Sometimes, the Ford Facebook pages bring you horrifying news like “We commissioned Tanner Foust, Vaughn Gittin Jr., Brian Deegan, Ken Block, and other amazing drivers to take the Focus ST through its paces against competitors for our upcoming video series dubbed, ‘ST Sessions.'”
If the thought of indirectly paying those four, ah, individuals to “hoon” by purchasing a new Focus ST hasn’t completely made you lose your appetite, there’s now some actual news regarding the car to share:
The ST’s 23/32 rating puts it slightly ahead of the VW GTI, which doesn’t have nearly the power, and well ahead of the Mazdaspeed3. While Ford’s Facebook fans often possess all the intellect of the aforementioned baseball-cap-directionally-challenged Brian Deegan and therefore somehow expected the car to match the “Omni Miser’s” 50MPG highway rating despite recent EPA adjustments, most people are pretty satisfied with 26mpg combined.
Want more power with better real-world mileage? You might have to buy an Impala.
Implying the Impala will, on a daily basis, get better gas mileage than a car much lighter and smaller than it? That’s just silly.
I averaged over 31 miles per gallon covering over 1600 miles in conditions as varied as 85mph highway running and crawling through downtown Montreal.
I’ve owned a few small turbo cars and none of them could do the same.
Your mileage may vary, as they say.
I get around 35 combined in my 2001 Acura TL. 6 speed manual (CL-Type s swap) and I have no clue how.
I speed, I work in a downtown, and I have a supercharged V6.
I’m not complaining but YMMV indeed.
“Your mileage may vary, as they say.” Exactly.
Jack is right. Almost all small, turbocharged, performance cars won’t touch the Impala’s real world MPGs. It is difficult to stay off the boost with a GTI/ST/Mazdaspeed3/WRX.
Real world gas mileage on the regular Focus isn’t much better than the Impala.
I get the GTI to do it’s EPA number fairly regularly. Which is still worse than the Impala number….The hatchback and the gearing does not help the cause of getting good MPG number on the highway…
Oh, I’m not saying you didn’t get 30-31 MPG highway. My 2007 Pontiac G6 GT got 29-30 MPG highway often, to my surprise. But for every day use, I’d be surprised if a 4,000 pound V6 powered car were to consistently get better gas mileage than a 3,000 pound I4, which is exactly what your last sentence suggests.
Also RE: the “real world gas mileage of a Focus” you clearly don’t own a Focus. Most of my driving is around 80-85% city (light city, to be fair, not NEW YORK city) and the rest highway, and I routinely get 32 MPG. When I hit the highway, 40-42 MPG has been hit quite a few times, with the average hovering more in the 37 MPG range.
I’d love to see the 4,000 pound Impala get 32 MPG city.
EDIT:
My bad, the Impala only packs around 3,750 pounds, not 4,000. (at least according to Wikipedia – I couldn’t find a curb weight on Chevy’s website)
@vlangs – the Type S isnt factory supercharged, so I assume you added the S/C? And tuning I suppose. You might have it tuned to not hit the boost at lower speeds, which is what kills the small 4-cyl turbos. Plus, its a V6, so not exactly the same.
@tuffjuff – its not just an I4 in those small cars, its an I4 turbo, which changes the equation. I would be the Impala gets as good if not better combined mileage than I get in the GTI.
With Jack and I as instructors for HPDE we just smoother throttle inputs. It’s just a natural and comes second hand when you’ve been an instructor for years.
Tuff, we own a 2012 Focus Titanium. My wife has a 18 mile commute through the city of Detroit. Currently the computer reads 32.1 MPG. I have never seen above 35 MPG. A lot of that has to do with the PS3s and the commute. I’ve gotten better MPG with an SE.
You did adjust for the larger size of the Canadian gallon when converting from liters?
Now that it’s “cool” to get good MPG’s everyone loves to brag about the mileage they get…and 99.99% of the time I feel like they are exaggerating. Sure, I once got over 40MPG in my ’99 Honda, it’s 100% true. For full disclosure I was driving across the Dakota’s and had one heck of a tail wind helping me. So yeah, “your mileage may vary.”
Since the laws of physics cannot be broken I just simply don’t believe a heavy land yacht Impala is more efficient than a Focus ST driving in the same conditions with same driving style. I’ve driven turbos and I’ve driven ancient GM pushrods, both can be driven for efficiency or driven for speed and mileage of both will certinaly correlate to driving style.
Pretty much the same mileage I get from my 1998 BMW 328i sedan, 5 speed manual.
Mileage aside…what is it with the current crop of stylists and their fixation with making every front end of a car look like some sort of fish???
Thats largely hatchback styling for now, I guess that its supposed to be “cute”, why its used so much is the sam reason why all cars use Audi interiors, focus groups.
Soon, every new Ford will have that front end.
I blame pedestrians.
At Strippo: After almost hitting one myself I can’t blame you, though to be honest, if people are going to be so dense when they cross the road than they deserve a good push.
Ditto for me on that. I’m sick of the huge wheels, tires with no sidewalls, and the lurid headlights smeared back to the side mirrors. Also, the stylists need to stop raking back the windshield so the sun-visor almost touches my forehead, and the sunroof is only useable for the back seat.
I seriously doubt that the Impala will get better real world mileage. Certainly not in stop and go, regardless of Jack’s recent rental experience. This seems like a very nice compromise between performance, price and frugality.
I will wait and see if the real world numbers are as good as the rating. My GTI can barely match its EPA ratings under ideal conditions. I have found that turbo engines, especially the ones tuned for performance, are very sensitive to conditions and throttle usage, even speed. There is a huge difference in the mileage I see at 60mph and 70mph. Same with traffic; if I have a good morning and hit all the green lights, the trip computer reports mid-20s. If its bad, and I stop at all the lights, its 18-19mpg.
Well, my 2007 MS3 easily (once broken in) exceeded its EPA ratings, so it can be done (not with my 2008 STI however).
Then you either drive like a grandma, or you own the only MS3 that betters its advertised mileage, thats always been a primary complaint about that car.
And I didnt say I couldn’t meet the EPA numbers, just that its very difficult, and no fun.
That’s odd. My GLI easily beats the EPA estimates with the same 2.0T. 35 MPG highway at 70 highway is not at all difficult to achieve. It’s rated at 32. My stop-and-go mileage is comparable to yours, though.
That is odd… are you calculating for the entire trip? The only time I see 30-35mpg is on the instant readouts on the trip computer during a highway run. But once you average for the trip, it drops to 28-ish. Around town it averages 21. I always track my mileage at the pump as well, but I don’t usually do a lot of long highway trips, so those calculations are combined mileage. This month, I did a few highway trips, and my combined avg is 25, last month was all around town and it was 21. My overall mileage is 22.
Turbo engines, and the calibrations, seem more adept at fooling the EPA fuel economy schedule, to post the unrealistic real-world MPG numbers, and screw the customer. My ’84 Turbo T-Bird was a joke for fuel economy compared to other choices at the time.
“Want more power with better real-world mileage? You might have to buy an Impala.”
Maybe, but if you hope to have even modest amounts of fun or in car electronics from the 21st century then the ST is definitely the better option.
Also comparing EPA ratings with real world figures from a road trip is (sadly) an apples to oranges proposition.
I have to be honest I’m Gen Y, I develop computer software and I don’t care much for so called 21st Century electronics in my ride. Sure I am in the minority but I just see it as more stuff to break and in a few short months or years the technology will be obsolete anyway.
Few years back high end cars started putting 40GB hard drives in the dashboard for navi systems… now you can get 40GB pen flash drives. Stuff changes too quickly… my 08 has a built in XM receiver, now its Sirius XM and I’d have to upgrade it for it to work if I cared for satellite radio. First generation OnStar is now an antique in cars not even ten years old! Madness, let cars be cars.
Turbo-4 power unite! :)
That, like most sporty FWD cars, maybe tuned not in the best interest of fuel economy. Especially the suspension with sticky tires and lots of rear camber to keep the kids from a tank slapper when they slam on the brakes with steering input.
I have a 2012 GTI and find I am getting a few mpg higher than the EPA rating. I am unsure what I am doing different but I do wonder about quality of fuel vs. temp vs. heavy foot. Given the recent lawsuits about MPG apparently there is some level of subjective nature to fuel economy.
The number of people who cannot detect satire in a TTAC story is stunning to me.
It was satire, which apparently means fish food for the GM bashers to rise up to the top of the tank and turn the surface of the water into a frothy frenzy.
Sheeze.
I think that for some people a small part of their brain detects the satire, but another part of their brain is spoiling for a fight, so they choose to ignore the satire and come out swinging instead. Hey, it’s always entertaining throwing raw meat to the GM & Ford fanboys.
What stuns me is the number of people who can frame anything as an excuse to lash out at anyone who doesn’t embrace their narrow, bitter worldview.
Not everything is about your precious GM, you pompous tool.
Well someone has a case of the Mondays.
youtube: watch?v=5QQdNbvSGok
and
are you having trouble with your TPS reports?
Guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh guh
23/32? Pretty similar to what the Volvo T5 gets in the C30/S40 with 250hp (with Polestar upgrade). Cruising at 55 mph, the T5 is more like 35/36 mpg. Question is: what exactly is the advantage of using a DI Turbo 4 over the T5 if the 4: (a) cannot out-accelerate the T5; (b) does not get better fuel economy: (c) is a more complex technology?; and (d) is not as easily upgradeable (Polestar can get 400-500hp out of those T5s — with heavy mods).
The C30 is listed as 21/29 for the manual.
a) Mk3 Focus ST is faster than the Mk2 ST
b) It gets better fuel economy (The Mk2 got worse fuel economy than the GTI, and is know for getting terrible real world numbers.)
c) It may be more complex, but Ford isn’t using Volvo engines anymore.
d) Ford doesn’t care
Between the sale of Volvo the slow sales of C30 and the discontinuation of the S40, I’d imagine that this new Focus platform will never see a T5 or T6.
Besides that do you really need more than 250hp being sent through the wrong wheels … this is a Ford Focus ST not an Impala :)
My wife’s ’08 C30 T5 gets right around 21 city / 28 highway, given the car’s small size that is kind of depressing. Then to add insult to injury my 350Z gets 26 highway (@ 75 mph) and is WAY faster (duh!). Both are 6 speed manuals. Our previous VW Passat (1.8T) got 30 mpg easy on the highway but had only like 150 HP versus the 230 HP of the T5 in the Volvo and no where near as quick. Not sure if its the Volvo’s extra weight but the engine hasn’t impressed me that much. The numbers say its a quick as my ’96 Eclipse Turbo (0-60 = 6.4) but its doesn’t feel like it, however part of that could be the lack of sound because the Volvo is smoother and quieter for sure.
I havent cruised at 55 since 1988 or so. At normal highway speeds, 70-75, my mileage drops dramatically. Plus, it could just be the gearing sweet spot for your car. That doesnt have anything to do with the engine tech.
The speed limit on the Palisades Parkway, which goes from the northern suburbs(Rockland county) of NYC to the George Washington bridge, is still 55 mph. In fact, I believe its 50 in a few areas.
I try to stay away from the northeast US as much as possible, that just gives me yet one more reason. Last time I was there, I was on that road. I have no idea what the speed limit was though because it was a parking lot. Do you normally get to “cruise” at 55?
Down here, the speed limit is 55 on US-19 right through the middle of town, complete with stoplights every 1/2 mile or so. which kills your mileage, even with the nice high speed limit. Its 65 or 70 on the real highways.
I never got why something like a 3.0 liter 6 wouldn’t work better. Although I guess it depends who does it – BMW is great at it, GM, not so much.
Well BMW is abandoning its NA 6 cylinder motors for turbo 4s.
“abandoning its NA 6 cylinder motors for turbo 4s.”
Yeah… about that… that move is very GM-esque.
@hubcap
While I’ll probably never be of the clientelle who can afford to purchase and maintain a BMW, this makes me sad. A 3.0 V6 is small enough to, with enough technology behind it, offer decent gas mileage, while putting out some really good power, too. BMW’s made somewhere in the neighborhood of 260-270 if I recall, and Hyundai’s new 3.3 in the new Azera puts out I want to say 293, albeit theirs makes less torque.
Damn, where was this fugger 3 years ago when I (regrettably) bought an MS3? Oh well, too late now…
In my A3 I can get 31mpg average, but that’s no fun so I get about 28. Measured at the gas pump, not the computer.
The magazine test numbers I’ve seen don’t reflect Ford’s power claims for the car. 0-60 in 6.5 isn’t all that quick for this class and observed fuel economy isn’t anything to write home about. It seems Ford is taking a page from Hyundai’s best selling book.
Having driven one, think of the SVT Focus. Not so fast off the lines, but fast around a race track. The car has a surprisingly large amount of acceleration from ~55 mph. I’m sure you’re also thinking of older, lighter, right wheel drive vehicles.
My biggest disappointment was the exclusion of revo-knuckle. The ‘calibrated’ steering gear is peculiar and doesn’t feel natural. But it’s still an impressive utilitarian beast for the price of entry.
I’m assuming the EPA fuel mileage test is done to exacting conditions and uses optimal driving conditions. I’m guessing the EPA test doesn’t factor in stoplights, keeping up with traffic flow, be it fast or slow, sundry conditions like parking lots, pulling out in traffic and my worst offense, having a smoke while my vehicle defrosts.
The EPA tests have stops and varying speed. However, acceleration during the tests is glacial compared to the way the ST is likely to be driven. Actually, the acceleration during the tests is glacial by any modern car standard, which is the point: so gradual that any car is capable of handling the test’s acceleration requirements.
The acceleration used is equivalent to a 0-60 of 18 seconds.. the tests were designed in the very early 70s and cars have gotten much more powerful. The EPA then uses a fudge factor adjustment of about 30% to meet real world conditions, your should get something like the EPA combined rating.. if you dont you are doing something wrong or you have a permanent 15mph headwind.. or you are driving a heavy car with a turbo 4.
The manufacturers probably game the tests by not having turbo boost under that slow acceleration.
As a big fan of this segment (Hot hatch) I am pleased to see Ford adding to the competition. The Focus is a great car and the ST a respected contender. It’s hard to beat these cars in terms of power, economy, razor sharp handling and most importantly, practicality.
The Impala might have the power, comfort and the space but it’s a car for people who are tired of life.
I like this but I’d like the 3 door option for this in North America even better.
That is absolutely horrid mileage for a car with an engine that has ECO in the name.
I mean…the VW doesn’t have a dishonest marketing tagline for their GTi, and yet it still manages 31 MPG.
I mean COME ON!!! The porky Taurus…which is the size of new Jersey gets 32 MPG.
Ecoboost is a joke. This is proof it’s just a marketing ‘fence’ to bring in the sheep.
As for the Focus Sanitary Towel……….get the GTi. It may not look as good on paper…but it is the better car.
Surely the use of eco means the engine is meant to be efficient relative to others in an apples to apples comparison. So for example the MazdaSpeed 3 (a natural competitor) has 18/25mpg, albeit with 20bhp more, so this engine, per the EPA figures is more efficient.
The GTi is a good car and I would hope a smaller displacement and lower powered car by around 20% would get comparable fuel economy.
Will be interesting to see what the real world fuel economy is of the ecoboost family before judgement is past. Will they under-deliver like Hyundai or be reasonably accurate like Toyota.
Yes, a thousand times, yes P71, Z71 or who ever your posting as now, we get it. You have a new name but same irrational hate/fetish for all things Ford. Please move on with your life.
Sorry to rain on your parade…but nothing I said was factually inaccurate.
I also own a Ford powered vehicle…so you can quit with the baseless “irrational hate for Ford” nonsense.
Maybe in your little world the things you say factually accurate. A creditable person does not need continuous user name changes.
Again…I own a Ford powered vehicle and post nothing but factual information.
“That is absolutely horrid mileage for a car with an engine that has ECO in the name.” – That’s an opinion. The engine makes 250 HP and 272 ft/lbs, are you insinuating here that Ford should have renamed the engine for this application?
“I mean…the VW doesn’t have a dishonest marketing tagline for their GTi, and yet it still manages 31 MPG.” – Again, your use of adjectives dissolve your “factual” argument, the Eco part of Ecoboost is that they engine puts our more power and gets better gas milage than a comparable NA engine, not that it’s green creds bring all the boys to the yard. Go Google “VW GTI” and the first result is “2013 Fuel Efficient GTI Hatchback Pictures and Price – Volkswagen”. Yeah, VW is marketing their fuel economy at all…
“I mean COME ON!!! The porky Taurus…which is the size of new Jersey gets 32 MPG.” – Apples to oranges, at least the GTI you were comparing it to before was a performance model. Yes, this is technically true. The Prius also gets better gas milage and is the same size, what’s your point?
“Ecoboost is a joke. This is proof it’s just a marketing ‘fence’ to bring in the sheep.” – This is simply conjecture and pure opinion on your part, I don’t see how you expect anyone to accept that as facts.
“As for the Focus Sanitary Towel……….get the GTi. It may not look as good on paper…but it is the better car.” – Again, more opinion and… is that a joke? Ahahaha, I see what you did there, ST, Sanitary Towel. Facts.
Look, I’m sure you’re a nice enough guy, but you need to step back and take a breath. If you don’t like the ST, the Focus or even the Ecoboost line and marketing method… hell, that’s fine. I doubt you’re the only one here. Feel free to say as much. But don’t try to sell your opinions as facts. And if you own a GTi, have fun driving it, I’ve heard they are fine cars.
For a 250hp car, that’s quite good. I’m more surprised by how terrible the Speed3’s mileage is: about the same as a typical large V6 crossover. Yikes.
I barely make 30 MPG with my castrated Fit (auto) on my daily commute of 80 miles with about 60 miles of it 70-74 MPH burning E10. I would be happy with 25 and thrilled with 28 real world.
That really makes me feel better actually, nice to know I can get the same mileage as a Fit, but with like double the HP!
But doesn’t E10 get worse mileage?
E10 does kill mileage. But keeping up with tollway traffic in the Dallas area requires a heavy foot and the Fit is quite incapable of accelerating without dropping into 3rd gear.
(Even in 3rd gear it is quite incapable of accelerating.) I have seen good cruising mileage on highway trips of around 34 MPG on flat roads with steady state cruise control and no need to pass on the left. (and no E10)
And I’ll bet your Fit is spinning at 4000 rpm in top gear, working hard to shove that high profile little box through the air. I like a lot about the Fit, but man, it is not a good highway car.
This is a great illustration of why B-segment and sometimes even C-segment cars are not great tools for highway commutes. The gearing is too aggressive to get decent economy while keeping up with traffic. When the gearing isn’t aggressive, they are frustratingly slow.
So nice to have a discussion about fuel economy and performance cars with no one mentions America’s most efficient full line manufacturer. :)
It’s been just over 6 months since I bought the ’03 Mazda Protege5 I own now and in that time, I’ve come to realize that this class of car (C class) with a 2.0L motor never really got much beyond low thirties AT BEST since, well, old buck was a pup – until more recently and even then, some cars do it better than others.
That said, I once had a 1988 Honda Accord (mine was the FI LX-I with a power moonroof and factory alloys), a sporty looking though not so sporty driving 4 door sedan with a 2.0L, 120hp naturally aspirated 4 with a 5spd and I bet I never got more than 32mpg on the highway as that was what I expected out of that car at the time. The same went for the Mazda (with the same sized, but with 130hp 4) though in reality, according to the newer number figures, both cars (the Mazda and the Honda) get closer to 28mpg Hwy, 22 city with 24 average, according to the fuel mileage website from the US Gov.
Not that I’m complaining now as on my road trip in early June, I managed around 25mpg all told since almost all of that tank was highway mileage, which included rush hour on my way to Tacoma from Sedro-Woolley, which sits about 60 miles north of Seattle. All told with a trip to Olympia (and a fill up before getting on the freeway) to my youngest sister, I put about 330 miles on the Mazda that weekend and loved every minute of it. I had to do roughly 220 miles on the 4th of July as I missed being able to take the ferry over to Bainbridge Island from Seattle (as a walk on) to be at the parade they do every year and had to drive around to meet family, taking the Tacoma Narrows Bridge and driving up the peninsula to get to the island. I’ve done that drive many times in other cars and love doing that drive too (and it’s a pretty drive once on the peninsula).
The point is, the car is rated at 22-28 with 24 being the combined average and with a lighter foot, I can achieve close to that but doubt I get over 25-26mpg though at 65-70 with a 4spd autobox (sport stick) as anything faster than that in 4th, mean creaping past 3000rpm.
And the main reason I am not complaining is that I can actually afford to fill the tank since it has 14.5Gallon in it, that’s why.
but still, I do wish it did a bit better than it does, but sadly, it’s sensitive to the rpms it has to run at so that does not help the mileage any at all, plus we run E10 gas here, so it’s no more than 10% ethanol and that’ll drop the mileage down by what, 2mpg or so by itself.
That being said, I’ve long felt that C segment cars, 32 for highway, low to mid 20’s city, B segment cars a bit more, mid to upper 20’s city, mid thirties or so highway being the norm and that goes back some 20 years or perhaps more.
Dunno, I think you are selling most C class cars short with those expectations. I think its a Mazda thing; they have never been known for class leading fuel economy, and 25 mpg is pretty low for a 2.0L compact.
Civics and Corollas with 130-140hp 1.8L engines easily pull upper 30s to 40 mpg on the highway, even ones from over a decade ago. My old 96 Camry 4-pot would get 30-34 if you kept it under 75. My 5 cylinder Jetta wagon weighs a lardassed 3300lbs and easily gets 30mpg highway, 25 combined. And that powerplant is definitely not known for efficiency.
That said, a fun car like your Mazda is worth putting up with a fuel economy hit. If I can afford to drive somewhere at 30mpg, I can afford to do it at 25mpg too.
I may be, but I also know that in the past, mileage was often oversold for the small econoboxes such as the FE Civics with 40 (or more) mpg highway and even that may have been stretching things at normal driving techniques.
Now, if you hypermile any of the B/C segment cars, then yeah, you may WELL get what the EPA and the manufacturers have been claiming for such cars, but likely at the cost of safety etc.
I’m not saying small cars like the ’83 Civic I once had could not do more than 35 highway, but more or less, that was the average it obtained while on the highway (assuming a 5spd manual).
But based on what the real world averages as well as the EPA, that’s been my feeling for a long time and that’s largely based on our system of measurement, which yields less mpg than those cars with imperial gallons or liters.
“And the main reason I am not complaining is that I can actually afford to fill the tank since it has 14.5Gallon in it, that’s why.”
Pet peeve of mine – gas tank size is irrelevant to gas usage / gas mileage. Only relevance is to range.
Sastexan,
True, but cruising range will do you NO good if you can’t even afford to fill up your tank even half the time.
A case in point, the old Ranger truck I had, it was a 92 Ford Ranger with the 4.0L V6, which automatically, as far as I can discern gets the 18-20G tank and it cost MUCH more to fill it up to shut off than it does to fill my little Mazda. Thing was, gas mileage on that thing was not fantastic. According to the current system in use by the EPA, that truck is expected to do 16 city, 22 Hwy, 18 average – at best. I thought I heard my best friend say the hwy mileage to be 24-27MPG. Dunno but I was too poor to keep it full as it cost so much to fill it up.
As it is, I almost always fill my little Mazda’s tank at each fill up and when I took the truck to the beach, a 2 hour drive by freeway/highway, I think I got no more than 350 miles out of a tank of gas, which was enough to get me to the cabin from I think Tacoma (where I topped off the tank) and to refill in Tacoma (was getting mighty low at that point IIRC) before continuing on into Seattle, another hour north.
As it is now, at 14.5gallons, at 25mpg, I *should*, theoretically get 360 or so miles out of a full tank of gas.
The point is, I’m going places when I can afford to do so. I’ve done 3 day trips so far with the car in the 6 months I’ve owned it so far, the truck, 2 in the 6 years I owned it, mostly commuting to and from work and seeing mom every so often in Tacoma (again, it’s about an hour to an hour and a half depending on whether I’m doing it from home in Seattle or work in Bellevue as Bellevue adds about another half hour to the trip).
I will admit, it helps that I have working AC in my Mazda, the truck had it, but it didn’t work.
ciddyguy – The size of the gas tank has zero impact on how much you spend on gas, only how often you have to stop. You spend less on gas in the Mazda because it uses less fuel, not because the gas tank is smaller. If the Protege used gas at the same rate as the Ranger, you would spend less at each stop, but stop more often. I don’t understand how you think having a smaller gas tank is somehow helping you afford to put gas in it.
People get way too hung up on the numbers on the pump.
Burgersandbear,
I’d say, it’s both the size of the tank AND the mileage, which is partly why we have smaller cars. they typically get better mileage than a larger car, and for roughly the same cruising range can do it on a smaller sized tank.
If you have to fill your tank up at roughly the same intervals, I’d rather pay less per fill up than not if I had a choice, especially if my budget is of limited means. This allows me to do the occasional road trip whereas I may not in a car that cost considerably more to fill up.