Ford Inside News banner

MPG War: Focus vs Elantra

5K views 10 replies 7 participants last post by  GlobalCarDealers 
#1 ·
posting in this section since it's News by the Auto Industry journalists ... with 'help' from Ford - or vice-versa

Focus vs. Elantra exercise proves Ford really wants mpg title - AutoNews
JAMIE LaREAU - August 27, 2011 - 12:01 am ET


Hyundai Motors Co. promotes that its redesigned Elantra earns 40 mpg on the highway. This must vex Ford Motor Co.

Ford's redesigned Focus gets 38 mpg highway -- unless a buyer opts for the SFE package (40 mpg).

Since the arrival of CEO Alan Mulally in 2006, Ford has set out to be the fuel economy leader in every segment. That's why Hyundai's claim must be especially irksome.

So by gosh, Ford is going to prove that it is the leader regardless of what window stickers or advertisements say...



for the results, click: HERE
 
See less See more
#3 ·
As far as I can remember, every test between the Focus and the Elantra and Cruze had the Focus getting significantly higher "as tested" fuel economy.

The others are gaming the system, where the Focus is more realistic.

Bravo to Ford. Having huge numbers on a window sticker, that are almost unatainable, will cause discontent with the others, as it has with the Equinox buyers. The only way they can get their 32mpg is downhill, with a strong tailwind.
 
#4 ·
So let me recap this article:

There was a Ford media event at Ford's proving grounds, where Ford supplied a Focus and one specific competitor (that happens to not even be the class leader in fuel economy) for a fuel economy demonstration. Ford defined the parameters of a test drive, and the fuel economy was recorded by a Ford engineer. Amazingly, the Ford product had the better fuel economy. And all the Ford fans rejoice...

Geez, and people think the EPA drive cycles are arbitrary...
 
#5 ·
So let me recap this article:

There was a Ford media event at Ford's proving grounds, where Ford supplied a Focus and one specific competitor (that happens to not even be the class leader in fuel economy) for a fuel economy demonstration. Ford defined the parameters of a test drive, and the fuel economy was recorded by a Ford engineer. Amazingly, the Ford product had the better fuel economy. And all the Ford fans rejoice...

Geez, and people think the EPA drive cycles are arbitrary...
EPA is a bit worse. Has not updated itself to best use the latest technologies such as Stop-Start.
 
#6 ·
So let me recap this article:

There was a Ford media event at Ford's proving grounds, where Ford supplied a Focus and one specific competitor (that happens to not even be the class leader in fuel economy) for a fuel economy demonstration. Ford defined the parameters of a test drive, and the fuel economy was recorded by a Ford engineer. Amazingly, the Ford product had the better fuel economy. And all the Ford fans rejoice...

Geez, and people think the EPA drive cycles are arbitrary...
yeahBUT
the EPA numbers are shoved down our throats like they're hard-scientific FACT


imho it's GOOD that Fomoco isn't taking this lying down - imho2 it'll be even better if this isn't a ONE-shot at HK
(tho I'm afraid Fomoco may not be as pro-active with other mfgs that habitually mislead people...like thier new "partner", Toyleta)
 
#7 ·
So let me recap this article:

There was a Ford media event at Ford's proving grounds, where Ford supplied a Focus and one specific competitor (that happens to not even be the class leader in fuel economy) for a fuel economy demonstration. Ford defined the parameters of a test drive, and the fuel economy was recorded by a Ford engineer. Amazingly, the Ford product had the better fuel economy. And all the Ford fans rejoice...

Geez, and people think the EPA drive cycles are arbitrary...
What you say, may be valid, except for one important part. Every single non Ford test, that has included these vehicles, has come up with the same conclusions. The Focus getting significantly better fuel economy in the test.

Ford tried to simplify their demonstration, to eliminate the accusation of gaming the system. Also, to eliminate driver differences. Basically, reduce it to its most simple form. Any vehicle, from an manufacturer, should be able to get stellar mileage at a steady state 45mph on flat ground. There is no technique involved. It is, what it is.

Sometimes I think we try to discredit anything done by any manufacturer, on their own turf. If tests by all other publications showed no consistancy, your conspiracy theory may hold a bit of water. However, unless someone wants to claim a vast conspiracy, of major proportions, with all other publications at the same time................. then Fords claim is pretty valid.
 
#8 ·
Every single non Ford test, that has included these vehicles, has come up with the same conclusions. The Focus getting significantly better fuel economy in the test.
That's quite a claim. That every single non-Ford test has the Focus, not just better, but significantly better fuel economy in the test. I did a bit of digging around google and found two comparisons which featured "real world" fuel economy.

I know Insideline did one, where the Focus got 27 mpg's on average compared to 23 for the Elantra.

http://www.insideline.com/ford/focu...titanium-vs-2011-hyundai-elantra-limited.html

But let's be honest, the general public does not buy these vehicles and drive them like their stolen, all sorts of speed tests, hard braking, etc like InsideLine. Do even 10% of the type of people buying this vehicle drive anywhere close to that? Especially those emphasizing fuel economy!? And would the average buyer also use 91-octane like IL did for this test?


The only other comparison I found was by automobile. They observed 36 in the Elantra, compared to 33 in the Focus, in what I would call much more realistic driving, again especially someone making a purchase with fuel economy in mind. Hmmm...

http://www.automobilemag.com/review..._2012_ford_focus_comparison/fuel_economy.html


Looking at Ford's test, please tell me you can't see the gaming a manufacturer can do, when they control all the variables in a test. Like the speed of 45 mph, what's the deal with 45? Why not 50? Why not 35? Why not 70? Why not do all of them and take the average? Let me take a guess that they didn't just pull the number '45' out of a hat. Could it be that the Focus happens to be in a lower gear ratio, produce lower RPM's at 45mph than the Elantra, thus can predictably produce better fuel economy at that speed. Or does this put me in the consiracy theorist camp? Is automobilemag also part of this conspiracy?
 
#9 ·
...Looking at Ford's test, please tell me you can't see the gaming a manufacturer can do, when they control all the variables in a test. Like the speed of 45 mph, what's the deal with 45? Why not 50? Why not 35? Why not 70? Why not do all of them and take the average? Let me take a guess that they didn't just pull the number '45' out of a hat. Could it be that the Focus happens to be in a lower gear ratio, produce lower RPM's at 45mph than the Elantra, thus can predictably produce better fuel economy at that speed. Or does this put me in the consiracy theorist camp? Is automobilemag also part of this conspiracy?
maybe...since they're reporters not pro-drivers Ford wanted to keep is simple?

I've read posts elsewhere where people speculated on the PROGRAMMING necessary to beat the EPA system ... which probably would benefit Very few drivers in the real world.

Which ^ sounds more conspiracy-ish?
 
#10 ·
With fuel economy being pretty much one of the deciding factors in this segment, the main players are the Japanese Duo, Ford, GM, and Hyundai. It's the Civic's and Corolla's game to lose and they are tripping on every move they make so whoever eats up their lost customers probably becomes the segment front runner for the next decade. Ford is at a disadvantage since they do not offer a manual to compete against the Cruze Eco so they have to combat the whole lower EPA rating against the Elantra.
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top