 |
 | Home | Contact Us | FAQ | Search & Site Map | Link to Us |
 | Sign In | Join | Other 45 Sites in Network |
Car Forum / Ford / Ford Focus / April 20062005 Ford Focus ZX4 SES Fuel Gauge
My '05 ZX4 SES fuel gauge reads empty when there are still a few gallons left in the tank. The manual says that the full tank has a 14 gallon capacity, but when I run the right side of the needle to the middle of the empty bar and then fill the tank, only 11.6 gallons go in. Has anyone else experienced this? I know that there is supposed to be some dead volume that the engine requires, but I can imagine that it is ~2.5 gallons. Any comments? Thanks, Dan Pilloff :>My '05 ZX4 SES fuel gauge reads empty when there are still a few :>gallons left in the tank. The manual says that the full tank has a 14 [quoted text clipped - 7 lines] :> :>Dan Pilloff The last 3 new Fords that I've owned, a '99 Escort ZX2, a '02 Focus ZX5 and my current '04 SVT Focus all are supposed to have a 13.2 gallon tank. On all 3 a fill up as soon as the low fuel light comes on requires right at 10.0 gallons. On all 3 running until the gas guage hits empty would take around 11.5 gallons to fill up which is right in line with what you're seeing. BTW, I'm 61 years old and I have never owned a car where the gas guage was anything more than a rough approximation of what was actually in the tank. :-) me/2 > :>My '05 ZX4 SES fuel gauge reads empty when there are still a few > :>gallons left in the tank. The manual says that the full tank has a 14 [quoted text clipped - 20 lines] > > me/2 My experience with the '05 ZX4 Focus I drive has been exactly the same. At about 10 gallons down the light comes on. The gauge reads empty (panic time) at about 11.5 - 12.0 gallons down (2 or so gallons reserve). I guess I should be grateful that I have a working fuel guage (my '93 Escort fuel guage never worked), but it is strange to me that panic time comes with so much fuel still left in the tank... -=RaOuL=- '05 Focus ZX4 In alt.autos.ford.focus me/2 <null@127.0.0.1>: > :>My '05 ZX4 SES fuel gauge reads empty when there are still a few > :>gallons left in the tank. The manual says that the full tank has a 14 [quoted text clipped - 3 lines] > :>to be some dead volume that the engine requires, but I can imagine that > :>it is ~2.5 gallons. Any comments? [..] > The last 3 new Fords that I've owned, a '99 Escort ZX2, a '02 Focus > ZX5 and my current '04 SVT Focus all are supposed to have a 13.2 > gallon tank. On all 3 a fill up as soon as the low fuel light comes > on requires right at 10.0 gallons. On all 3 running until the gas > guage hits empty would take around 11.5 gallons to fill up which is > right in line with what you're seeing. Strange, iirc get easily 50l (13.2 gallon (US)) in my 99' Focus once the low fuel light came up, 55l (14.5 gallon (US)) is the announced capacity, which might be quite right, mostly you get a little more filled in. > BTW, I'm 61 years old and I have never owned a car where the gas guage > was anything more than a rough approximation of what was actually in > the tank. :-) Sure, in addition with the trip odometer it's good enough. Though the Focus could have a bit more fuel capacity for my taste.  SignatureMichael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94) mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/' >> BTW, I'm 61 years old and I have never owned a car where the >> gas guage was anything more than a rough approximation of what >> was actually in the tank. :-) I'm only 58 <g>, but by my gauges I usually fill up at about 1/8 tank remaining, at about 240 miles. The fuel gauge consistently claims I'm getting 100 miles (by the odo) on the first 1/4 tank -- wish I could maintain that. :) SignatureBlinky Kill-filing all posts from Google Groups Details: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html In alt.autos.ford.focus Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid>: >>> BTW, I'm 61 years old and I have never owned a car where the >>> gas guage was anything more than a rough approximation of what [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] > claims I'm getting 100 miles (by the odo) on the first 1/4 tank -- > wish I could maintain that. :) Looks like you are mixing up things here, I didn't wrote that. Get easily 200 km (124 miles) out of the first 1/4 but often only 100km (62 miles) out of the next 1/4, the reason might be that the needle doesn't move at all for the first 100 km (62 miles). Which might be a feature, at least giving you a warm and fuzzy feeling how economic your car is.;-) Non moving fuel gauge during the first 100 km (62 miles) is in my experience common to any Ford I had. At least that both US and European Focus deliver such different straight numbers, makes you wonder? BTW Did you experienced better mpg - l/100km with more tire air pressure until now? SignatureMichael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94) mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/' > In alt.autos.ford.focus Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid>: > [quoted text clipped - 8 lines] > > Looks like you are mixing up things here, I didn't wrote that. Oops. > Get easily 200 km (124 miles) out of the first 1/4 but often > only 100km (62 miles) out of the next 1/4, the reason might be > that the needle doesn't move at all for the first 100 km (62 > miles). Yeah, it takes a while here for it to get started, too. > Which might be a feature, at least giving you a warm and fuzzy > feeling how economic your car is.;-) Non moving fuel gauge > during the first 100 km (62 miles) is in my experience common to > any Ford I had. The whole breed. I'll be darned. > At least that both US and European Focus deliver such different > straight numbers, makes you wonder? > > BTW > Did you experienced better mpg - l/100km with more tire air > pressure until now? I decided to increment the pressure upward. I went to 35 psi and got maybe 1.5 mpg more, from 21.something to high 22.something (I'm not home where my log is). That was with the same mostly-city driving profile. Oddly, the next tank was at least half highway driving, and mpg didn't increase. SignatureBlinky Kill-filing all posts from Google Groups Details: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html In alt.autos.ford.focus Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid>: >> In alt.autos.ford.focus Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid>: [ fuel consumption ] >> Get easily 200 km (124 miles) out of the first 1/4 but often >> only 100km (62 miles) out of the next 1/4, the reason might be >> that the needle doesn't move at all for the first 100 km (62 >> miles). > Yeah, it takes a while here for it to get started, too. > >> Which might be a feature, at least giving you a warm and fuzzy >> feeling how economic your car is.;-) Non moving fuel gauge >> during the first 100 km (62 miles) is in my experience common to >> any Ford I had. > The whole breed. I'll be darned. > [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> Did you experienced better mpg - l/100km with more tire air >> pressure until now? > I decided to increment the pressure upward. > I went to 35 psi and got maybe 1.5 mpg more, from 21.something to 2.4 bar if 'gonvert', which I got my hands on after online conversion calculator always seem to miss the units you just need, got it right. It supports hundreds perhaps even thousands of units. Luckily have summer wheels/tires mounted lately, in combination with the suspension kit found out 2.7 bar (39 psi) working most effective in terms of road stability, fuel consumption and leaving a little comfort, usually about 26 mpg (9 l/100km). With a little more care 29 mpg (8 l/100km) are not a big problem. But then there's no stop and go on my way nor much city driving, which helps a lot. > high 22.something (I'm not home where my log is). That was with > the same mostly-city driving profile. Oddly, the next tank was at > least half highway driving, and mpg didn't increase. Strange, presuming you were forced to creep along from low speed limits anyway? SignatureMichael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94) mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/' > In alt.autos.ford.focus Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid>: > [quoted text clipped - 42 lines] > Strange, presuming you were forced to creep along from low speed limits > anyway? As I thought about that tank as I was calculating my mileage for it, it seemed like most of the highway miles had been at a reasonable speed. *Some* stop'n'go, but mostly not. But today I noticed my fuel gauge at 1/2 with 180 on the tripmeter. That's more mileage than I'd seen at a half-gauge, and nearly *all* of *that* half-tank (indicated) had been non-stop'n'go highway travel. So as a test I gassed up. 1. Despite the fual gauge's "curve" (as we discussed), at a half-tank indicated, the nozzle cut off the puchase (I never top off) at 6.6 gallons -- surprisingly accurate for my 13.2-gallon tank. 2. Mileage for that half-tank test was 27.4 gph. That's better. SignatureBlinky RLU 297263 Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients >> In alt.autos.ford.focus Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid>: >> [quoted text clipped - 53 lines] > surprisingly accurate for my 13.2-gallon tank. 2. Mileage for that > half-tank test was 27.4 gph. That's better. Uhhh..,27.4 mpg, not gph. I think someone else was moving my fingers, there. SignatureBlinky RLU 297263 Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients In alt.autos.ford.focus Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid>: [ fuel consumption ] >>> Strange, presuming you were forced to creep along from low speed limits >>> anyway? >> >> As I thought about that tank as I was calculating my mileage for it, it >> seemed like most of the highway miles had been at a reasonable speed. Unsure what you mean with reasonable highway speed? IMHO 160 km/h (about 100 mph) are what I'd call reasonable on an more or less empty/dry highway allowing to travel at the speed easily. Quite relative, recently drove on a more or less empty highway with my motorbike, there was a speed limit of 80 km/h (~50 mph) in some tunnel, ascended with only a little more on some slower cars, mirrors showed no other vehicle behind me, moved slowly in direction of the left lane. Even if you'd think it wasn't really needed to watch left over your shoulder, did this out of practice. Woom, there was another motorbike out of nowhere taking over with estimated 290-310 km/h (180-192 mph) with respectable incline. At my speed there was no cam at all at this point, the bike was out of view in under 2 seconds. It didn't looked like the driver would like to survive this season... So keep care if you are driving on a highway over here and never make the mistake to think you would be going fast, usually it takes only a few seconds until someone will prove you aren't... >> *Some* stop'n'go, but mostly not. But today I noticed my fuel gauge at >> 1/2 with 180 on the tripmeter. That's more mileage than I'd seen at a [quoted text clipped - 4 lines] >> surprisingly accurate for my 13.2-gallon tank. 2. Mileage for that >> half-tank test was 27.4 gph. That's better. > Uhhh..,27.4 mpg, not gph. I think someone else was moving my fingers, > there. Or about 8.5 l/100km, doesn't sound that bad. ;-) SignatureMichael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94) mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/' #bofh excuse 433: error: one bad user found in front of screen > In alt.autos.ford.focus Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid>: > [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > (about 100 mph) are what I'd call reasonable on an more or less > empty/dry highway allowing to travel at the speed easily. A speed that is not stop-and-go traffic jam. Call it 70mph; the speed limit is 65mph. > So keep care if you are driving on a highway over here and never make I shan't be. :) >>> *Some* stop'n'go, but mostly not. But today I noticed my fuel gauge >>> at 1/2 with 180 on the tripmeter. That's more mileage than I'd seen [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] > > Or about 8.5 l/100km, doesn't sound that bad. ;-) Still 2.5 under the sticker rating, but I didn't do that under perfect conditions on a test track. :) SignatureBlinky RLU 297263 Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients In alt.autos.ford.focus Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid>: >> In alt.autos.ford.focus Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid>: >> [quoted text clipped - 9 lines] >> (about 100 mph) are what I'd call reasonable on an more or less >> empty/dry highway allowing to travel at the speed easily. > A speed that is not stop-and-go traffic jam. Call it 70mph; the speed > limit is 65mph. 70 mph == 112 km/h Guess I'd get a much better mpg, lower l/100km out of my car with that speed limit any ware. ;-) The non existing speed limit on many highways was one of the main reasons to get a complete susspension kit, road holding simply sucked at high speeds. ;( At least remarkable how one could sell a car that fast with such susspension? >> Or about 8.5 l/100km, doesn't sound that bad. ;-) > Still 2.5 under the sticker rating, but I didn't do that under perfect > conditions on a test track. :) Pretty difficult, as it depends on so many effects. Nice things like A/C may use that much fuel in addition, for example. SignatureMichael Heiming (X-PGP-Sig > GPG-Key ID: EDD27B94) mail: echo zvpunry@urvzvat.qr | perl -pe 'y/a-z/n-za-m/' > In alt.autos.ford.focus Blinky the Shark <no.spam@box.invalid>: > [quoted text clipped - 16 lines] > > 70 mph == 112 km/h Yes, I was certain you could work that out. :) > Guess I'd get a much better mpg, lower l/100km out of my car with that > speed limit any ware. ;-) [quoted text clipped - 11 lines] > Pretty difficult, as it depends on so many effects. Nice things > like A/C may use that much fuel in addition, for example. Haven't been using it, but sure. SignatureBlinky RLU 297263 Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients >My '05 ZX4 SES fuel gauge reads empty when there are still a few >gallons left in the tank. The manual says that the full tank has a 14 14 gal??? That's new to me - my '04 Focus has only a 50 litre (13.2 gal) tank. Did they get around to changing this for the '05 model? Do you have the 2.3 litre engine? >gallon capacity, but when I run the right side of the needle to the >middle of the empty bar and then fill the tank, only 11.6 gallons go >in. Has anyone else experienced this? I know that there is supposed >to be some dead volume that the engine requires, but I can imagine that >it is ~2.5 gallons. Any comments? Yep, it's stupid! or is it? (in Ford's mind????) Ford uses a combination fuel pump/sensor that is installed in the fuel tank. I've heard that if the pump runs dry due to inadequate fuel in the tank that it could possibly overheat and/or malfunction causing false readings. The early NA Foci had that problem - in fact I had my fuel pump replaced in my 2000 sedan under Ford's silent warranty program. I don't recall if there was an actual recall notice ever sent out because I think Ford was trying to avoid the "Pinto syndrome". It's one of two big pet peeves I have with the Focus. When the low fuel light comes on you still have a usable amount of fuel in the tank but if you refill at that point you in effect are lowering the operating range of the vehicle. My other peeve is the shift ring for reverse gear. I haven't used any other car that required this shift mechanism "feature" and it is a pain in the butt whenever I let someone else drive my car because I have to "educate" them. >>My '05 ZX4 SES fuel gauge reads empty when there are still a few gallons >>left in the tank. The manual says that the full tank has a 14 > > 14 gal??? That's new to me - my '04 Focus has only a 50 litre (13.2 gal) > tank. Did they get around to changing this for the '05 model? Do you > have the 2.3 litre engine? Another datapoint, FWIW: my '03 2.3-liter (USA) has a 13.2 gallon tank. SignatureBlinky RLU 297263 Killing all posts from Google Groups The Usenet Improvement Project: http://blinkynet.net/comp/uip5.html Coming Soon: Filtering rules specific to various real news clients >My other peeve is the shift ring for reverse gear. I haven't used any >other car that required this shift mechanism "feature" and it is a pain in >the butt whenever I let someone else drive my car because I have to >"educate" them. You mean the collar that you have to pull up to shift it into reverse? That's the same type of reverse lockout used on old Volvo 200-series cars. Signature------------------------------------------------------------------------ Timothy J. Lee Unsolicited bulk or commercial email is not welcome. No warranty of any kind is provided with this message.
|
Reply to this Message |
 Sign In
 Join
 My Latest Posts My Monitored Threads My Blog My Photo Gallery My Profile My Homepage Start New Thread Enable EMail Alerts Rate this Thread
|
©2008 Advenet LLC Privacy Policy - Terms of Use
This website includes both content owned or controlled by Advenet as well as content owned or controlled by third parties.