Ford Confirms new "Studio" trim for UK Focus

[2o6]

2K cheaper than the basic "Edge" trim, and it comes with a 1.6L producing 84HP.


Three questions:

1. How did they only get 84HP from 1.6L?

2. Why not use the 1.4L from the Fiesta (~95HP)

3. Not a question, but I feel sorry for those who opt for this motor. I predict a super slug.

http://www.autocar.co.uk/News/NewsArticle/AllCars/258483/

[Colin]

As posted elsewhere, this version will barely sell, only in very tiny quantities, in the UK at least.

It is not unusual for manufacturers to offer a hair shirt spec, slugged stripped out car with an attention grabbing low price, but having lured punters into the showroom, to do everything in their power to persuade people to buy a more performant and less poverty spec version.

Even the bigger name rental car companies avoid these boggo models like the plague, though it should be noted that they will appeal to Rent-a-cheapie and their ilk in southern Europe, where they charge based on the size of the body not the engine!

[Eye of the Tiger]

I would've bought it if I got a sweet deal like I did on my Accent. Yes, an 84bhp 1.6L is surely a typo.

[Colin]

No, it is not a typo.

[Soup DeVille]

1. How did they only get 84HP from 1.6L?

That's not so hard to believe, is it? Its no different in terms of specific output than a 300 HP 5.7 litre engine, and its tuned primarily for mileage, which means a modest cam profile and an early HP peak.

Honestly 84 HP won't set the world on fire, but it'll get the job done under most normal circumstances.

The trim levels are mainly a way of

A: Giving bragging rights to the low entry level price of vehicles in the range. and

B: Getting frugal buyers into the showroom with the hopes of upselling into a more middle of the range version.

[cawimmer430]

1. How did they only get 84HP from 1.6L?

I know, right!? In the late '70s BMW had a 1.5-l turbo 4-cylinder engine in Formula 1 that produced over 800-horsepower and this 2011 1.6-l engine cranks out a laughable 84-hp! What a joke!

[ifcar]

As posted elsewhere, this version will barely sell, only in very tiny quantities, in the UK at least.

It is not unusual for manufacturers to offer a hair shirt spec, slugged stripped out car with an attention grabbing low price, but having lured punters into the showroom, to do everything in their power to persuade people to buy a more performant and less poverty spec version.

Even the bigger name rental car companies avoid these boggo models like the plague, though it should be noted that they will appeal to Rent-a-cheapie and their ilk in southern Europe, where they charge based on the size of the body not the engine!

The same thing happens here, though I can't remember the last car certified with under 100 horsepower. (Swift, maybe, a decade ago?)

[Byteme]

I know, right!? In the late '70s BMW had a 1.5-l turbo 4-cylinder engine in Formula 1 that produced over 800-horsepower and this 2011 1.6-l engine cranks out a laughable 84-hp! What a joke!

Not a joke at all.  Different engines for different missions.  Ford didn't build this car for racing in F1.  The built it to minimize price and maximize mileage.  In that regard they may have hit the bulls eye.

[cawimmer430]

Not a joke at all.  Different engines for different missions.  Ford didn't build this car for racing in F1.  The built it to minimize price and maximize mileage.  In that regard they may have hit the bulls eye.

I was being sarcastic. 

I'm well aware that this engine was tuned for fuel economy and emissions. But you know what's it like out there on the world wide web. A bunch of guys will always ask the question:

"What? 170-hp from a 8.2-l V8!?!?! Why not 820-hp!?!? Honda had a 0.7-l 4-cylinder engine in 1991 that produced 339-hp! Out of 0.7 liters!"

[ifcar]

I was being sarcastic. 

I'm well aware that this engine was tuned for fuel economy and emissions. But you know what's it like out there on the world wide web. A bunch of guys will always ask the question:

"What? 170-hp from a 8.2-l V8!?!?! Why not 820-hp!?!? Honda had a 0.7-l 4-cylinder engine in 1991 that produced 339-hp! Out of 0.7 liters!"

A bunch of guys? No, just you.

[3.0L V6]

It might be an Atkinson cycle engine - sacrifices power for efficiency.

[2o6]

The same thing happens here, though I can't remember the last car certified with under 100 horsepower. (Swift, maybe, a decade ago?)

1st Gen Rio had 96HP, IIRC.

It might be an Atkinson cycle engine - sacrifices power for efficiency.

Or it might be an 8V, low compression four-cylinder.

Not a joke at all.  Different engines for different missions.  Ford didn't build this car for racing in F1.  The built it to minimize price and maximize mileage.  In that regard they may have hit the bulls eye.

I'm leaning more towards price rather than mileage. No way is 84HP enough to get decent motivation without revving the car's head off.



I don't get this car. The Diesel 1.6L from the Fiesta produces 88HP.

[ifcar]

1st Gen Rio had 96HP, IIRC.

That seems to be it -- the 2002 Rio, lasting one year longer than the 70-horsepower Swift.

[Eye of the Tiger]

my 1.3L  SOHC TBI 8v Swift from 1995 made 70 hp, or 53.8 hp/L. If anything was tuned for economy, it was the Swift.
A 2012 Focus makes 84 hp from 1.6L, or 52.5 hp/L. It just seems like they would have to try really hard to detune an engine like that. Sure, they could tune it for a power peak at 3500 RPM, but why? It's not a diesel, is it?

[sportyaccordy]

Lol

This has to be some kind of joke

[shp4man]

Don't they tax horsepower in the UK? My car has a 1.6L with about 63 horsepower.

[Byteme]

I was being sarcastic. 

In that case you should have used a emoticon.  It wasn't apparent you were being sarcastic.

[Colin]

Don't they tax horsepower in the UK?

NO.

[cawimmer430]

A bunch of guys? No, just you.

You don't get out of Carspin much, eh?

[shp4man]

NO.

Ok, but didn't they used to back in the day? 

[Soup DeVille]

Ok, but didn't they used to back in the day? 

It was either a power or a displacement tax I think. That's been replaced by a CO2 emissions based tax.

[Soup DeVille]

Don't they tax horsepower in the UK? My car has a 1.6L with about 63 horsepower.

Nice. '65?

Why did I not know this before?

[shp4man]

Nice. '65?

Why did I not know this before?

'66. I don't post pictures of it much, but it's my daily driver.

[Laconian]

I think they taxed horsepower in France, which is why the number of cheveux is stated so clearly in their cars...

[93JC]

cheveux

chevaux

(cheveux means hair)

[Soup DeVille]

'66. I don't post pictures of it much, but it's my daily driver.

Kewl.

I've had three, none as old as a '66 though.

[Laconian]

chevaux

(cheveux means hair)

Fuck you and your indiscernible vowel sounds!

[93JC]

What do you mean indiscernible vowel sounds?! 'eu' sounds like 'uh' (pretty much the same sound as the German ? and Scandinavian ?), and 'au' sound like 'oh'!

"shuh-vuh" vs. "shuh-voh"

Totally different.

[280Z Turbo]

That would have been an impressive engine, in the '77 Rabbit.

[mzziaz]

What do you mean indiscernible vowel sounds?! 'eu' sounds like 'uh' (pretty much the same sound as the German ? and Scandinavian ?), and 'au' sound like 'oh'!

"shuh-vuh" vs. "shuh-voh"

Totally different.

Damn, aren't you the linguist.