Surprised at somewhat 'low' MPG in the Foci
- Thread starter Klutch9
- Start date
- Status
My brother's fiancee has a 2004 Focus. They get about 30-31 mpg highway with it. Brother is also drooling over my Cruze. That thing whips its EPA highway rating silly. 50 mpg on longer highway trips is commonplace with that car.
Originally Posted By: Klutch9
Lately I have been doing a lot of interstate driving. This past tank, which was about 95% freeway driving, 5% downtown stop-and-go, I only averaged 31.xx MPG in my Focus.
Your car is getting the same mileage as "EPA Fuel Economy" for 2007 Ford Focus.
Per EPA's MPG rating: 23 city, 31 highway
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/22757.shtml
Lately I have been doing a lot of interstate driving. This past tank, which was about 95% freeway driving, 5% downtown stop-and-go, I only averaged 31.xx MPG in my Focus.
Your car is getting the same mileage as "EPA Fuel Economy" for 2007 Ford Focus.
Per EPA's MPG rating: 23 city, 31 highway
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/22757.shtml
Originally Posted By: sciphi
My brother's fiancee has a 2004 Focus. They get about 30-31 mpg highway with it. Brother is also drooling over my Cruze. That thing whips its EPA highway rating silly. 50 mpg on longer highway trips is commonplace with that car.
I take it you have the cruze Eco? My father just picked up a 2012 1.8L model, and he averages about 30-32mpg on the highway. He absolutely hates the car lol, and its totally my fault. It has no power, the auto-tragic transmission kicks like an angry donkey when it shifts gear in urban settings, and it doesn't have cruise control (neither of us noticed on the lot lol). I talked him into the lower end model as he just needed a basic commuter. In hindsight, I should have let him get the 1.4L turbo...I just figured a direct injected turbo motor was not worth the maintenance risk.
I'm pretty sure the transmission would still suck, but at least he could stop [censored] about the lack of power.
As for the Focus, the OP should count his blessings. My 2003 with the thirsty 2.3L Duratec averages roughly 23-24mpg on a tank with split highway/city driving. I've had quit a few tanks with MPG numbers in the teens. My highway average is probably 27-28mpg @ 80mph with the AC on. My personal best is probably 32mpg, though tanks like that are rare. In SoCal, its just too easy to drive 85mph everywhere. But to be fair, my MPG numbers are 95% my fault...I'm young, male, and drive like a retard. [censored], I'm on my 4th set of tires and brakes in only 100k miles
.
I've only had 5 accidents, but none of them counted as they never located the bodies...
I kid I kid...my driving record is perfect
.
My brother's fiancee has a 2004 Focus. They get about 30-31 mpg highway with it. Brother is also drooling over my Cruze. That thing whips its EPA highway rating silly. 50 mpg on longer highway trips is commonplace with that car.
I take it you have the cruze Eco? My father just picked up a 2012 1.8L model, and he averages about 30-32mpg on the highway. He absolutely hates the car lol, and its totally my fault. It has no power, the auto-tragic transmission kicks like an angry donkey when it shifts gear in urban settings, and it doesn't have cruise control (neither of us noticed on the lot lol). I talked him into the lower end model as he just needed a basic commuter. In hindsight, I should have let him get the 1.4L turbo...I just figured a direct injected turbo motor was not worth the maintenance risk.
I'm pretty sure the transmission would still suck, but at least he could stop [censored] about the lack of power.
As for the Focus, the OP should count his blessings. My 2003 with the thirsty 2.3L Duratec averages roughly 23-24mpg on a tank with split highway/city driving. I've had quit a few tanks with MPG numbers in the teens. My highway average is probably 27-28mpg @ 80mph with the AC on. My personal best is probably 32mpg, though tanks like that are rare. In SoCal, its just too easy to drive 85mph everywhere. But to be fair, my MPG numbers are 95% my fault...I'm young, male, and drive like a retard. [censored], I'm on my 4th set of tires and brakes in only 100k miles
.I've only had 5 accidents, but none of them counted as they never located the bodies...
I kid I kid...my driving record is perfect
Originally Posted By: pzev
Originally Posted By: sciphi
My brother's fiancee has a 2004 Focus. They get about 30-31 mpg highway with it. Brother is also drooling over my Cruze. That thing whips its EPA highway rating silly. 50 mpg on longer highway trips is commonplace with that car.
I take it you have the cruze Eco? My father just picked up a 2012 1.8L model, and he averages about 30-32mpg on the highway. He absolutely hates the car lol, and its totally my fault. It has no power, the auto-tragic transmission kicks like an angry donkey when it shifts gear in urban settings, and it doesn't have cruise control (neither of us noticed on the lot lol). I talked him into the lower end model as he just needed a basic commuter. In hindsight, I should have let him get the 1.4L turbo...I just figured a direct injected turbo motor was not worth the maintenance risk.
I'm pretty sure the transmission would still suck, but at least he could stop [censored] about the lack of power.
As for the Focus, the OP should count his blessings. My 2003 with the thirsty 2.3L Duratec averages roughly 23-24mpg on a tank with split highway/city driving. I've had quit a few tanks with MPG numbers in the teens. My highway average is probably 27-28mpg @ 80mph with the AC on. My personal best is probably 32mpg, though tanks like that are rare. In SoCal, its just too easy to drive 85mph everywhere. But to be fair, my MPG numbers are 95% my fault...I'm young, male, and drive like a retard. [censored], I'm on my 4th set of tires and brakes in only 100k miles.
I've only had 5 accidents, but none of them counted as they never located the bodies...
I kid I kid...my driving record is perfect
.
Yes, I've got the fuel economy queen Eco manual transmission. Also, neither engine in the Cruze is direct injected. I thought so myself, but learned otherwise. It's a traditional port-injected turbo engine. It's better than the 1.8 since it's better on gas, faster, and less raucous in the cabin.
I never cared much for Ford products from that era. Not like any Detroit automaker was doing much of note for small cars then, either...
Originally Posted By: sciphi
My brother's fiancee has a 2004 Focus. They get about 30-31 mpg highway with it. Brother is also drooling over my Cruze. That thing whips its EPA highway rating silly. 50 mpg on longer highway trips is commonplace with that car.
I take it you have the cruze Eco? My father just picked up a 2012 1.8L model, and he averages about 30-32mpg on the highway. He absolutely hates the car lol, and its totally my fault. It has no power, the auto-tragic transmission kicks like an angry donkey when it shifts gear in urban settings, and it doesn't have cruise control (neither of us noticed on the lot lol). I talked him into the lower end model as he just needed a basic commuter. In hindsight, I should have let him get the 1.4L turbo...I just figured a direct injected turbo motor was not worth the maintenance risk.
I'm pretty sure the transmission would still suck, but at least he could stop [censored] about the lack of power.
As for the Focus, the OP should count his blessings. My 2003 with the thirsty 2.3L Duratec averages roughly 23-24mpg on a tank with split highway/city driving. I've had quit a few tanks with MPG numbers in the teens. My highway average is probably 27-28mpg @ 80mph with the AC on. My personal best is probably 32mpg, though tanks like that are rare. In SoCal, its just too easy to drive 85mph everywhere. But to be fair, my MPG numbers are 95% my fault...I'm young, male, and drive like a retard. [censored], I'm on my 4th set of tires and brakes in only 100k miles
.I've only had 5 accidents, but none of them counted as they never located the bodies...
I kid I kid...my driving record is perfect
Yes, I've got the fuel economy queen Eco manual transmission. Also, neither engine in the Cruze is direct injected. I thought so myself, but learned otherwise. It's a traditional port-injected turbo engine. It's better than the 1.8 since it's better on gas, faster, and less raucous in the cabin.
I never cared much for Ford products from that era. Not like any Detroit automaker was doing much of note for small cars then, either...
Originally Posted By: carwreck
Originally Posted By: Klutch9
Lately I have been doing a lot of interstate driving. This past tank, which was about 95% freeway driving, 5% downtown stop-and-go, I only averaged 31.xx MPG in my Focus.
Your car is getting the same mileage as "EPA Fuel Economy" for 2007 Ford Focus.
Per EPA's MPG rating: 23 city, 31 highway
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/22757.shtml
Hmmm... I swear I saw somewhere else a higher rating than 31 mpg for hwy. But your source is more legit.
I forgot to add that my car also has the slightly wider 205mm tires, standard on the 16" option wheels, which I have. The base option was a 15" wheel with 195mm tires. So I guess the slightly wider tires could also be hurting mpg's. Although I'm not willing to give the wider tires up, since the handling on this thing is great
Originally Posted By: Klutch9
Lately I have been doing a lot of interstate driving. This past tank, which was about 95% freeway driving, 5% downtown stop-and-go, I only averaged 31.xx MPG in my Focus.
Your car is getting the same mileage as "EPA Fuel Economy" for 2007 Ford Focus.
Per EPA's MPG rating: 23 city, 31 highway
http://www.fueleconomy.gov/feg/noframes/22757.shtml
Hmmm... I swear I saw somewhere else a higher rating than 31 mpg for hwy. But your source is more legit.
I forgot to add that my car also has the slightly wider 205mm tires, standard on the 16" option wheels, which I have. The base option was a 15" wheel with 195mm tires. So I guess the slightly wider tires could also be hurting mpg's. Although I'm not willing to give the wider tires up, since the handling on this thing is great
Originally Posted By: JOD
When I was looking at wagons, I remember that there was a reflash available which supposedly helped fuel economy quite a bit (while increasing emissions a little bit). I can't remember what years, but you may want to search that on the Focus forums.
I looked into that. Apparently it was applied to the 2007 Foci from the factory, but only the 5-speed MTX models. Mine is an automatic, so it doesn't apply to me. The MTX's are rated for 34 mpg on the highway, while the ATX only 31. That's a sizable gap, but it looks like I'm right on par, if not slightly above the EPA estimates for my car.
When I was looking at wagons, I remember that there was a reflash available which supposedly helped fuel economy quite a bit (while increasing emissions a little bit). I can't remember what years, but you may want to search that on the Focus forums.
I looked into that. Apparently it was applied to the 2007 Foci from the factory, but only the 5-speed MTX models. Mine is an automatic, so it doesn't apply to me. The MTX's are rated for 34 mpg on the highway, while the ATX only 31. That's a sizable gap, but it looks like I'm right on par, if not slightly above the EPA estimates for my car.
JHZR2
Staff member
Originally Posted By: SteveSRT8
Pops speaks rather condescendingly to all of us. We've come to ignore it.
Me too, but he is right in this case...
Pops speaks rather condescendingly to all of us. We've come to ignore it.
Me too, but he is right in this case...
I happen to use a 2004 Focus ZTS 2.3L 5spd. as my daily driver. When using regular gas the car averages 32 mpg driving 13 miles highway and 1 mile street to work. When taken to Arizona the car did 35 mpg at 75 mph before stopping for gas. During this winter the oxygenated gas has caused the mileage to drop to 29.3 mpg. Overall I think it is pretty good especially given how quick this engine is and how hard it is to resist zooming around. As an idea of my driving the car is at 117,000 miles and still on the original brakes. That supposedly was a weak point in the 2004 model year.
Last edited:
Originally Posted By: Klutch9
Hmmm... I swear I saw somewhere else a higher rating than 31 mpg for hwy. But your source is more legit.
I forgot to add that my car also has the slightly wider 205mm tires, standard on the 16" option wheels, which I have. The base option was a 15" wheel with 195mm tires. So I guess the slightly wider tires could also be hurting mpg's. Although I'm not willing to give the wider tires up, since the handling on this thing is great
I have 205's on mine as well and I just love taking corners with it. In fact, I had just commented on this to the wife the other night
Hmmm.. does the reflash apply to 2006? Even though I seem to be beating the EPA's estimated city mileage.. whoohoo!
Hmmm... I swear I saw somewhere else a higher rating than 31 mpg for hwy. But your source is more legit.
I forgot to add that my car also has the slightly wider 205mm tires, standard on the 16" option wheels, which I have. The base option was a 15" wheel with 195mm tires. So I guess the slightly wider tires could also be hurting mpg's. Although I'm not willing to give the wider tires up, since the handling on this thing is great
I have 205's on mine as well and I just love taking corners with it. In fact, I had just commented on this to the wife the other night
Hmmm.. does the reflash apply to 2006? Even though I seem to be beating the EPA's estimated city mileage.. whoohoo!
- Status
Similar threads
