Page 1 of 2
Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 1:57 pm
by Steve@Tasca
Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:07 pm
by Redlineracer12
For these units, combined economy is listed as 67.3mpg
That's it?
Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 2:23 pm
by Steve@Tasca
Redlineracer12 wrote:For these units, combined economy is listed as 67.3mpg
That's it?
Is there some problem with 67.3 mpg?
I'm not aware of ANY car in the U.S. market that comes close to that mileage.
Don't make me come over there Tony

Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:06 pm
by Monkey Gein
FORDSVTPARTS wrote:Is there some problem with 67.3 mpg?
I'm not aware of ANY car in the U.S. market that comes close to that mileage.
The first Honda Insight.. it got 70-80 city.
we need the Euro Focus... BRING BACK THE HATCH... and they have a convert.
FOCUS FOR PREZ
Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 4:09 pm
by Steve@Tasca
Monkey Gein wrote:FORDSVTPARTS wrote:Is there some problem with 67.3 mpg?
I'm not aware of ANY car in the U.S. market that comes close to that mileage.
The first Honda Insight.. it got 70-80 city.
we need the Euro Focus... BRING BACK THE HATCH... and they have a convert.
FOCUS FOR PREZ
70-80 city doesn't count, you could ride a rechargeable skateboard to work too but try driving it cross country.
A fully functional roadworthy 67 mpg Fiesta would be a great little car.
Edit- I just checked and they showed the Insight at an EPA rated 70 mpg freeway and 60 mpg city but in a two year test it averaged an actual 48 mpg average.
Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:27 pm
by Monkey Gein
i'm talking the manual, not the auto
Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Fri Oct 17, 2008 6:46 pm
by Steve@Tasca
Monkey Gein wrote:i'm talking the manual, not the auto
60-70 is still a big jump from an actual tested 48 mpg, don't forget the 60-70 was rated under the old EPA rating system which was obviously less than accurate.
Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 12:04 am
by closetfordfan
I love to see Ford use some small turbo diesels like VW does. My dad has a Jetta tdi, and he averages 45 mpg, I'd want a focus or fiesta turbo diesel. Can you say, TORQUE!

Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 3:07 am
by ZX2_racer
I wanna import one.
Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 9:50 am
by frankjt96
closetfordfan wrote:I love to see Ford use some small turbo diesels like VW does. My dad has a Jetta tdi, and he averages 45 mpg, I'd want a focus or fiesta turbo diesel. Can you say, TORQUE!

I'd just like to see a small car made by ford in a 4cyl that actually has torque to begin with!!!!
Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 2:31 pm
by ZX2_racer
frankjt96 wrote:closetfordfan wrote:I love to see Ford use some small turbo diesels like VW does. My dad has a Jetta tdi, and he averages 45 mpg, I'd want a focus or fiesta turbo diesel. Can you say, TORQUE!

I'd just like to see a small car made by ford in a 4cyl that actually has torque to begin with!!!!
were not talking honda's here...
Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Sun Oct 19, 2008 7:55 pm
by Monkey Gein
FORDSVTPARTS wrote:60-70 is still a big jump from an actual tested 48 mpg, don't forget the 60-70 was rated under the old EPA rating system which was obviously less than accurate.
well, ok, you win.
BUT, i'm still right, it did at some point. i bet you could get them up to that or higher... so i'm double right...?
Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 4:19 pm
by Steve@Tasca
frankjt96 wrote:closetfordfan wrote:I love to see Ford use some small turbo diesels like VW does. My dad has a Jetta tdi, and he averages 45 mpg, I'd want a focus or fiesta turbo diesel. Can you say, TORQUE!

I'd just like to see a small car made by ford in a 4cyl that actually has torque to begin with!!!!
Drive an ST 2.3, they have good torque.
Also the european Focus TDCI was good, look up Moula on the Jet and check out his diesel.
Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Mon Oct 20, 2008 4:33 pm
by Redlineracer12
FORDSVTPARTS wrote:Redlineracer12 wrote:For these units, combined economy is listed as 67.3mpg
That's it?
Is there some problem with 67.3 mpg?
I'm not aware of ANY car in the U.S. market that comes close to that mileage.
Don't make me come over there Tony

Shoot, the SPI knocking could get 67.4 mpg...

Re: Nah, we don't need this in the U.S.
Posted: Wed Oct 22, 2008 9:35 pm
by focinite
f that lil pile!!!! its to small and ford of north america will just find a way to cheapen in a few years just like the foci. in 99 the focus was full fat, then oh whered the under hood mat go? whered the side trim go? oh whered the solid feel go? trust me this lil ford is better off in europe. im bitter, yeah they are giving europe and north america the same focus now, but its not the current focus and its not the last gen focus, so how do they think there gonna make it up to us? do we get an rs?....never, our last real good focus was a rebadged st with a cossie engine. i got a chance to drive a s40 t5 awd with some mods done to it and im pissed!!!! that volvo 5 cyl is the sex. but oh well im just gonna get a new hyundia.
