2008 Ford Focus: New? Old? Expired? All of the above
After 100 miles in Ford's "new" 2008 Focus I've got a strong sense of where this car feels "new" and where it feels "old" -- and where it feels "expired" for that matter.
The Sync system feels quite new, as it should. There's a definite learning curve to figuring Sync out, but on a system this advanced that's probably unavoidable. I also like the updated switchgear for the climate control, and the overall design/lighting of the dashboard looks, feels -- and for all intents and purposes is -- "all new." My test car was an SES coupe with several options, including ABS, the upgraded "Audiophile" sound system with MP3 capability and the Ambient Interior Lighting package. That last option provides soothing console and floorboard lighting at night, giving the cabin a more upscale demeanor. MSRP for this vehicle is $19,030, but dealers are already dealing on the "new" Focus.
If the interior and exterior design are "new" the drivetrain and driving dynamics still feel old. The steering actually feels slightly quicker than before, and upgrades to the Focus' front suspension help explain this. And the 2.0-liter engine makes a competitive 140 horsepower while also qualifying as a Partial Zero Emissions Vehicle, at least on models sold in California.
So what's not to like? Well, that would be a combination of drivetrain refinement (or lack thereof) and a mediocre ride/handling quality. None of these items are atrocious, but "not atrocious" isn't really a selling point, is it? Certainly not when the Mazda or Honda dealer down the street has a fully modern Mazda 3 or Civic waiting to provide a near-perfect balance of composed ride quality and sporty, responsive handling. Ford is clearly banking on Sync to sell the "new" Focus, which is asking a lot, even for Microsoft.
And does anything about the Focus feel expired? Almost nothing, because (lucky for Ford) the original Focus was pretty damn good when it arrived in U.S. showrooms in 2000. The fact the car isn't further behind the competition in terms of ride quality and handling is a testament to how good that platform was "back in the day."
However, when I attempted to adjust the steering wheel I was literally aghast at the lack of telescoping movement. The previous Focus had a tilt/telescoping wheel, so the "new" car actually got worse in this respect. Not redesigning a model after seven years is bad, but decontenting it when it's already falling behind? I'm not sure how to describe that move, but it seems a bit...how should I say this, out of sync with common automotive sense.
I don't think Ford is putting much emphasis on the Focus as part of its short term turnaround plan. That's good.
Posted by Karl Dec 20, 2007 7:00 am
Permalink
Categories: Ford
iskch
- Dec 20, 2007 10:19 am
(#12 Total: 31)
|
|
|
|
For Ford, the Focus is like buying time for a new replacement. There are many other choices that will deliver better product for the money. Focus = Entreprise/Hertz car
|
|
 | |
|
|
iskch, your answer reminds me of a question I raised on the Malibu forum: why should Ford release a "buying time" car? Why not wait until they have a competitive or outstanding model? And in Ford's case it's not a big deal because they already have the Mazda 3..... So they can simply rely on the Mazda 3 for now while they work on a competitive Focus. All this Focus will do is ruin their already not-so-great brand image!
|
|
| |
opfreak
- Dec 20, 2007 10:35 am
(#14 Total: 31)
|
|
|
|
you mean like they killed the escort image?
|
|
| |
zach101
- Dec 20, 2007 11:37 am
(#15 Total: 31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
By quality I generally mean interior quality and/or build quality. Long-term reliability is harder to judge during our limited test time (except with long-term cars), though in some cases a brand's quality is so bad that even occasional one-week loans can consistently uncover mechanical problems (cough-Land Rover-cough).
|
|
| |
vic_pe
- Dec 20, 2007 12:46 pm
(#17 Total: 31)
|
|
|
|
Karl you really should review the Elantra. Opfreak talks about the Hyundais as cheap, and yet the Elantra which is aimed at that market, has by far the most upscale looking interior in my eyes. The fit and finish were excellent and even the Edmunds review said it wasn't just a warranty advantage that Hyundai has with it.
In addition, you mentionned how they went backwards on this model for the telescopic wheel. Well here's something that angers me and makes me wish they'd run out of business for making such stupid decisions: how can you release the new Escape with REAR DRUMS?
No seriously, what kind of backwards thinking is this? I don't care if they perform slightly less than the discs, the fact the SUV is in a segment of ultra-competitive vehicles and doesn't have 4-wheel discs is pathetic. The Ford Canada website doesn't even TALK about brakes at all. Even the configuration neglects to talk about it, and forget the brochure.
This was a real tipping point for me on how I view Ford nowadays. It's just....sad.
|
|
| |
opfreak
- Dec 20, 2007 1:28 pm
(#18 Total: 31)
|
|
|
|
vic. my referance to Hyundais was a rip on ford. in my eyes they flipped places. Ford used to be better then Hyundai, now, i'd rather get the korean car
this year drove the senota (sp) from tampa to wisconsin as a one way rental. It was nice. Not what I'd drive, but not like it was years ago when I would never own one period. It was a decent/good car.
t
|
|
| |
|
|
I actually like the new Focus quite a bit, if I was shopping for a new small car this would be it, or the Astra. The Civic is too ugly for me, and the Mazda3 and Corolla are too common, and a new 3 is coming soon.
But I agree with you guys that Ford waits way to long to update its cars and then makes a TON of stupid decisions to go with it and then ends up suffering for it. One examples that comes to mind is the decision not to produce the totally awesome Ford Interceptor concept - why???
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
| |
crowb
- Dec 20, 2007 2:44 pm
(#21 Total: 31)
|
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
I think the outside of the new Focus looks good, but the inside reeks of standard Ford plastic/green. Call the Focus's looks conservative, but I find it nicer looking than the Civic.
|
|
| |
|
|
No cars should be "loss leaders" and every automaker should focus (pun intended) on building great small cars. Has anyone had a good experience with an Escort, Chevette or Excel? How many of these people traded up to a more expensive Ford, Chevrolet or Hyundai after the wheels had fallen off these turds? Compare that to the overwhelming positive experiences of people who own, say, a Civic or a Corolla. Every car should be designed in a way that will compel the owner to trade up to a more expensive car or truck within the brand. Instead, what many automakers have done is to create an angry and vocal group of people who refuse to buy another Ford, Chevy, Hyundai, Isuzu etc. And for good reason. The long term strategy for small cars should be, make them good so that people want to stay within the brand when they trade up.
|
|
| |
vic_pe
- Dec 20, 2007 6:18 pm
(#24 Total: 31)
|
|
|
|
That is a very valid statement ne1butu2. That's one of the reasons we stayed with Hyundai after our lease with the 2002 Sonata was up. We went up to the Santa Fe 2007. No regrets at all. There just wasn't any comparison in feature content per dollar (at least in Canada!), and the interior was too nice to miss out on.
I like the Focus' new looks mind you, including the interior which is WAY better than the previous one. In fact a stupid decision they did was when they refreshed the Focus a few years ago they changed the European curvy interior to a conservative blocky one. STUPID, STUPID, STUPID! [banging hand on head]
|
|
| |
|
|
Well said, ne1.
I'd also like to coat tail on what Karl mentioned regarding "decontenting" - this seems to have become a standard practice for Ford in recent years. As a former fan of their products and a observant car guy, I noticed it with from purchase to purchase and on other cars/trucks that I saw. This really surprised and disappointed me - really an insult to the customer, to get less than you got the last time around.
Count me as one who likes the Civic - I see it as a modern and progressive design. For me, it is hard to believe that it is an economy car - it just says well engineered / built - the beauty is in the details.
|
|
| |
|
|
How does Ford think it can dig itself out of the hole making products like the one above? Ford, dont make mediocre products, at least try to be competitive or even better, best in class. This Focus would have been ok if this was 2003 but its almost 2008!
|
|
| |
|
|
Karl, to follow up to manisdashu's question, how come some manufacturers like VW, BMW and Mercedes have outstanding build quality but relatively poor reliability? One would think a "solidly built" car would be reliable, much like Lexus.....
|
|
| |
|
|
Good build quality refers to things like panel gaps, whether they are tight fitting and well aligned or not, it refers to the feel of the control, if they feel solid and substantial. However behind all that solid construction could be bad electronics configurations, or poor mechanicals which would end up hurting the reliability of the car. The best build quality in the world cant help a car with screwed up interior parts. All it can do is hide it.
|
|
| |
|
|
L.A. CA United States of America |
|
|
Daytona just answered for me.
Thanks!
|
|
| |
|
|
Thanks, Daytona and Karl!
|
|
| |
|
|
"Why does ford have 3 cars in a segment that nomraly has 2?
mazda 3, mazda 6
chevy cobalt, chevy malibu
toyota corrolla, toyota camery (yes the yarius is there, but I'd question that as much as ford).
honda civic, honda accord.
why have a focus, fusion, and 500 (or whatever name it has now)?
I could add that while toyota has the yaris, and honda has the fit, gm you might say has the aevno."
Umm...no. Ford if anything has 3 cars in a "segment", cars, that "normally" has 4.
empty, Mazda 3, Mazda 6, empty
Aveo, Cobalt, Malibu, Impala
Yaris, Corrolla, Camry, Avalon
Fit, Civic, Acc,ord (strattles the line)
emtpy, Focus, Fusion, 500/Taurus
otherwise known as...
subcompact, compact, mid sized, and full sized
|
|
|
|
