New 2012 Focus Engine-- 160HP and 40 MPG

[JOD]

Originally Posted By: meep
i want to know what this "overriding alternator decoupler" thing is. allows lower belt tension and vibration reduction. ??

M
I thought it stopped the pulleys not in use (say your AC is off) from spinning at all? That's what I remember reading, but I won't swear to it...

Has anyone heard much about the reliability of the DSG transmissions?

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: JOD
Originally Posted By: meep
i want to know what this "overriding alternator decoupler" thing is. allows lower belt tension and vibration reduction. ??

M
I thought it stopped the pulleys not in use (say your AC is off) from spinning at all? That's what I remember reading, but I won't swear to it...

Has anyone heard much about the reliability of the DSG transmissions?

Its funny that only on some models can you shift the DSG manually, I guess its better than the Fiesta with no manual shifting option, but still...

 

[Nick R]

Originally Posted By: defektes
Originally Posted By: Nick R
The 2.0L has used a timing chain for YEARS. And I wonder now if my 2.0L is also made in dearborn. I was under the assumption it was from Mexico


2001 has a belt, and was assembled in US, and motor was american. Had a german transaxle though. The belt is a PITA to replace.


The 2001 I believe had the Zetec 2.0, not the Duratec 2.0, which is a different design. The zetec was an in-house ford engine. The Duratec is a collab with Mazda, mostly mazda though. Mazda get's Ford V6 engines, Ford gets use of Mazda 4 bangers. The focus had the CVH/SPI and Zetec through 2004. After 2004 it was either the Duratec 2.0, or the Duratec 2.3. And both of those have/had chains.

 

[mechtech2]

Nick -
Right. The ZX2s and Focii of that era had belt [non interference] cam systems.

The alternator disconnect has been around for a while. I have not messed with any, though. Some cop cars had clutch driven alternators.

 

[pzev]

Originally Posted By: Nick R
Originally Posted By: defektes
Originally Posted By: Nick R
The 2.0L has used a timing chain for YEARS. And I wonder now if my 2.0L is also made in dearborn. I was under the assumption it was from Mexico


2001 has a belt, and was assembled in US, and motor was american. Had a german transaxle though. The belt is a PITA to replace.


The 2001 I believe had the Zetec 2.0, not the Duratec 2.0, which is a different design. The zetec was an in-house ford engine. The Duratec is a collab with Mazda, mostly mazda though. Mazda get's Ford V6 engines, Ford gets use of Mazda 4 bangers. The focus had the CVH/SPI and Zetec through 2004. After 2004 it was either the Duratec 2.0, or the Duratec 2.3. And both of those have/had chains.


To build on this...

The US focus had the 2.0l SPI and 2.0l Zetec engines from 2000 to 2004 (SVT was basically a Zetec engine but all juiced up). In 2003 they started offering the 2.3l Duratec in a few key states (green states like California), as the 2.3l was a Pzev (partial zero emissions vehicle) engine. These Pzev 2.3l motors were available in 2003 and 2004. After 2004, they started shipping all Foci with the 2.0l Duratec (Pzev rated), and the 2005-2007 Focus ST came equipped with the 2.3l engine that had slightly more power but was not Pzev rated. In 2007 they stopped putting the 2.3l motor in the focus, and since then its been strictly limited to the 2.0l Duratec.

The Duratec engines are basically a mazda design. I had read some anecdotal history about the original design, that it owes some of its original roots to Cosworth...story goes something like this - Cosworth had some 4 cylinder racing engine designs on the shelf. When Ford and Cosworth were buddy buddy, ford got access to this info...then Ford and Mazda became friends, and mazda took these early designs and modified them for street car production use...enter the Mazda MZR/Ford Duratec I4 engines.
Sounds silly enough, however in racing trim these motors make a LOT of power...and Cosworth does have a whole slew of performance parts available for them, but I've never really been able to confirm the above story....so I'll just stick with the "mazda design" explination. Nice motor either way

 

[2002 Maxima SE]

Does anyone know what is the relation of the Ford Focus 2.0L to the new Mazda Sky-G 2.0L?

They seem to have similar MPG, HP and Torque.

 

[pzev]

They are one in the same....mostly. For the last few years, the Mazda versions have employed variable cam timing...whilst the ford engines lacked this feature. However, the latest Direct Injected variants both take advantage of variable valve timing...so really, these motors are virtual clones of one another. Mazda still employs their own ECU and software (at least they did over the last few years...might be different on new motors), but physically the motors are more or less the same. There are some minor parts differences between the two, mainly accessories and the like. In operations however, I'd expect similar behavior from both engines.

Mazda has done away with the 2.3L varient, and instead has made the move to the 2.5L duratec...which is just a bored out 2.3L with a touch more stoke. Ford too has abandoned the 2.3L for passanger car use. I believe the only remianing home for the 2.3L is the Ranger, and thats going the way of the dodo...if it hasn't already (I don't know when exactly it goes out of production).
No worries though, the 2.5L is better in virtually every regard. All the hot rod focus owners are already looking into stuffing 2.5L long blocks into their Foci. Early results seem to indicate that the 2.3l cylinder head will work with the 2.5L block...though I'm not up to date on the latest "discoveries".


Anyways, to put the answer in simple terms, all the current Mazda and Ford I4 engines are siblings, with a few minor differences here and there.

 

[Hokiefyd]

Originally Posted By: meep
i want to know what this "overriding alternator decoupler" thing is. allows lower belt tension and vibration reduction. ??

M


If it's a traditional overrunning alternator decoupler, it's like this:

http://www.litens.com/vibprod1.cfm

Many systems have used this for years. The alternators on our '03 Grand Caravan, '05 MDX, '07 Town & Country, '07 Corolla, and '11 Camry have had a decoupler.

 

[meep]

wow- never realized this was in play. we had an 03 caravan.. wonder if it used it. basically a rotational shock absorber. Neat!

 

[badtlc]

Originally Posted By: pzev
They are one in the same....mostly. For the last few years, the Mazda versions have employed variable cam timing...whilst the ford engines lacked this feature. However, the latest Direct Injected variants both take advantage of variable valve timing...so really, these motors are virtual clones of one another. Mazda still employs their own ECU and software (at least they did over the last few years...might be different on new motors), but physically the motors are more or less the same. There are some minor parts differences between the two, mainly accessories and the like. In operations however, I'd expect similar behavior from both engines.

Mazda has done away with the 2.3L varient, and instead has made the move to the 2.5L duratec...which is just a bored out 2.3L with a touch more stoke. Ford too has abandoned the 2.3L for passanger car use. I believe the only remianing home for the 2.3L is the Ranger, and thats going the way of the dodo...if it hasn't already (I don't know when exactly it goes out of production).
No worries though, the 2.5L is better in virtually every regard. All the hot rod focus owners are already looking into stuffing 2.5L long blocks into their Foci. Early results seem to indicate that the 2.3l cylinder head will work with the 2.5L block...though I'm not up to date on the latest "discoveries".


Anyways, to put the answer in simple terms, all the current Mazda and Ford I4 engines are siblings, with a few minor differences here and there.


They aren't as similar as you are trying to indicate. Even when the motors included the same features on both the Ford and Mazda platforms (like VVT), everything but the block was different. About the only after market parts you could use on both was an oil filter. The mazda folks have long been frustrated they can't use Focus or Fusion parts on 3s and 6s.

 

[pidster]

Originally Posted By: Eric Smith
160HP? Good grief to bad you can't trade a few ponies for better MPG. Sounds fun to drive though!


Originally Posted By: Johnny248
I'd rather get 30mpg and 250+ Hp


Guess they found a happy medium between guys like each of you

I'm in the 30/250 camp myself

J/K 160 is just about right for this type of vehicle and that is outstanding MPG.

If you aren't satisfied with this kind of MPG and power is unimportant why not pick up a Fiesta instead?

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Johnny248
I'd rather get 30mpg and 250+ Hp. BTW, what engines don't have some sort of forged, hypereutectic, or cast aluminum pistons?


In this day and age of $4+ and rising gas prices, I'd say most people would rather have the 40 MPG version...

 

[dailydriver]

Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Johnny248
I'd rather get 30mpg and 250+ Hp. BTW, what engines don't have some sort of forged, hypereutectic, or cast aluminum pistons?


In this day and age of $4+ and rising gas prices, I'd say most people would rather have the 40 MPG version...



Maybe, but then to some of us the performance is more important than point A to point B as frugally as possible, and we're even willing to do without other things which others might consider "essentials" (i.e.; booze, cancer sticks, filet mignon, 10,000 channel cable/satellite service, gambling, etc.) to have said performance.

(BTW; despite the performance, I get up to 33mpg on the highway anyway!

)

 

[Patman]

Originally Posted By: pidster


Guess they found a happy medium between guys like each of you

I'm in the 30/250 camp myself


I can get over 30MPG on a pure highway run in my Corvette and it's making roughly 375hp. So I wouldn't be too happy with only 30/250

Since I've already got a fast car, for me I would like to have a second car that gets incredible MPG and it doesn't need to be powerful. So I'd be happy with an engine that makes only 100hp but gets 50 MPG highway.

Considering the price of gas over the last 5 years in North America, I'm really shocked that the car makers haven't come out with a lot of super high MPG cars. The technology is certainly there to do it! And Europe has a lot of small light cars with tiny engines in them, why not bring them over here? (like the VW Polo for instance, there is supposedly a version of that which gets almost 90 MPG!)

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: dailydriver
Originally Posted By: grampi
Originally Posted By: Johnny248
I'd rather get 30mpg and 250+ Hp. BTW, what engines don't have some sort of forged, hypereutectic, or cast aluminum pistons?


In this day and age of $4+ and rising gas prices, I'd say most people would rather have the 40 MPG version...



Maybe, but then to some of us the performance is more important than point A to point B as frugally as possible, and we're even willing to do without other things which others might consider "essentials" (i.e.; booze, cancer sticks, filet mignon, 10,000 channel cable/satellite service, gambling, etc.) to have said performance.

(BTW; despite the performance, I get up to 33mpg on the highway anyway!

)


I think we've established that SOME would prefer the 250 hp version, but MOST would prefer the 40 MPG version. Besides, the 160 hp version would be no slouch...

 

[grampi]

Originally Posted By: Patman
Considering the price of gas over the last 5 years in North America, I'm really shocked that the car makers haven't come out with a lot of super high MPG cars. The technology is certainly there to do it! And Europe has a lot of small light cars with tiny engines in them, why not bring them over here? (like the VW Polo for instance, there is supposedly a version of that which gets almost 90 MPG!)


I predict the replies to this are going to be saying something to the effect that consumers don't want those vehicles here in the states. I say while that may have been true when gas was $3 or less, I would say demand for more fuel efficient vehicles will increase as gas prices increase. If gas prices get much higher, people will be screaming for fuel sippers...

 

[pidster]

Understandable that a Ford Focus is not the car for performance freaks, unless they were to produce a separate turbocharged version like we had with the Neon and SRT4 from Chrysler/Dodge.

And I agree with Patman that there should be super high MPG cars for sale that outdo what's selling now by a long shot in the MPG department. Not that I'd buy one personally but plenty of folks would dive on it and it helps us all out overall when people save fuel.

There used to be things like the old 80s diesel VW Rabbit. Nothing for sale on this continent that approaches that efficiency short of a hybrid, and even they can only match it at best, not outdo it.

 

[Craig in Canada]

I don't find it very impressive at all.

My 1998 BMW 528i w/ 200,000km weighs in the 3500lb+ range, has on the order of 200hp/200ft-lb in present trim, is equipped with 235 width summer tires (Michelin PS2s) on it and gets 32-34 USmpg fairly repeatably on summer fuel highway trips with a family and luggage on board.

A car with 15 years newer engine technology, less displacement, less weight and narrower LRR tires should be able to exceeed my car's capability by more than 6mpg IMO.

 

[Pesca]

Originally Posted By: Patman
Considering the price of gas over the last 5 years in North America, I'm really shocked that the car makers haven't come out with a lot of super high MPG cars. The technology is certainly there to do it! And Europe has a lot of small light cars with tiny engines in them, why not bring them over here? (like the VW Polo for instance, there is supposedly a version of that which gets almost 90 MPG!)


Could you show a gasoline car that will do 50 MPG in real life, in Europe?
There is none that I know. VW can say that their Polo do whatever they dream of, in real life, with a gas engine, it won't do more than 50 MPG.
Even diesel 90HP engine have a hard time doing that in real life.

Look at the new Accent from Hyundai compare to the Elantra: Smaller engine (1.6 l and the Rio will get the 1.4) vs 1.8, smaller and lighter car,... but still 40 MPG highway, no more.

 

[IndyIan]

Originally Posted By: Craig in Canada
I don't find it very impressive at all.

My 1998 BMW 528i w/ 200,000km weighs in the 3500lb+ range, has on the order of 200hp/200ft-lb in present trim, is equipped with 235 width summer tires (Michelin PS2s) on it and gets 32-34 USmpg fairly repeatably on summer fuel highway trips with a family and luggage on board.

A car with 15 years newer engine technology, less displacement, less weight and narrower LRR tires should be able to exceeed my car's capability by more than 6mpg IMO.


But your cars epa highway rating is 26mpg? Probably the new Focus driven on your trips should get into the low 40's mpg, given that you are beating the epa highway rating on your car by ~20%. Add 20% to the Focus rating and compare them then. Hwy ratings also are more about drag and gearing than weight. I imagine a new Focus has equal or more frontal area than your BMW and may have a higher drag coefficient too...