Twitter headlines« Hybrid-Electric Cargo Transfer Crane to Be Tested in Japan | Main | Hydrogen Engine Center in MoU for Power Generation for Chemical Plants »
Ford Bumps Up the Fuel Efficiency of the 2007 Focus by 7%
27 August 2006
Changes to the engine management software along with new low-rolling resistance tires have netted a 3-mpg increase in highway mileage for the 2007 Ford Focus 2.0-liter with a manual transmission.
The Focus now will deliver 27 mpg in the city and 37 mpg on the highway (31 mpg combined). The 2.0-liter automatic delivers 27 mpg in the city and 34 mpg on the highway (30 mpg combined). For 2007, the base Focus models come equipped with 14-inch Hankook tires that offer better rolling resistance than the 2006 model.
| Ford Focus Fuel Economy (2.0L) (EPA-rated mpg US) | |||
|---|---|---|---|
| Model | City | Hwy. | Comb. |
| 2006 Man. | 26 | 34 | 29 |
| 2007 Man. | 27 | 37 | 31 |
| % Change in 2007 Man. | +4% | +9% | +7% |
| 2006 Auto. | 26 | 32 | 28 |
| 2007 Auto. | 27 | 34 | 30 |
| % Change in 2007 Auto. | +4% | +6% | +7% |
The 2006 Ford Focus with the 2.0-liter engine and a manual transmission was EPA-rated at 26 mpg city, 34 mpg highway and 29 mpg combined. The change in the 2007 model thus represents a 7% increase in combined cycle fuel efficiency.
The 2006 Focus with an automatic transmission had a rating of 26 mpg city, 32 mpg highway, 28 mpg combined. The corresponding 2007 model also provides a 7% boost in efficiency.
The Focus engine was originally calibrated for emissions. We noticed during testing that we could get a lot better fuel mileage by making some adjustments to the calibration while still meeting emissions.
—Nicholas Schubeck, supervisor, Powertrain Calibration for Ford Motor Company
The engineering team increased the engine’s spark and revised the exhaust-gas recirculation and intake manifold runner control (IMRC) schedules. The IMRC is a device on the intake manifold that increases the velocity of the air going into the cylinder at low speeds. Increasing air velocity helps in the proper air-fuel ratios.
The issue is that the system also creates a lot of pumping losses, which reduce fuel mileage. By opening up the IMRC a lot earlier to reduce pumping losses, fuel mileage was increased.
—Nicholas Schubeck
The extra engine spark also improves acceleration, and the refinements to the engine have eliminated the hesitation that normally occurs when the air conditioning is in operation, according to Ford.
August 27, 2006 in Engines, Fuel Efficiency, Tires | Permalink | Comments (37) | TrackBack (0)
Comments
Posted by: Patrick | August 28, 2006 at 04:39 PM
A "Bold Move", as Ford advertizes, would to make a full hyrid Focus available. Judging by the length of time the Escape took to bring to market I won't hold my breath.
Posted by: ed | August 28, 2006 at 08:28 PM
It's a start, I guess. So we should congratulate them for that. But my 86 Escort for 32 and 45, a little better if I really tried. For many years, factory tuning has ignored MPG. Power first, then emissions and forget about MPG.
The next move should be returning to smaller base engines. You don't need a 2.3 in a car that small. With the massive improvements in engine management, they should easily be able to get better mpg than my carburated 86 Escort. Continually bumping up displacement (1.6, then 1.9, then 2.0, and now 2.3) is the low tech easy copout. Drop back down to a 1.3-1.5 (possible with today's engine management) and throw a turbocharger on it for the pimple-faced boy racer crowd.
Re: LRV tires. They aren't loud, they a almost silent. No grip means little resistance thus little noise. It also means bad handling. Slow down and enjoy the ride, man.
Posted by: nemo | August 29, 2006 at 09:45 AM
Patrick,
The Mazda3 and Mazda5 are based on the same platform as the current volvo S40, S50, Euro Focus, Focus C-Max, and 2010 US Focus; the C1 platform.
Posted by: allen Z | September 01, 2006 at 08:15 PM
The platform is shared but only the 2.3L engine is similar in each (still setup different). The 2.0L duratech (focus) and 2.0L mazda engine are different...notice how one gets 130hp and the other gets 148hp.
Posted by: Patrick | September 05, 2006 at 11:55 AM
Mileage for small displacement engines are significantly impacted by where you do your driving. In Arizona, my Scion xA (auto) drops from 34mpg combined in the temperate Spring to 27mpg combined in the Arizona summer, plus offers sluggish performance under all acceleration conditions. We would be better served with Federal estimates that were adjusted for climate and conditions.
Posted by: Brian Lawson | September 20, 2006 at 11:09 PM
The new Hankook tires are 15", actually (Focus S, SE, and all wagons use Hankook Optimo H725 tires, size P195/60R15 87T).
Posted by: Habakkuk | April 15, 2007 at 01:45 PM
I suspect that the required HP for driving the Focus at a steady speed (say 35 mph) in the city is under 8 HP. The BSFC map for the 2 liter engine has the minimum BSFC at about 100 Nm and 2000 RPM, or 28 HP. So there no need for exceeding 2000 RPM in the city for best fuel economy. 31 mpg combined is very low, and if the shift speeds are selected for good fuel economy, they should be able to get closer to 40 mpg. I have a 2003 Subaru Forester with a 2.5 liter engine and a 5 speed manual, and I get 38-39 mpg in the summer (34-35 in winter) for combined city highway by keeping the engine speed between 1500 and 2000 RPM, unless I am above 45 mph.
Posted by: Robert Shafer | April 21, 2007 at 06:59 PM
Here is calculation of HP required at a steady speed of 35 mph (15.65 m/sec):
Tire rolling resistance
RRC =.01; M = 1400 kg, g = 9.81, so rolling resistance power is force x velocity = 2150 watts;
Air drag
air dens = 1.2 kg/m^3, Area = 1.5 m^2, drag coeff = 0.32, so (1/2) x 1.2 x 1.5 x 0.32 x 15.65^3 = 1100 watts;
transmission (96% eff) = 0.04 x (2150 + 1100) = 130 watts;
accessories = 500 watts,
for a total of 3880 watts (5.2 HP), so keep the revs below 2000 RPM except on the highway.
Posted by: Robert Shafer | April 21, 2007 at 07:26 PM
The tires are Hankook Optimo H725
Amazingly, they achieve a UTQG Traction rating of only B, while virtually all new tires achieve an A or AA. Now that is sacrificing safety for mileage. Way to go Hankook! :(
http://www.hankooktireusa.com/product/tire_detail.asp?pid=938
http://www.hankooktireusa.com/product/oe_H725.pdf
Posted by: ahmadr | May 04, 2007 at 02:17 PM
I just bought a 07 Focus, manual trans, and I only got 22 mpg on the first tank of fuel. What's up??
Posted by: Rob | August 24, 2007 at 03:55 PM
I recently purchased a 2007 focus ses, the second focus I've owned. Been an ase certified(master)tech for a long time.
The focus isn't perfect, but the cost is good. Quality is improving.
After 5000 miles I can get 30 mpg combined easy if I keep my foot out of it, But only 22mpg when I'm on the gas.
But to that extent, my 2.0L with 16 inch pirellis' is way faster than my first 2001 model, and handles like a dream in the twisty turnies.
AND it will smoke any of those mpg models if and when the need or desire arises! I have motorcycle racing background, I do know what I'm talking about.
Posted by: dale smith | October 05, 2007 at 11:39 AM
TrackBack
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00d8341c4fbe53ef00d834546b5c69e2
Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Ford Bumps Up the Fuel Efficiency of the 2007 Focus by 7%:
Civic, Corolla, Mazda3, Lancer and Elantra are more closely aligned comparisons. Before the modification the Focus fell at the back of the pack on a purely fuel economy basis. Now it would be mid pack (3rd) which isn't too shabby.