Ford Focus Coupé-Cabriolet on Sale in Europe in October; 40 MPG for the Diesel
03 July 2006
![]() |
The Focus Coupé-Cabriolet. |
Ford will put its new Ford Focus Coupé-Cabriolet on sale in Europe in October. The car made its world debut at the Geneva Auto Show in February, and will make its UK debut at the British International Motor Show in July.
The Coupé-Cabriolet offers a choice of three engines—two gasoline and one diesel—with target combined cycle fuel consumption ranging from 7.5 liters/100km (31 mpg US) for the high-end gasoline version to 5.9 liters/100 km (40 mpg US) for the diesel version.
The new Coupé-Cabriolet uses a new two-piece folding hardtop. Opening or closing takes just 29 seconds.
Focus Coupé-Cabriolet | |||
---|---|---|---|
Engine | 1.6-liter Duratec | 2.0-liter Duratec | 2.0-liter Duratorq |
Fuel | Gasoline | Gasoline | Diesel |
Power hp (kW) | 99 (74) | 143 (107) | 134 (100) |
Acceleration (0-62mph) (seconds) | 13.6 | 10.3 | 10.3 |
Fuel consumption (l/100km) (combined) | 7.1 | 7.5 | 5.9 |
Fuel economy (mpg US) (combined) | 33 | 31 | 40 |
More technical details will come closer to sales launch.
The Ford Focus is one of the most successful model ranges in Europe with more than four million units built, not including 370,000 Focus C-MAX models built since its launch in 2003. The Focus range sold 442,000 units in Europe in 2005.
Ford has sold more than 5 million Focus cars worldwide; the Focus was the best-selling car in the world in 2000 and 2001.
A 40 mpg diesel convertible sports car. Who'd a thunk it?
Posted by: tom deplume | 03 July 2006 at 10:27 AM
It is not a spots car, but it does have adaquate zip. Incorporate manual and automatic stoplight shutdown and instant restart will help with fuel economy too.
_
___On a side note, how useful would a bourke engine be? Would one meet emissions standards? Would the scotch yoke and roller be too unreliable?
Posted by: allen zheng | 03 July 2006 at 10:47 AM
Get it chipped, FMIC and Cat2: 0-60 in the 8 sec range. Adding Propane injection gets it in the high 6's low 7's. I'd call that a sports car.
Oh, and it will still get 40 MPG.
Posted by: Joseph | 03 July 2006 at 11:38 AM
You can put whatever aftermarket mods you want on a car but that won't make it a sports car. BTW what are your emissions readout when you hit the propane injection and how many people really want to have to stop at a gas station for diesel and then the local U-haul (or equivalent) to fill up their propane tank? Professionally installed FMIC will be in the $1000 to $2000 price range...not something most people are willing to do.
How does the European drive cycle translate over to EPA numbers? A Focus here gets 32mpg combined with the 2.0L motor but that is in a much lighter and more aerodynamic non-cabriolet.
Posted by: Patrick | 03 July 2006 at 12:17 PM
Propane gives it a better burn, hence the more power. If you use BioD or ULSD your emissions are rock bottom.
Posted by: joseph | 03 July 2006 at 01:22 PM
October is kind of the wrong time of year to launch a convertible in Europe, most of Ford's competitors (VW, Opel, Nissan, Mitsubishi, Peugeot, Renault et al.) are already on the market with their retractable hardtops - apparently, they're all the rage this year.
You can get pretty much every car (except true sports cars) with a diesel engine in Europe. In terms of fuel economy, 5.9L/100km is the same as the VW Eos with a 103kW turbodiesel with DPF, a fancier vehicle of similar size with a higher price tag. Always bear in mind that diesel has ~12% higher energy density than gasoline. In most European countries, diesel is also taxed less heavily than gasoline, skewing the financial implications even further in favor of the oil burners.
Note that a diesel engine is much heavier than a gasoline design with the same displacement. Suspension and steering have to be adapted. Typically, the result is slightly reduced high-speed cornering ability.
The European Focus is a newer design than the US model, with different safety-related features. Moreover, US fuel economy numbers are based on a different test cycle, making fuel economy numbers even harder to compare. The MPG number you see quoted above is simply 235.21/x where x is the consumption in L/100km and should be considered approximate when comparing against EPA numbers for similar US models.
Convertibles always use a little more fuel because their underbody has to be more substantial (i.e. heavier) to achieve adequate torsional stiffness. With the top down, fuel economy is of course worse than advertised due to poor aerodynamics.
Allen -
wrt to the Bourke engine. The design never got anywhere for the following reasons:
(a) two stroke cycle w/ external scavenging. Oil near the exhaust slits and upper piston rings will coke up, exhaust back pressure too high for three-way catalyst. Might work as a diesel. Implementation as a 4-stroke possible but cylinder heads would add substantial complexity and width (cp. Porsche, Subaru opposed cylinder engines)
(b) horizontal piston orientation, with corresponding low center of gravity. Oil in the crankcase will slosh about in turns. Requires expensive dry sump (cp. race and other opposed cylinder engines)
(c) Scotch yoke adds a lot of mass relative to V180 layout (cp. Ferrari 312B) using the same materials. High inertial forces of 1st order for 2 & 8 cylinder units. High inertial moments of 1st order for 4 & 6 cylinder units. Expensive inertial combensation required.
What you gain with a Scotch is greatly reduced friction due to lateral forces. There is another way to achieve that in a two stroke: use sliding arc end on the conn rod instead of a full eyelet. This yield a virtual conn rod of greater length, but it requires that the pressure differential between cylinder and crankcase always be positive (see Figure 2 on this URL):
http://home.arcor.de/hildst/EnEx99e.html
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 03 July 2006 at 01:49 PM
When will Ford bring this to the US? A diesel convertible would rock! Wake up Ford!
Posted by: iltdi | 03 July 2006 at 03:40 PM
iltdi -
relative to PFI naturally aspirated gasoline engines of similar rated power, common-rail turbodiesels deliver roughly twice the fuel economy gains of electric hybrids at roughly half the mark-up.
Unfortunately, without NOx aftertreatment, current-generation LDV turbodiesels cannot meet EPA Tier 2 emissions levels for 2007. Mercedes is the only manufacturer that has bitten this bullet, with a single E-class model.
CARB's LEV II regulations are stricter on PM but a little less strict on NOx. In practice, carmakers such as VW and Honda have indicated they will not be bringing new diesel models to the US until and unless they can be sold in all 50 states. Technologically, this is possible today. It's all about cost, market acceptance and getting the regulators to give the go-ahead.
If a diesel convertible does make it to the US in the next decade, chances are it will be a vehicle from DCX or VW, not Ford.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 03 July 2006 at 04:18 PM
I think diesel vehicles and hybrids, in the US, have the potential to fill a niche market that is begging for high mpg vehicle options. As sales drop for Ford in June it would be logical to think FE vehicles would come to the US soon. Unfortunately, US FE vehicle options offered by GM, Ford, and Chrysler do not follow logic.
Posted by: tvent | 03 July 2006 at 04:29 PM
The Euro Focus is the basis for the Volvo S40 and the Mazda 3 which are available in the US.
The Focus platform can never be a sports car because it is a front driver. Sports cars must have a more equal weight distribution and are always rear or 4 wheel drive.
Posted by: Robert Schwartz | 03 July 2006 at 04:31 PM
Rafael,
Thx.
Other stuff.
_Renault/Nissan is teasing us with this GM deal. Does Gohn really want to tackle GM and its problems? Both Nissan and Renault have structural obligation cost benefits vs the Detroit 3.
Posted by: allen zheng | 03 July 2006 at 05:01 PM
Allen - the teasing is mostly Kavorkian's, though Ghosn appears interested in talking to GM, whose market value is down to just $17 billion.
http://www.hybridcars.com/blogs/hyview/kerkorian
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 03 July 2006 at 05:43 PM
Rafael: Isn't Kavorkian the "Doctor of Death?" I think it is Kirk Kirkorian -- or was that slip intended in reference to GM? -- appropriate if it was. Kavorkian could put them out of our misery.
Posted by: JM | 03 July 2006 at 08:14 PM
Due to different dynamic of fuel combustion diesel engine can use only about 2/3 of oxygen in charge air. Using propane injection to mix homogenously with intake air – in addition to full diesel fuel injection, it is possible to make use of about half of remaining oxygen without impairing quality of diesel fuel combustion. This is the reason of up to 30% increase of max power from propane injection, not because it improves combustion (imagine what emissions would be other vice without propane injection). Amount of propane injected should be closely controlled to avoid propane/air mixture self detonation if it will be too much propane in mix. This, plus expensive equipment required to handle high compression components drives price of the system up. There are way more cheaper alternative: electromagnetic oscillating pump 50/50 methanol/water injection with fine atomization into intake air. Works with same effect, but is way cheaper and convenient. As used only at burst of full power, or couple of seconds a time, consumption is quite reasonable – washer fluid tank is enough for two tank fills of diesel to fool yourself silly. This is new and not yet widespread technology. At gasoline engine the effect of methanol/water injection is up to 5% increase of max power for NA engines and up to 15% for tuned turbo/supercharged engines (this technology is quite common, having its roots at WW2 fighters).
This certainly does not make this car sport or even performance. One could change shocks, brakes, wheels, tires, but how to achieve low truck/wheelbase ratio, to name a few?
Posted by: Andrey | 03 July 2006 at 09:08 PM
Rafael: my all-time favorite is not Scotch yoke, but geometry described, for example, at http://patft.uspto.gov/netacgi/nph-Parser?Sect1=PTO2&Sect2=HITOFF&p=3&u=%2Fnetahtml%2FPTO%2Fsearch-bool.html&r=140&f=G&l=50&co1=AND&d=PTXT&s1=crankshaft.ABTX.&s2=directly.ABTX.&OS=ABST/crankshaft+AND+ABST/directly&RS=ABST/crankshaft+AND+ABST/directly
US patent 4,932,373.
It is not a root patent, just one of attempts to make work this majestic reciprocation/rotational converter geometry to work. Unfortunately, it is not robust enough to withstand use in ICE. The only claimed working device is some Japanese design, where connection rod is prolonged and connected to work directly on hydraulic pump. Thus this converted works only as phasing mechanism, but wonderful one.
Posted by: Andrey | 03 July 2006 at 09:16 PM
Rafael-
You misinterpreted my post. I know how to convert liters/100km to mpg. What I specifically was curious about was the translation of the European method of fuel economy rating as it has been noted and remarked upon by automotive magazines as being quite conservative (not as much as the Japanese method but moreso than the EPA numbers). Therefore, my point being that the numbers represented above are more optimistic than the EPA equivalent numbers and should be taken with a grain of salt.
Posted by: Patrick | 03 July 2006 at 09:43 PM
JM -
you're right. I posted the message late at night and got the two names confused. Kerkorian it is.
Patrick -
thank you for the clarification. The European fuel economy numbers are based on the NEDC 2000 test cycle. It consists of the ECE driving cycle (4x195 secs long) plus the EUDC highway cycle (400 secs). Maximum speed is 75 mph, but this is only reached briefly. Both portions include significant accceleration loads. However, average speed over the whole cycle is just 21mph. Low speeds yield low absolute fuel consumption despite poor thermodynamic efficiency in part load.
The EPS's MPG numbers are currently based on a weighted average of the results of the UDDS cycle (avg. speed 19.5mph) and the highway cycle (avg. speed 48.1mph), but the latter includes little in the way of acceleration load.
CO2 is usually measured but not reported in these tests anyhow, as a calibration parameter. Fuel use can be computed from the CO2 concentration as well as by weighing the fuel tank before and after.
However, the fuel quality (octane rating for gasoline, cetane rating for diesel) is slightly different on either side of the Atlantic. Moreover, because of differences in transmission layout, safety regs and emissions regs, the European and US versions of a given vehicle model are different. Therefore, the fuel economy results of the European and US tests simply cannot be compared verbatim.
EPA recently proposed including the supplemental SC03 and US06 cycles, which are already used for emissions certification, in the MPG numbers you see advertised in the showroom. Reportedly, the a/c will be switched on as well. Once the updated procedures come into effect, the EPA test should become a better predictor of real-world fuel economy.
I am not aware of a proposal to similarly tighten the NEDC test cycle.
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 04 July 2006 at 02:56 AM
For all you diesel sports cars fans out there, the following article (in German) might be interesting, if only for the pics and the sound clips.
VW's EcoRacer two-seater concept features a carbon fiber body with removable roof, weighs 850kgs and accelerates from 0-100kph (0-60mph) in 6.3 secs with a 1.5L 136hp diesel engine and dual-clutch transmission. Fuel consumption is 3.4L/100km, roughly 69 MPG US! (based on the NEDC, not race conditions, of course)
http://www.spiegel.de/auto/aktuell/0,1518,424869,00.html
Posted by: Rafael Seidl | 04 July 2006 at 10:11 AM
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/07/04/business/04gm.html?_r=1&oref=slogin
And the plot thickens!
Posted by: allen Z | 04 July 2006 at 12:05 PM
In an interview, the head of Nissan said that he would not work for GM. I thought that was a very clear statement coming from what amounts to a corporate politician. However, another interpretation of a merger would have him working with and not for GM...maybe he is a politician after all.
Posted by: sjc | 05 July 2006 at 10:54 PM