1952 Ford Truck on 2040-cars

Auto blog

2016 Ford Focus RS may yet be AWD, US sales likely

When it comes to forbidden fruit, few vehicles are spoken of in as hushed a tone as the Ford Focus RS. The turbocharged, five-cylinder hot hatch could only be seen from afar by American customers as it tore up the roads of Europe. And while it's safe to say that Ford's Yankee fans are quite happy to now be on equal footing with drivers in the old country thanks to the Focus ST, we doubt there'd be much protestation over a successor to the RS arriving stateside.
Of course, we've seen images of the new RS undergoing testing, but a new story by Road and Track aims to fill in some very large blanks in our knowledge of that car, thanks to a pair of mysterious insiders at the Ford. Chief among those is this - the RS will almost certainly make its way to the US, albeit in limited quantities. It gets better, though.
Under hood, the new RS is unsurprisingly expected to borrow the 2.3-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder from the 2015 Ford Mustang and 2015 Lincoln MKC. While that twin-scroll turbo produces 310 horsepower in the Mustang and 285 ponies in the MKC, R&T expects the RS to deliver quite a bit more firepower - 325 to 350 hp, with preference going to the higher output due to the limited-edition nature of the RS. This roughly fits with previous reports.

Here's how much the new Ford Mustang will cost in Germany

While you can find Ford Mustangs across Europe, they were brought over there courtesy of importers, rather than Ford itself. That's changing with the 2015 pony car, as Ford will be selling it directly through its overseas dealers. Now, we know how much German customers will be shelling out for the muscle car, courtesy of the maniacs at Mustang6G. Not surprisingly, there's a fairly hefty premium compared to US prices. The base Mustang, with its 2.3-liter, turbocharged four-cylinder and six-speed manual transmission will start at 34,000 euros ($40,214, at today's rates), while the 5.0-liter V8/six-speed-manual model starts at 39,000 euros ($46,127). The Mustang Convertible demands an extra 4,000 euros ($4,731) while the optional six-speed automatic elevates the price by 2,000 euros ($2,365), regardless, in both cases, of whether there are four or eight cylinders under that long hood. While those prices are certainly pretty dear compared to what we pay in the US, the Mustang is a genuine bargain compared to some of Europe's other sports coupes. The German market BMW 4 Series starts at 36,050 euros ($42,638), while a base 435i calls for 48,100 euros ($56,891). It's a similar story with the Audi A5/S5. As for the Mustang's arch-nemesis, the Chevrolet Camaro, which is only available with the SS model's 6.2-liter V8, starts at 39,990 euros ($47,298), comparing quite evenly with the 5.0-liter GT.

Ward's calls out Ford's EcoBoost engines for their crummy fuel economy

With a name like EcoBoost, one might expect Ford's line of turbocharged engines to be somewhat, um, economical. In other words, replacing displacement with a turbocharger is supposed to deliver better fuel economy. Based on the experience time and time again of multiple Autoblog editors, your author included, this is simply not the case. Now, Ward's is calling out the cruddy efficiency numbers of Ford's EcoBoost line of engines. The column dresses down not just the new 2.7-liter V6 of the 2015 F-150, but also the 2.3-liter of the Mustang, the 1.5-liter from the Fusion and the 3.2-liter PowerStroke diesel found in the Transit, while also explaining why just one Ford engine was named to Ward's 10 Best Engines list. In its testing of all four engines, Ward's editors never came even remotely close to matching the 2.7's claimed 26 miles per gallon (for two-wheel-drive models), with the truck's computer indicating between 17.6 and 19 mpg over a 250-odd-mile run. Calculating the fuel economy manually revealed an even more depressing 15.6 miles per gallon. Criticisms with the 2.3-liter four-cylinder focused on its strange soundtrack, although it was business as usual with the 1.5-liter and 3.2 diesel, with Ward's criticizing the fuel economy of both engines. The 1.5, which Ward's claims is sold as a hybrid alternative, failed to get over 30 miles per gallon, while the five-cylinder turbodiesel's figures couldn't stand up against FCA's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel. The entire column really is worth a read, especially if you were disappointed in Ward's decision to only salute Ford's three-cylinder EcoBoost while shunning the rest of the company's new turbocharged mills.