2008 Ford Focus SES Coupe: 25,000 Miles and Counting

I have basically resolved that the EPA ratings are meaningless to me, other than perhaps as a comparison between vehicles. My 335i has a current rating of 17 city, 26 highway. In practice, I usually get lower than 17 city, since I deal with traffic, and I also tend to drive harder in the city. I also get more like 30 highway, since I tend to drive long trips at steady speeds.

But, on a more appropriate note, when I can get 30 MPG highway with a beast like the N54, why aren't 2 liter (and smaller) 4 bangers getting 40+ on the highway (especially since such cars tend to weigh much less than the 3600lb 335i)? Is it the engines? Have we reached an engineering limit? Is it the transmissions? Would a taller top gear make a big difference? I am not criticizing, but just curious.

nealibob - good question. What RPM are you at on the highway? Your N54 has a terrific amount of torque which would help you with a tall top gear.

My G8 GT with AFM is about 1800 at 70 mph (2000 rpm at 80) and I get 26 highway. I think the little four-poppers have to be twice that to make 70.

I agree with nealibob , EPA Estimates are meaningless. I get 15 City and 26 Highway in my Manual Audi A5. City kind of sucks, but I have one hell of a leadfoot.

26MPG Highway is slightly below par, but it's doing a steady 80-85ish.

My 1999 Toyota Camry 4-cyl is very sensitive to speed when it comes to gas mileage. I've gotten up to 35mpg in the Camry (900 miles at 70mph). The same trip at 80mph got me 32mpg, both using cruise control. I always beat the current EPA rating of 20/28 though. The EPA of 18/25 is pretty well right for my 2005 Ford Freestyle though, especially since it's pretty hilly where I live.

I have never been able to beat EPA numbers in my car. I have pumped up the tires, turned off the a/c, emptyed my trunk, and driven like a tree hugger, even using the instant fuel econ display as a guide, and the best i have averaged is 22.4. The EPA says i should be able to get 24 highway. sigh.

gotta love those microwave displays for the odometer.

"I have basically resolved that the EPA ratings are meaningless to me, other than perhaps as a comparison between vehicles."

I absolutely agree. I think of it more like an index than a true metric.

I try to go easy on it, but whenever my wife drives my car she can always get 2 more mpg than I can. I guess I just have a generous definition of going easy on it.

And I don't see the problem with the odometer dot matrix display. It's visible and clear, and I don't think it looks bad.

"I try to go easy on it, but whenever my wife drives my car she can always get 2 more mpg than I can."

It's the opposite for me. I tend to be easier of the start than my wife, but generally, I drive faster once I get going. I guess I always figured that most of the gas is used to get you going rather than keeping you going.

Nealibob - My 2006 Civic SI gets 30mpg in mixed use, including aggressive driving and cruising at 75mph when on the highway.

I think the main advantage is that I don't go below 25mpg no matter what type of driving I'm doing. It just doesn't go below that.

Now, I tend to cruise at around 3500 rpms and I'm sure a torqueier curve and a taller top gear would push me up to 40mpg (I do get 35mpg on PURE highway).

Your engine is one of the most attractive on the market, because it's capable of achieving that mileage with that level of power.

Same with GM v8s.

Joe

I too don't see anything wrong with the dot-matrix display here either. As much as I like LCD displays (similar to what VW/Audi utilizes) they can be failure prone. So while it may not be the prettiest setup around, it's far from ugly and the longevity is a given.

Impressive fuel economy.

For the guy who wants an LCD instead of a dot matrix for the odometer...it's an economy car, not a luxury car. Why does the manner in which the odometer displays its readout matter?

I rented a Focus last year and drove it to Fresno from LA. Even though I crossed the mountains on the 5, the car averaged 41mpg during the whole overall trip. Granted, I drove the speed limit and accelerated slowly, but it was very impressive. Even the Yaris and Fit have a hard time getting those EPA ratings

I wonder what sort of mileage you would get if you added a cold air intake and cat back exhaust?

nealibob- cylinder engines don't get above 40 because they aren't pulling a small enough amount of weight. My 1992 camry just did 32 MPG round trip from Mass to Virginia and back, but thats on straight highway. It averages 25-26 MPG most of the time.

While your beamer weighs 3600 lbs, my camry weighs about 3000 lbs, and has a 2.2L motor with 125 HP to your twin-turbo 3.0L motor with 300 HP. Its complicated cuz there are many factors in it, but the short answer is 4 cylinders don't drop enough weight for it to skyrocket to the 40 MPG range (unless its diesel of course, but thats something entirely different.)

Why is there a picture of an 80's VCR?

+benson

@everybody: I don't expect EPA mpg figures to be 100% accurate on a driver-for-driver basis. This country is too big and the driving conditions and topography are too varied. And then there's the driver's style and chosen speed to consider, and that means a lot.

But 1 year, 25,000 miles and some 30 drivers going in 30 different directions does randomize things nicely, and we DO find that the overall average at the end of our long-term tests usually falls within +/- 1 mpg of the EPA combined figures produced under the revsions released in 2008, as is the case here.

EPA figures are better used as a shopping tool when COMPARING cars, as all cars are tested under the same conditions. And they can work to establish an statistical average for the mpg of a fleet of vehicles driven by randomly selected drivers.