:I think the regular Focus gets up to 40mpg highway, so the ST would be somewhere between 30 and 40 I would imagine. I get 33 highway MPG in my Mustang V6, and around 26 in the city, even with the 3.73 axle ratio, so I would hope the Focus ST can get similar or better numbers. If you drive conservatively, I'd say 40 MPG highway could conceivably happen.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 19:15
|
|
|
Keep in mind that the ST shown there is the 5-door, and last I checked, the 5-door topped out at 38 hwy mpg. I expect this 250+ horsepower version to barely tick above 30.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 20:00
|
|
|
thesurlyspringKAA posted:Keep in mind that the ST shown there is the 5-door, and last I checked, the 5-door topped out at 38 hwy mpg. I expect this 250+ horsepower version to barely tick above 30. It better hit significantly above 30, because if the same engine in a Fusion can't get the 22/33 a turbo Optima does with more power, then I need to go buy a new car before summer hits so I can have A/C. I mean this is a lot more hp than the base Focus, but the EPA tests don't really hammer the throttle anyway, right?
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 20:16
|
|
|
$25,000 USD. Car prices amaze me in the US. Over here in Australia, it will probably be north of $40,000 when released.
|
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 21:15
|
|
|
Nevermind found what i was looking for. No AXZ pricing at all https://www.myplan.ford.com/myplanweb/pdf/IneligibleProducts.pdf Henchman 21 fucked around with this message at 21:29 on May 1, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 1, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
I'm going to buy a Focus ST, I think. I said it years ago when Ford never brought it over and now they have and it's within my budget without much hassle.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 03:01
|
|
|
Endless Mike posted:I'm going to buy a Focus ST, I think. I said it years ago when Ford never brought it over and now they have and it's within my budget without much hassle. All I ever wanted was a Focus RS, the ST is a nice step but I'm holding out hope that they'll do a full on, balls out RS.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 03:16
|
|
|
Rhyno posted:All I ever wanted was a Focus RS, the ST is a nice step but I'm holding out hope that they'll do a full on, balls out RS. If they released the RS500 or something comparable here I'd buy one in a heartbeat. Sadly, I bet the ST is as close as we'll ever get.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 03:28
|
|
|
davebo posted:It better hit significantly above 30, because if the same engine in a Fusion can't get the 22/33 a turbo Optima does with more power, then I need to go buy a new car before summer hits so I can have A/C. I mean this is a lot more hp than the base Focus, but the EPA tests don't really hammer the throttle anyway, right? Not sure how much it matters, but the Focus sedan has a .30 Drag coeff. and the Optima has a .26 I can't find a number for the 5-door Focus.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 05:36
|
|
|
thesurlyspringKAA posted:Not sure how much it matters, but the Focus sedan has a .30 Drag coeff. and the Optima has a .26 cd doesn't matter unless you know the frontal area, though.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 06:02
|
|
|
I'm emailing dealerships to get offers, some people are apparently getting under MSRP. One guy asked me what I wanted to pay,  .
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 06:03
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I get 33 highway MPG in my Mustang V6, and around 26 in the city, even with the 3.73 axle ratio, so I would hope the Focus ST can get similar or better numbers. If you drive conservatively, I'd say 40 MPG highway could conceivably happen. Why would you think that? Are there any turbocharged compacts on the market right now that do that?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 06:23
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:Why would you think that? Are there any turbocharged compacts on the market right now that do that? I'm not sure, but the Focus is lighter and less powerful than the Mustang V6. If it can't get a slight fuel economy improvement (I can manage 6 L/100km driving very conservatively on the highway, not that I frequently do) then it's quite poorly engineered indeed. Why shouldn't it achieve that sort of fuel economy?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 06:39
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm not sure, but the Focus is lighter and less powerful than the Mustang V6. If it can't get a slight fuel economy improvement (I can manage 6 L/100km driving very conservatively on the highway, not that I frequently do) then it's quite poorly engineered indeed. Why shouldn't it achieve that sort of fuel economy? Right now only the special "eco" models of the Cruze and Focus, and the Elantra are rated 40 on the highway, with much less power than this hot Focus, so for it to also get 40 would be extraordinary. OTOH the new Shelby gained a couple of MPG in fuel economy while also adding like 100hp so anything's possible I guess.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 06:46
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm not sure, but the Focus is lighter and less powerful than the Mustang V6. If it can't get a slight fuel economy improvement (I can manage 6 L/100km driving very conservatively on the highway, not that I frequently do) then it's quite poorly engineered indeed. Why shouldn't it achieve that sort of fuel economy? Short gearing, perhaps? I know with my MS3, I can break 30 mpg if I'm doing straight highway driving, with the cruise control set below 70mph (maybe 65).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 06:48
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm not sure, but the Focus is lighter and less powerful than the Mustang V6. If it can't get a slight fuel economy improvement (I can manage 6 L/100km driving very conservatively on the highway, not that I frequently do) then it's quite poorly engineered indeed. Why shouldn't it achieve that sort of fuel economy? No doubt it'll have much better around town economy than a Mustang. Not everyone spends the bulk of their time on the open road.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 07:45
|
|
|
I'm sure if you never got into boost and cruised at 60mph in 6th you'd get some decent numbers, but nobody does that so the comparison is worthless
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 15:19
|
|
|
Bovril Delight posted:I'm sure if you never got into boost and cruised at 60mph in 6th you'd get some decent numbers, but nobody does that so the comparison is worthless People don't drive on highways? There are still areas, in both the US and Canada, where the highway speed limit is 55 mph or 90 km/h. 60mph is then a very reasonable cruising speed. I got the 6 L/100km figure after deciding, as an experiment, to drive the speed limit all the way from the Banff park gates to Revelstoke on the Trans-Canada. Conclusion: good gas mileage, horribly loving boring. EDIT: And even after re-reading the original question, I can't tell if we're supposed to be talking city or highway mileage.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 15:43
|
|
|
PT6A posted:I'm not sure, but the Focus is lighter and less powerful than the Mustang V6. If it can't get a slight fuel economy improvement (I can manage 6 L/100km driving very conservatively on the highway, not that I frequently do) then it's quite poorly engineered indeed. Why shouldn't it achieve that sort of fuel economy? Because a turbocharger does not equal better fuel economy. Turbocharging can be used for fuel economy IF you use the turbo to make up for using an engine with relatively small displacement. I.e. a Cruze Eco has a tiny 1.4 liter vs the normal 1.8. The F-150 Ecoboost has a measly 3.5L V6 but makes better power than the 5.0L V8. But if you just take the same engine, and THEN slap a turbo on it, you will end up with reduced fuel economy. My proof? Um, every turbo 4-cylinder car even produced. It's very rare for them to hit EPA numbers above 30 MPG highway, nevermind close to 40. Bovril Delight posted:I'm sure if you never got into boost and cruised at 60mph in 6th you'd get some decent numbers, but nobody does that so the comparison is worthless You've never been to Oregon, have you? I do agree that it's likely someone will hit mid-30s fuel economy with the Focus ST but I'd be surprised if the EPA rating isn't somewhere around 24 city and 30 highway.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 16:55
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:My proof? Um, every turbo 4-cylinder car even produced. It's very rare for them to hit EPA numbers above 30 MPG highway, nevermind close to 40. My old SRT-4 would see 22MPG mixed with a low of 15 in the city really romping on it, and up to 28 or so cruising long flat stretches of highway out of boost. Bovril Delight posted:I'm sure if you never got into boost and cruised at 60mph in 6th you'd get some decent numbers, but nobody does that so the comparison is worthless Here in Texas everything is 70 or 75MPH now... and to be honest if you're not doing 80MPH on the big freeways you're going to get run over by a guy in a lifted F-350 or an 18 wheeler. I spend a lot of time on the freeway and I cruise at 80MPH. I wish my 6th gear was a little taller, no reason for my engine to be turning at 2500 RPM @ 80MPH when it could easily do it at 2000 or so and see much better gas mileage.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 18:49
|
|
|
skipdogg posted:My old SRT-4 would see 22MPG mixed with a low of 15 in the city really romping on it, and up to 28 or so cruising long flat stretches of highway out of boost. Yeah even out of boost turbo engines usually still get worse mileage because they are tuned very very rich to prevent knock. See also: the mazdaspeed 3.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 19:03
|
|
|
Why would they be tuned rich to prevent knock out of boost? That's where at minimal throttle opening the car would be running in closed-loop and adjusting to a stoichiometric mixture as measured by the oxygen sensor. There should be no appreciable difference between a turbo engine and an identical engine naturally aspirated as long as the turbo engine never goes above atmospheric pressure. Any difference in mileage between say a real world 2.5 N/A and 2.5 Turbo engine in the same car given equal gearing and driving style should be mostly attributed to usually a lower compression ratio on the turbo engine.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 19:24
|
|
|
You might be right, I've forgotten what my SRT A/F ratio was out of boost. I know in boost the ECU dumped crazy amounts of fuel in there. It was common to see A/F ratios in the 9.xx's.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 19:32
|
|
|
Faceless Clock posted:But if you just take the same engine, and THEN slap a turbo on it, you will end up with reduced fuel economy. My proof? Um, every turbo 4-cylinder car even produced. It's very rare for them to hit EPA numbers above 30 MPG highway, nevermind close to 40. Unless you run extremely low boost and keep the same CR. I installed a turbo kit on my '99 Eclipse GS which had 9.6:1 CR and saw a massive increase in gas mileage. I'd usually get around 340-350 miles per tank on the highway stock, and anywhere from 400-420 with the turbo installed. The turbo was large enough that it didn't spool at highyway RPM and load, so I always contributed it to the fact that the engine was no longer working as hard to suck air in, but who knows. (not me, clearly).
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 20:46
|
|
|
Cream_Filling posted:cd doesn't matter unless you know the frontal area, though. well most cars are of a predictable/knowable frontal area. Does the ST have Revoknuckle suspension?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 21:05
|
|
|
BoostCreep posted:Unless you run extremely low boost and keep the same CR. I installed a turbo kit on my '99 Eclipse GS which had 9.6:1 CR and saw a massive increase in gas mileage. I'd usually get around 340-350 miles per tank on the highway stock, and anywhere from 400-420 with the turbo installed. The turbo was large enough that it didn't spool at highyway RPM and load, so I always contributed it to the fact that the engine was no longer working as hard to suck air in, but who knows. (not me, clearly). No one makes a production car like that. It's cool that you did that and received an MPG boost but it's not relevant to what we're talking about here, which is production vehicles.
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 21:27
|
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Does the ST have Revoknuckle suspension?
|
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 12, 2024 08:29 |
|
|
kimbo305 posted:Does the ST have Revoknuckle suspension? I'm almost positive the ST does NOT have it like the Euro RS Focus. I remember reading it somewhere on a different forum. There was also some bitching about it not having a true LSD maybe? It uses the brakes or something to compensate? I'll try to dig around and find the info. edit: found an article http://blogs.insideline.com/straightline/2011/09/2011-frankfurt-auto-show-more-details-on-2013-ford-focus-st.html skipdogg fucked around with this message at 22:26 on May 2, 2012 |
|
#
?
May 2, 2012 21:41
|
|