Andrew English in the DT reckons it moves the whole game on just like the '98 Focus did. However Autocar reckon the Golf MKVI, drives better (of the respective variants they compared), strange how views vary, it really shows that whatever a journo says it is a matter of trying for one's self. I would like to try the higher powered 1.6 ecoboost and the new ST whenever that appears.
Standard equipment seems good across the range and the new petrols seem strong though Ford no longer have a clear diesel advantage over VW as they did when the Focus II came along and VW were still PD.
Last edited by: Cheddar on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 09:01
|
I think with the computer designed Euroboxes you have to be a professional test driver on a track to really tell the differences in handling. I suspect many average drivers would not be able to tell the difference between different makes of tyre and can only tell the difference in ride. You would need to drive various cars back to back as well.
I include myself in this average group, unless you have had race training or experience you are deluding yourself if you think you can do it on the road safely.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 09:11
|
"...it really shows that whatever a journo says it is a matter of trying for one's self."
I agree completely. It's like buying shoes. What anyone else says is irrelevant; you've got to try them on and see how they fit your feet.
Last edited by: tyro on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 09:53
|
>> I think with the computer designed Euroboxes you have to be a professional test driver>>
Cars havd a DNA, my Focus ST has the same DNA as the much lamented Mondeo, the way it turns in and the feel through the wheel, very different cars though with something in common. Likewise a pre '06 Passat and a MKIV Golf (but for the VR6) have certain woodeness in common, again very different cars, the Passat having a longtitudinal engine, though with similar DNA.
|
>> I think with the computer designed Euroboxes you have to be a professional test driver
>> on a track to really tell the differences in handling. I suspect many average drivers
>> would not be able to tell the difference between different makes of tyre and can
>> only tell the difference in ride. You would need to drive various cars back to
>> back as well.
I agree with you, for the average person who uses the car to get them from A-B and drives a car normally (IE you do not have a test track to hand) there is going to be little difference (apart from ride comfort) to actually notice.
|
If you drive with thick gloves, wellingtons and ear muffs, maybe.
Yesterday I drove a 59-reg S-Max 140 Auto with 7k on the clock, and then a 10-reg S-Max 163 powershift auto with 5k on the clock over the same roads, not going above 50mph. So, similar age/miles, same engine but different gearboxes and 'updated' refinement (apparently the new S-Maxes have thicker glass and improved insulation).
There was a substantial difference between the two cars, I can tell you. The newer car was much quieter, and more refined all round, and a bit nippier with the extra 23HP.
|
|
I wonder if they've put half decent seats in this one? The previous generation ones were generally awful.
|
>> I wonder if they've put half decent seats in this one? The previous generation ones
>> were generally awful.
>>
They look and feel the same, and were fine for my shape/weight.
|
>> If you drive with thick gloves, wellingtons and ear muffs, maybe.
>>
>> Yesterday I drove a 59-reg S-Max 140 Auto with 7k on the clock, and then
>> a 10-reg S-Max 163 powershift auto with 5k on the clock over the same roads,
>> not going above 50mph.
So you can tell the difference between two different models with the same name, very clever.
|
>> So you can tell the difference between two different models with the same name, very
>> clever.
>>
Apart from the gearboxes, engine tune and 'soundproofing' they are the same car! My point was, that if there is that much difference between what is 90% the same car, the difference between two totally different cars will, in my opinion, be even more marked.
I drove a new VW Sharan the week before, and this felt very different to the S-Max, despite them both being 'Euroboxes', if that helps.
|
>> I think with the computer designed Euroboxes you have to be a professional test driver on a track to really tell the differences
Not sure. Is it not more likely most people don't try different cars regularly and so don't appreciate the differences?
When people change cars, or even just at the test drive stage, the way the car drives is often something they'll comment on.
I think Joe Punter can tell the difference in handling between say a regular middle of the range Focus and a regular Megane, and they'll have an opinion on which is better.
|
Handling is always a compromise with ride, and sometimes mistaken by those who dont appreciate it, for noise and harshness.
So makers will sacrifice some ride for better handling, or the other way round. You can make a pretty bad car for ride, but mask it with quiet suspension.
Either way, there are few cars that dont handle well at normal road speeds, but quite a few that dont ride well.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 13:55
|
Although I am not a ford person, I do think Ford are on to something with the ecoboost engines.
I wonder how well to 1.0L focus with either 89bhp or 109bhp will drive !
Also looking at the Fiesta, Ford have managed to trim down the weight and make a half decent small car.
It is lighter than the previous version of Fiesta.
930kgs is about right for a 1.2L engine to pull, not the 1300kgs of the Corsa !
|
I think the average driver can tell the difference in the way a car handles, although he might not be able - or bothered enough - to describe it.
The handling of a 1.6 petrol Focus and a 1.8 diesel - both Zetecs - was markedly different when I test drove both a few years ago.
The 1.6 was lighter and more agile, which made it the better handling car, but I went for grunt and bought the diesel.
Focuses have a grin factor which I've not experienced in other machinery.
That's not to say I wouldn't buy anything else.
A diesel Golf I test drove was nice enough, except it was slower and more expensive than the Focus.
Another common misconception is good handling only matters on a test track.
The precise way in which the Focus goes where you point it, and the directness of the steering, are a joy at any speed, even swinging into a parking space.
|
>> Another common misconception is good handling only matters on a test track.
>>
>> The precise way in which the Focus goes where you point it, and the directness of the
>> steering, are a joy at any speed, even swinging into a parking space.
Yip, i agree.
Other folks do mimse though, it's unlikely they'd have any perception of or appreciation for such fine engineering.
Probably catch them getting in the way and holding up the traffic in a diesel ceed or something like that :-P
|
>> Probably catch them getting in the way and holding up the traffic in a diesel
>> ceed or something like that :-P
>>
That is one thing I have never been accused of, no matter what I am driving. Eat my dust ! :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 15:05
|
>> driving. Eat my dust ! :-)
Yeah, those kia engines are filthy, like driving behind battersea power station.
The looks are similar too.
|
|
And for the last 20odd years has produced as much power as an obsolete petrol dog kennel.
|
One review I read recently reckoned the new electric power steering was awful, and it was much more of an understeerer than the mk1 or mk2.
I'll wait til I drive one myself though :-)
|
>> And for the last 20odd years has produced as much power as an obsolete petrol
>> dog kennel.
>>
Are petrol dog kennels obsolete now then? When did that happen? Can I still get them for Fido on fleabay?
|
>> Are petrol dog kennels obsolete now then? When did that happen? >>
When Zero put his mutt in the back of his Mitsubishi Lancer.
Lancer, that sounds like something you would use on a boil. :-)
Last edited by: Old Navy on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 17:27
|
Autoexpress had the gold down as being the better as an overall package. Their main reasoning was the golf has residuals of 46% but they suspect that the focus will be nearer 35% making it quite a bit cheaper per mile to run.
Fords problem is their business model of having a very high list price and then discounting it by a lot. It gives people a poor perception of value and makes cars with better residuals appear cheaper. The reality is that joe public will buy pre regs etc and pay what is a fair price for it so there cost per mile will be much better than the headline figures
|
|
I don't like the looks, although I've yet to see one in the flesh. Ford are doing what they did to the Mk 2 Focus - make it conservative and bland looking, then facelift it after people have bought it for a year, to make people hanker after the new model. Those rear lights - is that the best the designer could come up with?
|
>> Fords problem is their business model of having a very high list price and then
>> discounting it by a lot.
2.0 petrol Titanium - list price = £18217, drivethedeal = £12711 ! (new, OTR)
Less of a discount on diesels though.
|
...Less of a discount on diesels though....
And they are almost 'run-out' models.
But the overall point is sound enough.
|
>> And they are almost 'run-out' models.
Granted, but I remember looking at them in the past and seeing similar discounts (and mentioning it on either here or HJ).
|
...and mentioning it on either here or HJ)...
Focus,
I agree with you, large discounts are available on nearly all new Fords.
Both of my last two Focuses were bought this way.
The new Focus might nearly hold its list price for a few months.
I believe the last new Focus did.
|
|
By the time I have to replace my mk1 2.0 petrol estate, hopefully there'll be some cheap 2.0 mk2s around. Sub-£13k for a new one sounds like a bargain - mmm... how much have I got left in my National Lottery online account... :)
|
>> The new Focus might nearly hold its list price for a few months.
Just been looking on drivethedeal for something else, but noticed:
New model Focus 1.6 EcoBoost Titanium X 5dr: list=£21244, dtd=£18049
|
>>Also looking at the Fiesta, Ford have managed to trim down the weight and make a half decent small car
It was easy since the development work to reduce weight had already been done with its 'sister under the skin' Mazda 2.
|
>> I think with the computer designed Euroboxes
Sorry, I have to take issue with that.
Computers don't design cars.
Engineers do.
They use computers as a tool to help the task - to help find (with varying degrees of intervention) an optimum solution once the engineer has defined the constraints and boundary conditions.
The fact that cars are converging in their design is partly because modern designs are much more rational and more accurately follow and exploit the underlying physics than ever before.
-------------
The rest of the point, I agree with completely. Most people can't drive to the level you need to discern the fine differences, and to a large extent, factors like the Focus's sharp turn in are largely lost on them.
|
|
Glad you realised what I meant N_C. :-)
|
|
When the Focus first came out, circumstances with work allowed me to drive a hired one from South to North Wales, along roads that delight anybody who enjoys driving. I was able to compare it almost immediately after a similar trip in a Peugeot 306 1.6. I remember thinking that despite the hype, the Focus wasn't really a step change ahead in terms of handling, ride and roadholding. Of course, the package as a whole in terms of its striking styling, interior design and overall "completeness" was however a massive leap, particularly compared with the outgoing Escort. I wish in many ways, they still made the Mk 1 Focus, as the Mk2 lost much of the raw appeal of the original.
|
|
I agree with you Baz - I drove both a Pug and Focus at that time - I preferred the Pug - Every Focus I drove (and I drove a dozen or so over the years) felt dead around the straight ahead position - not to my taste.
|
>> Most people can't drive to the level you need to discern the fine differences, and to a large extent, factors like the Focus's sharp turn in are largely lost on them. >>
>>I was able to compare it almost immediately after a similar trip in a Peugeot 306 1.6. I remember thinking that despite the hype, the Focus wasn't really a step change ahead in terms of handling, ride and roadholding.>>
>> I agree with you Baz - I drove both a Pug and Focus at that
>> time - I preferred the Pug - Every Focus I drove (and I drove a
>> dozen or so over the years) felt dead around the straight ahead position - not
>> to my taste.
>>
Clearly lost on Baz and PU anyway NC ;-)
|
"2.0 petrol Titanium - list price = £18217, drivethedeal = £12711 ! (new, OTR)"
Just noticed that Ford have taken the oportunity to adjust pricing....
New model 1.6 Ecobost Titanium £19,745.....by my reckoning then they have upped the list price by over 1200 quid......
|
|
Look forward to trying one. Interesting that they appear to have sorted the refinement issues - the worst aspect of the Mk 2 I actually owned. That car probably was/is the finest handling car I've owned in recent years, although the ZX (306 chassis) I still contend was a match for it handling-wise, of course many other things fell off it.
|
|
I read somewhere that the Golf prices/list prices are noticeably lower than the Focus, so that's where my money would inevitably go to. And as corax said, those Focus rear lights....??!
|
>> Clearly lost on Baz and PU anyway NC ;-)
Me too unfortunately.
I had a 306 as a company car which was replaced with a Focus when I changed jobs. The Focus was very good, don't get me wrong, but the Pug was better. More supple ride, beautifully balanced, and the best power steering system I've ever experienced. Beautiful weighting, quick, but not over sharp gearing, and you could actually feel changes in road surface texture and grip levels through the wheel rim.
The Focus was much a more forgiving car, particularly if you had to lift unexpectedly when committed to a corner, a situation where the 306 would often bite hard, but the 306 chassis still remains the best front driver I've known. It was just brilliant once you got your head around the rear end being mobile and part of the cornering equation, rather than just a dumb pair of wheels being dragged along for the ride.
I'm not knocking the Focus at all. Enjoyed my mk1 immensely, and I've never known a more reliable car, but purely as a driving machine, the Pug pipped it. That said, the Focus easily ruled the roost once the Pug was discontinued. The 307 wasn't in the same league.
Last edited by: DP on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 21:43
|
|
The ride on the Pug was in another league - speed humps were a breeze !!!
|
>> The ride on the Pug was in another league - speed humps were a breeze
>> !!!
Agreed. Yet it hardly rolled in the corners, and never floated or wallowed over undulating bits of road. I never quite worked out how they achieved such a fantastic compromise. Even the hot versions were supple and comfortable.
|
In my opinion, the best ride/handler combination was the 205.
My mum had a 205 auto, with a 1.6 engine. It was basically the GTi engine without the "i"
Absolute cracker.
|
I never drove a 205 - but why can't makers match Pug's ride quality and handling ?
By the way that new Focus looks big ! Expensive as well. No wonder people drive smaller Audis and BMW these days.
|
|
Even Pug cant now match their ride/handling of the 80's.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 22:02
|
|
Not been in one for years !
|
|
In those days, Peugeot designed and built their own dampers. One of the only manufacturers to do so. Apparently, they buy them in now like everyone else.
|
>> >> I think with the computer designed Euroboxes
>>
>> Sorry, I have to take issue with that.
>>
>> Computers don't design cars.
>>
>> Engineers do.
And I have to take issue with that.
There are a lot of criteria the engineers have no input over. As an engineer for the new car i have no input over the type of power plant, and gearbox that goes in it. I have to adhere to European type regulations that tell me where the lights and bumpers and mirrors must go, I have to adhere to what the head of the styling studio says it should look like, who by the way was poached from VW, and used to work at GM before that, and trained all their stylists. I have to adhere to what the focus groups say it looks like, and I have to meet criteria about Drag co-efficient, so I have to put it through a Computer simulated wind tunnel using the same software all the other makers use. Then I have to battle with the purchasing department and the bean counters who are buying stuff from component suppliers who supply every other maker.
A eurobox? Yeah. Exactly.
|
|
I never knew you were a car design engineer.
|
|
He is - designed the Panda.
|
The black and white one that eats bamboo shoots.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 22:09
|
>>There are a lot of criteria...
Well, of course there are. Those constraints, and many others mean that the design space the engineers work in is limited - it doesn't mean the engineers don't design the car.
>>so I have to put it through a Computer simulated wind tunnel....
Yes, CFD is a computer based tool used by engineers to reduce the number of iterations of car body shape they need to physically test before committing to cutting metal, and as the underlying physics is, well, physics, that means that what's aerodynamically good for one manufacturer will also be good for another. The manufacturers won't necessarily all run the same CFD code, but, if the underlying physics is adequately modelled, the exact code used really doesn't matter. The same goes for structural, crash, dynamics, etc, etc.
|
During the late 80's and early 90's Peugeot had it right, the 205, 405 and 309 were all class leaders (the 309 GTi was very enjoyable) though none compared to a '98 Focus dynamically and would be completely outdated today by the likes of a Fiesta, Focus, Golf, Mini, Mazda 2, Mondeo etc.
|
|
The Mk1 focus was good, real good. The Mk2 wasnt. With current VW you have to like the ride a tad on the firm side.
Last edited by: Zero on Thu 27 Jan 11 at 22:34
|
>> With current VW you have to like the ride a tad on the firm side.
>>
Indeed - and they are not the only ones. Every time I read a review of a new car, or sit in a friend's car it nearly always seems the same: the suspension modified for a firmer, more "sporty", ride. Every range seems to have it's "Sport" model. They aren't Estate Cars any more but "Sports Tourers". Sport, Sport, Sport all the time.
It sounds good down the pub as a label of course, "Oh Yeah! I drive the Sport Version blablabla..." (Adopts coolest pose). Load of old tosh. Part of the modern obsession with image over substance.
|
I had a Golf GTi 1.8T back in 1999. It will have had the sport suspension and the standard 16" alloy wheels. It was very firm and tram-lined too easily. Now cars often have 17 or even 18" wheels.
It was replaced by a comfortable but slightly wallowing Passat 1.8T Sport in 2000.
The Mondeo that replaced the Passat handled well but the seats were not as comfortable as the Passat and were certainly not as comfortable as the Mazda6 Sport.
This sporty suspension dilemma will no doubt be an issue for me when the Mazda is replaced. Maybe a VAG car with active suspension is the answer.
|
>> The Mk1 focus was good, real good. The Mk2 wasnt. >>
The Focus II was not as innovative inside or out though improved on the Focus I via better engines and a better ride with no handling compromises. The Focus II was also very much best in class, possibly only bettered by the Golf VI as on overall package.
|
|
I never drove a MK2 other than diesel hacks - apart from a 2.0 Titanium I got from Enterprise (complete with a Disabled Tax Disc) and that was on Motorways, but I did own a MK5 Golf GTi - which was a phenomenally good all round drive - the Golf would have the edge for me if only for its finely chiselled looks.
|
|
The mk2 had a worse ride than the mk1. It had a nasty "pattery" or feel about it at speeds under 50. In my opinion, (and I have done several hundred miles in both) the Mk2 was a backwards step both in handling and ride.
|
I haven't driven a Mk 2 Focus, but for me it was just soo dull to look at - a complete contrast to the Mk 1. The Mk 1 drove so much better than a Pug 307 I was looking at at the time. The 307 was a real disappointment after the 306.
So that's Mk2 Focus worse than Mk1, and Pug 307 worse than 306. Whatever happened to progress?
|
>> So that's Mk2 Focus worse than Mk1, and Pug 307 worse than 306. Whatever happened
>> to progress?
>>
It was the 309 that was good, its not that the 306 was worse, rather just Peugeot did not advance when others did.
Re the Focus, both a crackers though the II while being less cutting edge did move the game on.
|
>> So that's Mk2 Focus worse than Mk1, and Pug 307 worse than 306. Whatever happened
>> to progress?
You could say that the progress is the stronger shells for increased safety, and with it the inevitable increase in weight, so reducing the potential for a good handling car. Or I should say a nimble car. Plenty of cars have good grip nowadays but for chuckability you can't beat lightness, and the 306 was a nice light car with well designed suspension, ditto the 205 - how much did that weigh? A bit more than a fag packet.
|
My Mk I Focus replaced a 205 GTi 1.9 and was better in many ways. But is was certainly not as nimble and the steering felt vague after the (unpowered) 205.
My old Haynes gives 740kg for the lightest 205 but 875kg for the 1.9GTi
|
>> My old Haynes gives 740kg for the lightest 205 but 875kg for the 1.9GTi
Yep, that's light. My 3 series weighs around 1460kg :) It handles well, but you're always concious of the forces at work when cornering spiritedly. I do envy the guy in the Lotus Elise in front of me on a nice day sometimes.
|
Just checked weights in Haynes for the Mk I Focus.
Hatchback 1125kg(1.4 litre) to 1349kg(diesel)
Estate 1193kg(1.6 litre) to 1390kg(diesel)
|
Yes, the 205 certainly was light. I had a 3-door 1.4XS as my first company car in 1988, but although light it didn't really feel insubstantial at the time - although doubtless it would now compared to modern cars.
But did anyone ever ask for a heavier, safer car when they went into the car showroom? Electric toys that add weight, yes. But safety? I don't think so.
|
>> But did anyone ever ask for a heavier, safer car when they went into the
>> car showroom? Electric toys that add weight, yes. But safety? I don't think so.
I think you'll find that many people, especially families would have safety as a priority, especially as they are now aware of EuroNCap ratings. You're right that petrolheads would want a good handling car, but unless you change the materials that the car is made from to make it both light and strong (expensive) you will always have a compromise.
And when it comes down to it, I think I'd rather be alive, than have the ultimate handling beancan made from balsa wood and tin foil. Showing my age maybe.
|
>> the 306 was a nice light car with
>> well designed suspension,
The 306 and 205 were both prone to lift off oversteer which was huge fun when provoked intentionally, but could be a serious problem to the uninitiated when invoked accidentally such as going too quickly into a tightening corner, or if some clod pulled out on you on a roundabout.
In today's litigious culture, no manufacturer is going to release a car that is anything other than completely idiot proof. The 80's and 90's Pugs were brilliant cars, but they could bite if maltreated. In this day and age, that is an unacceptable risk for any mass market manufacturer.
I used to enjoy long, curved motorway slip roads in mine where you could get it turned in, then play with the throttle to adjust the line with almost millimetre precision. Such a beautifully balanced chassis, and steering that talked to you. Those days are long gone. :-(
Last edited by: DP on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 17:44
|
Safety's not all bad. We have massively stiffer shells as a result these days.
Sure they can still be improved but the days of seam welding the engine bay and tub giving good gains for the money spent are over. Same for strut braces.
Sure there will still be improvements but not on the scale that made it so attractive for guys entering their cars in the local cup before.
|
>> Safety's not all bad. We have massively stiffer shells as a result these days.
And those stiffer shells are actually a good base for suspension to work from - less geometry change when cornering.
|
...I used to enjoy long, curved motorway slip roads in mine where you could get it turned in, then play with the throttle to adjust the line with almost millimetre precision. Such a beautifully balanced chassis, and steering that talked to you...
Sounds like my Focus, sure you're not getting confused with the one you had?
|
|
thats caused by the rain water sloshing around in your bilges.
Last edited by: Zero on Fri 28 Jan 11 at 18:21
|
...thats caused by the rain water sloshing around in your bilges...
Terrible thing envy, it eats away at you.
|
>> Terrible thing envy, it eats away at you.
Not that's rust, caused by the rainwater in your bilges.
|
>> Sounds like my Focus, sure you're not getting confused with the one you had?
These antics were perfectly possible in the Focus iffy, don't get me wrong. But it wasn't quite as agile, and its tail felt much less mobile and more "tied down" somehow. It was a brilliant car - easily the best of its contemporaries, and in a different league to the mk4 Golfs we drive now, but the 306 was a real class act, chassis wise.
What I loved about the Pug was its utter consistency. You could enter a corner or a roundabout too quickly (in appropriate visibility / traffic conditions of course), turn it in and ease off the throttle, and the nose would ALWAYS bite, the tail would go light and ease outward to help the car turn in, and it was just a question of throttle timing and the correct gear to haul it straight again, but again the behaviour was so consistent that it was all utterly predictable. If you were a bit tardy with the throttle, the steering gave you everything you needed to apply corrective lock without any drama at all. The Focus's nose I found was just that little bit less trustworthy. It would sometimes fail to follow steering commands quite as faithfully, and a good mid corner bump would throw the nose off line much more readily than the more supple Pug.
Of course, this is driving like a total idiot, which I used to do as a company car driver in my 20's, but in anything up to eight tenths driving, you wouldn't really tell the difference.
Where the Focus utterly shamed the Pug was build quality and reliability. A far superior bit of engineering. My 306 had a lot of electrical niggles and engine management problems which were made worse by the fact that the main dealer we were forced to use for servicing was completely clueless.
This is the reason I don't own one now. I thought long and hard about buying a GTI-6 instead of the Golf GTI, but I kept thinking that 10 years wouldn't have improved the integrity of the wiring, or the creakiness of the interior. By contrast, I would buy a 10 yr old Focus without so much as a blink of lost sleep.
|
>> During the late 80's and early 90's Peugeot had it right, the 205, 405 and 309 were all class leaders (the 309 GTi was very enjoyable)>>
The 405 in particular had it all in the ride and handling departments and, what's more, was a rather elegant saloon.
|
Ok as we are praising the 80's pugs, time to see this little gem again.
www.youtube.com/watch?v=umQjv1wo21Q
|
Never mind the ride and handling, nobody seems to have remembered that some of the 80s Pugs looked good too... unlike most of the bloated cod-pout Peugeots we see today!
And didn't the Focus look futuristic in 1998?!
|
There are lots of mentions of the 306 above, sure you dont mean 309 cos that was the 205's sibling?
Also re lightness, I had a Metro Turbo in the mid 80's, a friend bought a 205 GTi and I was surprised at the lack of substance in and around the doors even compared to the Metro.
|
|
The 309 was a gorged 205 - same chassis, suspension, etc. They even shared doors. But the extra weight meant it was a wee bit compromised in the handling department - less engaging, slightly more mature, perhaps. The 306 was better balanced and infinitely more attractive to boot.
|
As I recall it was the 309 that was better balanced helped by longer wheelbase and perhaps better weight distribution.
|
I would buy a Peugeot for the comfy ride, if only it was a more like a Focus in other respects.
|
The few seconds around 2m 06s just brought back lovely memories. :-)
www.youtube.com/watch?v=SjfHvUhgVnw&feature=related
|
|
Whatever happened to Peugeot? If only they could still make cars as simple and desirable as that!
|
|
Kinell! 16 grand, in 1999! for a pug!
|
Funny how this has turned into a Peugeot thread. I blame Baz :)
Talking about the Focus why couldn't Ford stick with this design, or is it too sexy?
www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/autoexpressnews/230514/shock_new_focus_shows_its_face.html
|
|
Back to Peugeots ... I saw a new 508 SW the other night. Very attractive, and good to drive with the top engine suspension set-up by all accounts (well, Autocar). Perhaps they are on the way back now?
|
>> Talking about the Focus why couldn't Ford stick with this design
Has the Kia guy jumped ship to Ford? :-)
|
He is not my former leader though his opinions are just as valid as Autocar and probably a little more reasoned.
|
...He is not my former leader...
Relax, just a figure of speech.
I reckon more than 90 per cent of the regular posters on here are 'ex-HJ'.
|
|
Looks good in the corners. Not sure on that centre console though. Very 'busy' and slightly fussy looking compared to the Germans.
|
|
Paul Horrell in TG thought it good but not good enough. Paul Horrell I think is ex-CAR and therefore should know his stuff.
|
Am I the only one that is finding all this a bit boring, it seems this type of car has become too perfect. I doubt there is anything to choose between a Focus, Astra, Golf or Kia Cee'ed in the realy world they are all probably nothing short of exellent.
Not sure if it is a critism or not but it is just another brilliant car, not really sure if we can excited about that. The 1998 Focus changed the entire game and ever since them I don't think there has been any duff cars in this sector.
The Focus ST is another matter though, that is a car that gets me excited like a 17 year old probably did about the original XR3 in the early 80's.
|
>> gets me excited like a 17 year old probably did about the original XR3 in the early 80's
That was me, then. Never meet your heroes...
I had a sunburst red XR3 in the early 90s, in sunburst red - proper lady magnet. Had to get rid when the insurance went sky-high.
|
My first experience of the XR3i was a D reg mk4 owned by my uncle, which he replaced with an identical F reg one when it got to three years old. Thought it was a nice car, but felt very underpowered compared to the 8v Astra GTE and Golf GTI.
Then a few years later, my mate got a mk3 on a Y plate in Caspian Blue. It felt so much quicker and more alive than either of the mk4s and handled really well. Looked great too with the "phone dial" alloys, black rubber tailgate spoiler, and two front spots.
Looked very much like this one:
www.danielcurnock.co.uk/data/259/1.jpg
|
|
My uncle had one on a Y plate, I was too young to remember as it is must have been very new at the time. I know by 1990 it was replaced by a 1.6 Montego.
|
|
Lets not remember in the early 80's it was very unusual to have a small car with items like electric windows and central locking.
|
|
DP - I did try to find a decent pic of a sunburst red one to add to my post but it seems, like the cars themselves, there aren't any good ones left!! It was the Recaro seats that did it for me...
|
>> www.carandclassic.com/car/C193237/
>>
>> Like that one...!
Exactly like that one PU. Red striped seats, cloverleaf alloys. 5 grand now eh.... Phew.
Mind you, mine had just over 200k on the clock (5 digits, it read 02,000 in '94 but there was a receipt in the glovebox dated 1986 with a mileage of 99,000) compared to 59k on the pictured one.
|
|
I always wanted one - I don't know why though.
|
|
I have always fancied one of those. It was never the quickest GTi about, nor the best handler.
|
>> I have always fancied one of those. It was never the quickest GTi about, nor the best handler.
Incredibly heavy steering as well, even by the standards of (relatively) wide tyred sports hatchbacks of the early 80s. Did have a digital clock above the mirror though, which was important at the time.
|
I had a black one with a near invisible dark tinted sun roof. Fun, but I coudn't get round roundabouts any faster than in my Capri. Understeer instead of tail out, steer on the throttle fun :-(
John
|
The RS1600i was the one, a homologation special, solid lifters, alloy cam cover, smaller, yes smaller rear brakes ...
|
|
I knew someone that drove one of them - reckoned it was pretty special even straight out the box - didn't it have green pinstriping in the bumpers ?
|
>> didn't it have green pinstriping in the bumpers ?
>>
Not as I recall though they did that a little later on the Fiesta, perhaps the RS 1800 and Turbo has green pinstriping whereas the XR2i had red.
|
The RS1600i was (I think) only sold in 1981/2 alongside the carburetted XR3 - when the XR3 gained fuel injection Ford launched the Series I RS Turbo as the new exclusive model.
Right up to the end of MkIV Escort production the RS models were marketed separately, only through a few dealerships with different brochures, to maintain an air of exclusivity.
|
|
Orion 1.6i Ghia, same engine as XR3 but cheaper insurance and more practical!
|
>>more practical
Less image.
|
>> Orion 1.6i Ghia, same engine as XR3 but cheaper insurance and more practical!
Eh? "more practical" !?
Nah! I consider a hatchback to be more practical than a car that only has a boot, any day! :-)
|
>> Orion 1.6i Ghia, same engine as XR3 but cheaper insurance and more practical!
>>
Better handing!
Due to a stiffer shell, and the coppers didn't take so much notice, as it didn't stand out so much.....
|
>>
>> The RS1600i was the one, a homologation special, solid lifters, alloy cam cover, smaller, yes smaller rear brakes ...
>>
A little quiz.... the RS1600i was based on which model?
|
Hmm, not sure what you are getting at, MkIII Escort, developed in Germany ... ...
|
OK, I'll rephrase it.
Which Mk3 Escort was the base that the RS1600i was built from?
A/ 1.1 pop
B/ XR3
C/ Ghia
D/ GL
|
I guess not XR3 because they were developed in parallel, otherwise go on tell us ...
|
Wouldn't they all have had the same bodyshell? All the GL, Ghia, Pop, stuff is marketing waffle and trim.
Just pull a shell off the line and bolt on the bits.
Last edited by: Old Navy on Tue 1 Feb 11 at 20:13
|
Had a look at a new Focus for the first time today.
Slightly underwhelmed by the interior, which seemed dark and lacking in shoulder room.
It's certainly narrower than mine.
Not sure about the 'Nokia mobile' dash, and there's very little room for odds an ends.
The twist light switch is in its usual place by your right knee, but is very low and angled slightly downwards.
I guess the thinking is you use it by feel, which is just as well because you'd have to open the door to see it properly.
The most serious negative for me was the windows, which are not very deep, giving the impression of looking through a letterbox.
The new C-Max looks a better bet, much more room, a more traditional dash, and the light switch is in the proper place.
|
|
I detest the new Ford "Darth Vader Look" interiors. Simply Horrid.
|
Fair play to Ford for trying something a bit different.
The original Focus dash caused a stir, but it grew on people over time.
I reckon the Nokia mobile, of Darth Vader if you prefer, works better in the Fiesta.
|
>> I reckon the Nokia mobile, of Darth Vader if you prefer, works better in the
>> Fiesta.
Don't think so, the smaller version looks even worse. Pity the car itself is a sharp looker.
|
>> I detest the new Ford "Darth Vader Look" interiors. Simply Horrid.
>>
+ 1.
You've got to admit, though that the exteriors of modern Fords look very up-to-date and purposeful. I rather like their "kinetic design" idea.
|
|
Outside is fine, modern. But then you dont spend any of your time looking at the outside when driving.
|
|
True. I guess that a car really has to look good both on the inside and on the outside - like an Audi.
|
I don't like the high window line prevalent in more and more cars these days. The Kia Sportage is another example.
Not only does it make the interior claustrophobic, and mean that even big kids need booster seats to see out of the windows (to avoid car sickness), but it also means you have a reals slab sided body, which is a challenge for even the best stylists to disguise.
|
I am with Zero on the interior. The centre console of that dash is hideous. Looks like a £99 Currys special micro system.
Exterior looks nice.
Of far more concern to me would be the increasing number of reports I've read saying the Focus has lost its handling mojo. Ford have been the default choice for a decade or more for people wanting an affordable car that's cracking to drive, and whatever else you could find fault with, they always handled, rode and steered beautifully. I hope this isn't the beginning of the end of that era.
|
.... would be the increasing number of reports I've read saying the Focus has lost its handling mojo...
You're right, if the Focus has become another Ceed/Golf/Astra/Auris to drive, there won't be much reason to buy one.
HJ gave it a good write/video up.
|
I saw one in the metal today, being driven from a Ford dealer - the black paintwork and privacy glass certainly flattered its looks. It is a smarter, sharper looking motor than the last version - which to me looked far too angular and heavy. The new one looks as smart as the new Astra but sharper and more distinctive.
It looks significantly lower than the outgoing mode.
Last edited by: Pugugly on Wed 23 Feb 11 at 18:52
|
New Focus - Focusless
