www.autocar.co.uk/car-review/first-drives/ford-focus-16-ecoboost-180
In that case, it's a good job I bought a 180ps 1.6 EcoBoost petrol.
|
|
why have you put up an article thats over two years old up, one that is not that complimentary about your car to boot?
|
|
Reading their other reports on the current Focus it seems they are unhappy with the less nimble feel of this range compared with the previous one... and they are saying the diesel weight is just enough extra to further spoil the drive. Shame they didn't get the chassis right across the range really.
|
>>Shame they didn't get the chassis right across the range really
Shouldn't that be: "Looks like Ford have made a car that's better to drive in the real world, but which unfortunately does not lend itself to motoring journos hooning around B-roads like neds in Saxos"
|
Perhaps true in which case their header that the petrol is better than diesel becomes of no importance as that view was based on the extra diesel weight just pushing the "poor" chassis over the edge.
If the chassis is good in real life driving then I guess the diesel is too. The petrol combined consumption figure looks a bit heavy to me... is yours acceptable??
Last edited by: Fenlander on Wed 1 May 13 at 08:27
|
>> Perhaps true in which case their header that the petrol is better than diesel becomes
>> of no importance as that view was based on the extra diesel weight just pushing
>> the "poor" chassis over the edge.
>>
>> If the chassis is good in real life driving then I guess the diesel is
>> too. The petrol combined consumption figure looks a bit heavy to me... is yours acceptable??
>>
I've had it two months and so far the average is 34 mpg. It's worse than I was expecting, based on a comparison of the official combined figure for this and my previous car, but it's still acceptable to me.
Incidentally, What Car? rates the car as "the sweetest-handling car in its class".
tinyurl.com/bnxsu8r
Last edited by: L'escargot on Wed 1 May 13 at 08:52
|
I liked the handling ride and feel of the Mk1 focus, it was a cracking car in that respect. In my opinion, the Mk2 wasnt as good, and now that article says the mk3 isnt as good as the mk2.
its all downhill it seems.
|
"its all downhill it seems."
34 mpg ain't that good then.
|
>> 34 mpg ain't that good then.
>>
It depends on what you consider to be good, and on how much you're concerned about fuel consumption. I've always considered anything better than 30 mpg to be acceptable.
|
|
Well Zero said its all downhill and I put that together to with your 34mpg statement to make a --- oh never mind. ;-)
|
|
Blimey its worse than my lancer, even downhill.
|
>> I liked the handling ride and feel of the Mk1 focus, it was a cracking
>> car in that respect. In my opinion, the Mk2 wasnt as good, and now that
>> article says the mk3 isnt as good as the mk2.
>>
I agree. I had a long term custody of a few mk1s (diesel and petrol) and they were superb. About the only thing that stood comparison at the time with a Peugeot 306.
In Ford's defence, nobody really does steering feel or agility any more. Modern cars are about isolation, "safe" balance, and refinement , and if the latter comes at the expense of detachment from the road surface, so be it. In fact, electric power steering is an evil that simply wouldn't exist if it weren't for the emissions obsession. It has no merit whatsoever outside of chasing numbers.
Besides which, feel can be mistaken for a lack of refinement, and to set a car up with agility in mind will eventually catch out some litigious moron who can't read the road properly, barrels into a corner too quickly and lifts. Peugeot, for example would have struggled to give the lump of lard 208 the same flighty feel as the featherweight 205, but they could easily have engineered in some of the same slightly tail-happy handling balance. However, they'd be mad to in the modern world. So would anyone.
Last edited by: DP on Wed 1 May 13 at 10:29
|
All these insecurities, l'Es! Afraid we might think you've bought the wrong car, or the wrong engine, that we might think its fuel consumption excessive or that you even care about fuel economy like one of those infernal tree-huggers that you're not. (The iPhone dictionary wants you and the trees to be more intimate even than that!). You really should get some help. Go on, come out of your shell.
};---)
Incidentally, 34mpg is about what I used to get from my 1998 2.0 NA petrol Saab 9-3.
|
|
It's roughly what I used to get from my 1998 Mondeo 1.8 petrol estate, too. If I drive my current (quite large) Laguna very carefully, I can almost squeak 60mpg out of it.
|
>>like one of those infernal tree-huggers
I've hugged a tree, I feel people should know that, it was an oak tree, and it was BIG.
:o)
|
>>Peugeot, for example would have struggled to give the lump of lard 208 the same flighty feel as the featherweight 205, but they could easily have engineered in some of the same slightly tail-happy handling balance. However, they'd be mad to in the modern world.
It's not a matter of engineering in tail-happy handling - that was a feature of poor driving with excessive speed into bends in a lightweight nose-heavy car.
I'm happy to advise that the Suzuki Swift Sport drives very much like the 205 GTI of yesteryear (136bhp in 1020kg, vs 115bhp in 900kg or so).
It does, however, have electric PAS, which reduces (by about 100%!) steering wheel feel, but the bum-seat connection compensates for this a little.
|
>> It's not a matter of engineering in tail-happy handling - that was a feature of
>> poor driving with excessive speed into bends in a lightweight nose-heavy car.
I disagree. There were moments where you could deliberately induce and exploit such a characteristic for nothing more than the sheer pleasure and fun of it. The downside of course is that poor driving would also invoke it accidentally. I would also argue such characteristics were deliberately "tuned" into the car by means of suspension geomoetry, spring and anti roll bar rates, and so on, in the same way manufacturers now spend time tuning them out of modern equivalents. Add the various nannying electronics, and you have something that is exceedingly competent, but in which the driver is little more than an accessory.
To paraphrase a test of a fast Audi in a car mag I read recently - "it's a car that seems to prioritise what it can do for you, over what you can do with it".
Last edited by: DP on Wed 1 May 13 at 11:57
|
|
Should add, I am not having a dig at the Focus in particular here. All modern cars are the same. Each a bit softer, quieter, plusher and more "grown up" than the car they replaced. With "premium" interior plastics. And better instrument panel lighting. :-)
Last edited by: DP on Wed 1 May 13 at 12:02
|
>> And better instrument panel lighting. :-)
>>
Not on my Focus. If I set the illumination at its minimum, the dials are OK but the information display rectangle is still too bright at night.
|
>> There were moments where you could deliberately induce and exploit such a characteristic for nothing more than the sheer pleasure and fun of it
Indeed, but that wasn't the intention of the engineers as it doesn't enable you to go any faster - it was a side-effect of lightweight and nose-heaviness. Of course the traditionalists will be along soon to say tail-out japes are for RWD only...
ISTR my old Fiesta Pop Plus (1.1... maybe 60hp at best) could be forced to do some tail-out action but it was so gutless a dab of handbrake was required with throttle and opposite lock to prevent hedge-finding fiery death.
It, of course, has no place in a road-going car ;-)
|
>> traditionalists will be along soon to say tail-out japes are for RWD only...
I'm a bit of a traditionalist but I don't say that. The motoring hacks loved early Focuses for their handling. I had an Arna, 1350cc single carb, not even a fast one, and that used to put its tail out under throttle on certain wet roundabouts. And I think it went quicker with the tail out too.
Funny little car but I liked the engine a lot.
|
I'm really enjoying my time with a RWD again and no, not for slinging the tail out necessarily but more for that nebulous feeling of "connection" with the road. You forget just how much more safe speed you can carry into and through a sweeping bend with RWD when you have been, as I was for years, anesthetised by FWD.
That's not to say there aren't some entertaining FWDs. I've had a couple of Golf GTis which were a hoot and most recent-ish Fords handle very well. An Audi A4 Avant I had was horrid on fast corners. Way too much weight over the front wheels. My wife's Qashqai is a pleasant thing but the combination of height, FWD and more or less no feel to the steering doesn't encourage any heroics.
An old friend who used to be a saloon car racer back along always used to say in his low Northern Irish brogue "Well ye widne want to pull a wheelbarra now widye?"
|
>> An old friend who used to be a saloon car racer back along always used
>> to say in his low Northern Irish brogue "Well ye widne want to pull a
>> wheelbarra now widye?"
>>
Did he run around the front when he wanted to change direction or did he race forklifts?
Last edited by: gmac on Wed 1 May 13 at 18:29
|
Your old friend seems to have forgotten a "wheelbarra" has three wheels. But then he was a mick.
|
|
In your shoes, those things that are providing the power. We call them legs down here, but I know most jocks are legless.
|
|
Was wondering how he would attach a horse to a cart.
|
Four wheel drive though horses...
:-)
|
>> Was wondering how he would attach a horse to a cart.
Its not suprise the Romans were a successful power that achieved much and invented tons of things, and the Irish, errrr Well,,,,, Didn't
|
|
Ever tried pushing a loaded barrow up a hill? Some of the force is directed into pushing it into the ground.
|
|
Also depends whether you've got winter tread on your wellies.
|
>>I had an Arna, 1350cc single carb
They sound nice those flat 4's, the Sub sounds quite porpoisefull when I start it up in the morning,
quite un-like any car I've ever had, and I've adder few.
|
Right well, I reckon, I could do a running circuit of the perimeter of my back garden faster pushing a laden wheelbarrow than I could pulling it.
The circuit involves four major turns, an uphill section, a chicane around the shed, a back straight, a downhill section and a pit straight into the patio.
Just going to find a stopwatch and my son...
Will report back later. I will be totally truthful I promise. Anyone care to open a book?
:-)
|
>> Will report back later. I will be totally truthful I promise. Anyone care to open
>> a book?
>>
>> :-)
Stand by for a major shunt on the muddy dog section.
|
>> major shunt on the muddy dog section.
With flowerpot slalom sequence...
|
>> Right well, I reckon, I could do a running circuit of the perimeter of my
>> back garden faster pushing a laden wheelbarrow than I could pulling it.
>>
>> The circuit involves four major turns, an uphill section, a chicane around the shed, a
>> back straight, a downhill section and a pit straight into the patio.
>>
>> Just going to find a stopwatch and my son...
>>
>> Will report back later. I will be totally truthful I promise. Anyone care to open
>> a book?
>>
>> :-)
>>
How you going to navigate the corners ? Rear end steer or from the front like cars do ?
|
>> Right well, I reckon, I could do a running circuit of the perimeter of my
>> back garden faster pushing a laden wheelbarrow than I could pulling it.
>> Will report back later.
Well Humph has been missing for over three hours.
Either he has a very big garden or maybe he has over-steered into the pond.
When do we send out the search party?
|
>>When do we send out the search party?
Yes well, turns out there was more to this than met the eye...
I did make an attempt at getting reliable timed laps in last night but was stymied by a nasty negative camber at turn 3. Kept going off there.
To explain the circuit in more detail, ( you may wish to get hold of a piece of graph paper for this bit )
The start finish line is marked by the point at which the path running down the left hand side of my house meets the edge of the lawn ( if you have your back to the back of the house ) This then gives an uphill mainly muddy section with the fence on your left of about 15m until you reach turn 1 which is a sharp right hander to take you along the front of the shed. It's a big shed so that straight is about 5m until you then have a sharp left down the side of the structure leading to a further 4m mild climb into turn 3 which should then take you onto the back straight bordered by the back fence and some trees.
Now, the problem is that the trees and fence lie in a slight dip so turn 3 has an anti-camber. I'll come back to that in a bit. Anyway, the back straight is a further 14 m until you reach turn 4 which is another sharp right and and long, fast downhill section of about 19m until you reach the Patio turn ( or turn 5 ) wherupon you then reach the paved section running across the back of the house ( including the pit garage aka behind the BBQ area ) to reach the Start / Finish line at the far end.
OK, so the load chosen was a large bag of John Innes laid centrally and lomgitudinally in the vehicle. Getting a clean start and accelerating up to turn one involves getting the balance right between getting the power down and loss of traction but this soon became second nature. A dab of brakes just before the corner, lean in, straighten up on a balananced throttle and swing wide to cut back in to turn 2.
Turn 3 though turns out to be my nemesis. Approached too slowly, the front wheel bogs down in the dip and rips off speed. Too fast and the change of camber halfway through the turn makes the compost slide to the left exacerbating the the understeer and you're off.
It could of course be a downforce issue and I shall experiment with laying the bag transversely and nearer to the rear of the vehicle to see if the dual effect of re-positioning the weight distribution and indeed the "wing" effect it will also provide helps the handling.
I haven't ruled out tyre degradation either. Currently we're running a Dunlop intermediate at about half normal pressure. Well, it most resembles an intermediate in that the tread has worn off the centre line but it still retains some sipes on the sidewalls. Might be a bit tricky in full wet conditions though. I'll also look at pumping it up a bit to see if that improves acceleration times and turn in.
An unexpected complication on the "pulling" trials was the propensity for the handle grips to come off on the uphill section. The same issue manifests itself under braking on the "pushed" trials on the downhill section, I think there is some need for a bit more preparation before reliable times can be achieved.
For one thing I must remember to clear the circuit of dog toys and other dog related "obstacles" which may cause traction loss issues.
As things stand, practice again on Saturday with a view to the actual race on Sunday or Monday.
Any tuning tips will in the meanwhile of course be most gratefully received...
|
Pulling or pushing Humph?
Forgive me for asking, but the direction of travel of a standard wheelbarrow, albeit one with a worn, underinflated tyre and its aerodynamic purity ruined by a sack of compost, has a direct bearing on the aerodynamics. One doesn't want to exaggerate of course, but if being pushed the sloping front of a standard wheelbarrow will tend to generate lift on the longer straight sections, with consequent loss of adhesion. If the barrow is being pulled, the opposite holds true and adhesion will be increased by the resulting strong downforce at near-trotting speeds.
And there is of course the delicate question of the tyres fitted to the tractor unit. I feel running spikes may seem a little coarse in this application. Some nice black Gucci slip-ons will grip almost as well I'm sure. But you must be the judge of that.
|
''Any tuning tips will in the meanwhile of course be most gratefully received..''
Tyre's my speciality, i'd not inflate it too high, a bit more than it is now as drag is losing you time and there's always the possibility of tyre squirm at high G's.
I wouldn't change it though, slick in the centre for straight line low rolling resistance but useful sipes that should dig in (only under RWD pushing conditions though i fear) when cornering, in FWD (dragged) form that tyre might skip across the ground as weight transfer will tend to lift it.
Put a drop of oil on the bearing, fully synthetic Millers 5W 40 would be a good choice, but they also do a decent 10W60 competition oil if the bearings are likely to get hot, a poor oil choice could lead to a seizing bearing at some point.
In the event of an oversteer situation when pulling then your only hope is to accelerate out of the situation, trying to correct whilst already on the lean will end in tears, braking is a no no unless you have a strategically placed stick on a string that you can pull which will engage with the wheel and slow the vehicle but gradually, any lock ups at this point and she'll spin out on you.
Remember those straight sipes will have little braking and accelerating grip on the off road course, so if you sense a rollover or other serious situation developing in FWD form, pulling hard on the string should lock the rear wheel and allow the barrow to slide into an oversteer that you should be able to pull out of, the lack of grip due to straight sipes will help you here.
The driven wheels will need to be carefully chosen for this purpose, flexible and light enough for the drive train to give its best.
Too smooth and grip will suffer, i suggest a leather workboot of the Commando tread pattern, uppers well dubbined in advance, laced up tight enough to allow ankle flexibility but sturdy enough to hold off the not inconsiderable sideways forces that are encountered at the third turn.
Walk the course on the morning of the race, pay particular attention to the approach and depart surface conditions at the third turn, any time spent planning the best approach and lift off point and the precise moment to reapply full power will reap benefits here, i suspect that there is a mean speed that balances speed versus lean and camber at this turn, if you find that sweet spot you've cracked it....this tricky manoeuver is the going to show any faults in the tread or preparation of the driven wheels...a broken lace at this point would spell disaster.
Course that sweet spot speed will be different for front and rear wheel drive configurations, and remember you have no TC ABS ASR etc hindering you its all down to driver skill, i suspect driven well this is the section that will prove once and for the superiority of RWD.
Obviously the ballast load has to be strapped on, thats a given, also i'd remove those pesky handle grips for the race and use a standard work glove of rough leather pads but material uppers to allow air to circulate, if the handles under those grips is rusty so much the better.
Best of luck dear chap, sorry i can't be more help but got to shoot off to work.
Last edited by: gordonbennet on Fri 3 May 13 at 04:30
|
|
I'm 100 percent with you DP, tucking the back round is a joy when you get it right.
|
>> tail-out japes are for RWD only...
I have been hoping that Roger who used to club-race a Mini would give us his take on this, but so far he has maintained a discreet silence. The Mini was an understeerer in standard form of course, without the wayward-tail tendencies of fast-driven Austin/Morris 1100s, but I watched a lot of them race and their drivers certainly knew how to get them a bit sideways at will. Even saw a Cooper S do it at Hyde Park Corner once, in traffic... admirable.
Come on Rastaman! You have something to boast about, so give us the benefit.
Last edited by: Armel Coussine on Thu 2 May 13 at 15:52
|
Getting the tail out on any front driver isn't hard: go into the corner a little fast, lift off the throttle mid bend. The weight transfer is forward, unloading the rear which then skips round. Or swops places with the front depending how well judged you've got it! Getting straight back on the throttle puts drive back into the equation, along with weight transfer to the rear again, giving pull at the front and grip at teh back. All needs to happen very quickly to gather up the mobile rear. An alternative to this to get round quickly is a little left foot trail braking, pinning the rear down but keeping a good dose of throttle on. Faster than tucking the back round but requires a delicate left foot and a car that doesn't cut the fuel when braking. Discussed on here before but most VAG group Diesel's cut the fuel when braking.
|
I never got a Mini to put its tail out by lifting off in mid-bend Woodster. Drove quite a few of them but they were all cooking, road cars and none of them were mine, so perhaps I was mimsing a bit. The Mini chassis was very forgiving and its handling didn't seem much affected by load.
The 1100 had less adhesion, understeered more obviously and went into oversteer mode very easily and with little warning on damp roads. It was said that the heavy rear suspension units gave it a 'dumbbell' weight distribution and that was the cause. It was a rapid cross-country cruiser but you couldn't drive it like a getaway driver, seven-tenths at most. Minis were much safer under the lash.
I don't know how the Mini racers got the tail out, although they did. I suspect through a dab of left foot braking not to lower the tail but to unstick the rear tyres. Not a thing you would try though on the road in someone else's cooking Mini.
My Arna was odd too, in that if you applied more power when the tail went out it would go out even further, like a rwd car, and come in again if you backed off discreetly. Struck me as very odd, but I liked it. The Arna's body/chassis was very floppy, twisting and wobbling like a Vintage chassis. That may well have been a factor.
|
>> I don't know how the Mini racers got the tail out, although they did. I
>> suspect through a dab of left foot braking
>>
IIRC judicial use of the handbrake.
|
Was the judge in the car with you, Neil?
};---)
|
Ford Focus III - Petrol Focus more enjoyable to drive than diesel - Zero
