Review: 2009 Ford Focus SE
10-08-08, 07:42 AM
#1
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Review: 2009 Ford Focus SE
A Review of the 2009 Ford Focus SE 4-door
http://www.ford.com/vehicles/vehicle...ord-focus-2009
In a Nutshell: A good drivetrain and interior for an economy car, but a somewhat unimpressive chassis (by enthusiast standards), brakes, and exterior trim/hardware.
(Sorry, guys....some of these shots aren't quite perfect, but they were the most accurate ones I could find. There isn't a lot of stuff on Google images yet for this exact model 2009 Focus)
Ford has been very successful over the years with its compact Escort and Focus lines (Mercury much less so with their own versions). The Escort/Focus lines, while not as profitable on a per-vehicle basis as Ford's wildly sucessful F-series truck and SUV lines, nevertheless have found good, steady sales over the years with those who want a reasonably good American-nameplate compact. Spinoffs, over the years, have included 2-door ZX-3 and LN-7 coupes, small wagons/hatchbacks, world-platform derivitives shared with Mazda and Volvo, and, of course, a number of European versions not sold in the American market. The Escort/Focus lines have shown reasonably good reliability over the years (though, of course, individual cars vary), though of course, have not been as bulletproof as Civics and Corollas. And, Ford, unlike Honda and Toyota, has not gotten around to introducing a U.S. market compact hybrid, having chosen to introduce its first hybrid on the small Escape/Mariner SUVs (using some Toyota hybrid parts under license, I might add). The Focus would be a good candidate for a hybrid, but Ford has not gotten to it yet.....perhaps the company is waiting for its own in-house-developed hybrid system. Nor are diesel versions offered in the U.S. market, as in Europe.
And that brings us to the next issue....American vs. European Focus models. There has been a great deal of complaining in the automotive press and among enthusiasts that Ford does not offer the same Focus models here as they do in Europe, and that somehow the American-market ones are "inferior". Well, it's true that the European models are substantially different, for many reasons (I won't list them all here), but are they actually inferior? That, of course, is a question I can't directly answer in this review, as I don't have access to the Euro-models, but I can cover the American-market version in depth. And the American versions, of course, like any other car, have their strengths and weaknesses.
Ford, in the U.S. market (Mercury having dropped their versions several years ago, though rumor is they will return), offers several Focus lines. Entry-level models start with the base S sedan, move up to the SE sedan and coupe, and move up again to the SEL sedan and SES coupe. All models come with Ford's normally-aspirated 2.0L Duratec four and a choice of 5-speed manual or 4-speed automatic, though slightly different power ratings come with manual-transmission engines and the super-low-emission P-Zero models for CA and the Northeastern states (the P-Zero engine can be ordered outside of those states as an option). The top-level SES coupe has a automatic option with a slightly shorter final-drive ratio for better performance.
I chose an SE sedan for the review, since that model, while not the most enthusiast-friendly, would likely be the best-selling model, and the one that many commuters would probably choose as a daily driver. It seemed to be the best combination of price and basic features, as, for example, it includes a keyless entry system not available on the base S model. Still, in typical domestic-compact car fashion, several options were needed to bring it up to Japanese-compact levels, which inflated the base price of $16,000 to $19,000. The $815 automatic transmission is pretty much a given for dense traffic (that's a good price for an automatic option, although this one, admittedly, lacks a few features). The $745 Anti-Lock brakes, of course, where not standard, are well-worth the money for safety. The $415 Drivers' Group included several nice features. I could have done without the $395 Sync system, however, which is an overly-complex electronic voice-activated communications/entertainment system. When I get behind the wheel, I like to drive, not play with electronics.
An interesting thing happened when I got back from the review/test-drive......the timimg was perfect. A friend of mine (an older lady) was just pulling in with a electrical-charging problem in her 2006 Focus....the alternator-warning and Check Engine lights were on. She had bought her used Focus at that dealership early last year to take advantage of a 0%-promotion financing. I had helped her through the deal, looked the car over myself, test-drove it......it checked out fine at the time. But, 18 months later, it looks like the alternator decided to crap out....a fairly common issue with some older Focuses.
Anyhow, they hooked up the diagnostics and gave her.....(guess what?).....a new 2009 Focus as a loaner while her car was laid up. She climbed inside it and was almost lost...the layout and controls of the 2009 were very different from her 2006, and, of course, seats, mirrors, etc... had to be adjusted for her. I was just out of a 2009 Focus myself after the review, so I was able to get her all set and explain the controls and features to her so she could get home with a minimum of fuss. And, while I was there, I discussed Ford's upcoming Parental Control feature for their cars with the service people (that feature is the subject of another CAR CHAT thread, so I won't go into detail on that here, except to say that the Ford people have a lot of confidence in it and its ability to resist teenage attempts to override or disable it).
OK........on with the review.
Model Reviewed: 2009 Ford Focus SE 4-door
Base Price: $16,180
Major Options:
Automatic Transaxle: $815
Ford Sync System: $395
Drivers' Group: $415
Anti-Lock Brakes: $745
Destination/Freight: $695
List price as reviewed: $19,245
Drivetrain: FWD, transversely-mounted 2.0L DURATEC in-line 4, 140 HP @ 6000 RPM, Torque 136 Ft-lbs. @ 4250 RPM, 4-speed automatic transmission.
EPA Mileage Ratings: 24 City, 33 Highway
Exterior Color: Sangria Red Metallic
Interior: Medium Stone (Beige) cloth
PLUSSES:
Fairly peppy, smooth, quiet engine for an economy car.
Responsive automatic transmission despite only 4 gears.
Slick-operating, fore-aft transmission shifter with no zig-zag..
Reasonably smooth ride.
Good noise isolation for a small car.
Excellent paint job.
Nice paint colors.
Solid-closing trunk.
Fexible trunk hinges.
Good underhood layout.
Good headroom, front and rear.
Reasonably good legroom, front and rear.
Clear primary gauges.
Comfortable steering wheel.
Nice ice-blue panel lighting.
Nice chrome trim on grille/headlights.
Positive-feeling, quality *****/controls inside.
Interior trim looks cheap but doesn't feel cheap.
Good stereo sound quality.
Many dealer/Ford-approved custom/graphic accessories available.
MINUSES:
Relatively slow steering response.
Marked body roll in cornering.
No auto-manual shift function for transmission.
Mediocre brake response.
No underhood insulation pad (but the engine was fairly quiet even without it).
Rigidly mounted, non-swivel side mirrors.
Awkwardly-mounted turn-signal lever.
Non-locking gas-filler door.
Awkward manual seat-rake lever.
Relatively small trunk opening.
Cheap sun visors.
Cheap-looking outside door handles and pillar trim.
Relatively non-supportive seats.
Underhood prop-rod.
Clunky-sounding doors.
Split stereo readout and controls.
So-so trunk finish.
EXTERIOR:
The current American-version Focus is sill fairly new on the market, so there are few, if any, exterior changes for 2009. I like the general overall shape for its tastefulness, relatively high roofline for headroom, double-chrome bar on the grille, and restrained taillights, but I don't particularly like the way they swept the headlights back to triangular points on the fenders...that's a little too aero for my tastes. The exterior sheet metal is pretty good.....the doors generally feel solid, but shut with a rather clunky-sounding noise. The paint job, regardless of exterior color, is excellent, especially for a domestic economy car......this is one of several areas where both Ford and GM have been improving markedly in the last few years. And the paint colors themselves are, IMO, pretty nice as well. There are a few of the usual funeral-parlor shades, but also a nice Ice Blue Metallic, Amber Gold Metallic, Vista Blue Metallic, and my test car's shade....Sangria Red. My favorite, hands-down, was the Amber Gold...a gorgeous bright Amber/Mustard yellowish color that's guaranteed to open your eyes.
Ford apparantly cut a few costs on the outside mirrors, though.....they have the usual domestic-car flimsy plastic housings, are rigidly attached to the car and don't swivel (I'll bet you won't find those mirrors on the European Focus, where pedestrian-impact car regulations are more strict than here). The flat-black plastic door handles and pillar trim look cheap, but don't feel particularly cheap. I liked the 7 double-spoked design of the SE sedan's alloy wheels, but the 15", 60-series tires on them did more for ride comfort than handling.....more on that below. The SE sedan has semi-fairings on the sides and under the front end, but they are not low enough to compromise ground clearance or going over any reasonable-size ramps, speed bumps, etc... An annoying feature, unfortunately common on many domestically-designed cars, is a gas-filler door without a lock, and the current Focus is true to form. In an age of expensive gas like this, that just makes it one step easier for someone to siphon gas out of your tank.
UNDERHOOD:
Open the rather thin but strong hood (it feels like either thin-gauge sheet steel or a very strong aluminum), and you must prop it up with a rod mounted on the extreme left. Under the hood itself, there is no insulation pad, but nevertheless, the engine is relatively quiet even without it (more on that later). The general underhood layout is quite good, despite the rather tight fit of the transverse-mounted Duratec four. Like the Chevy Cobalt, there is no big annoying plastic engine cover or panels to block things.....everything on top of the engine, and some of the components on the front side as well, are easily accessed. Fluid reserviors, dipsticks, filler caps, battery, engine computer, etc.... almost everything except the oil filter is rather easily available....and like most cars, you can reach the filter from below.
More cars today should be like this underhood....lots more.
INTERIOR:
The interior is rather interesting, if somewhat plain-looking, in the SE sedan, though there are some 21 (yes, that's right, 21) different leather two-tone seat-color packages as dealer accessories to spruce it up, if desired (I like the purple/black one myself). Anyhow, the standard interior, in general, looks rather cheap on the surface, but, unlike the interiors in some of its entry-level GM and Dodge competition, doesn't necessarily feel cheap. The large silver-plastic area on the dash, for example, doesn't look or feel as flimsy as that from a number of other manufacturers. The seats have a nice-feeling fabric that, oddly, is quite soft on the edges/side bolsters and firm in the center, where you park your butt. The seats, unlike the superb Recaro-style seats in last week's Cobalt SS, are rather poorly shaped for support, and are obviously not designed for spirited cornering (which the car's chassis does not deliver, either...more on that below). All of the interior trim, though, while a cheap, plain look, feels at least of fairly good quality and solid materials. The *****, switches, controls and buttons generally work well, with slick and positive action. The only ones I didn't like were a couple of the manual seat controls (the rake-adjustment lever, in particular, felt like it kept snapping on something), the turn-signal stalk, which was Honda-slick and smooth, but mounted at too upward an angle on the steering column, and the stereo-readouts which were up above the stereo controls in a little window at the top of the dash. I don't like split readouts/controls; never have and and never will.
There was plenty of headroom both front and rear, thanks to the fairly high, conservative roofline and the lack of a sunroof (when are carmakers finally going to learn that low, humpback-whale rooflines are for midgets?). Legroom was not huge, but is adequate front and rear for persons my size (6' 2")....which you don't see in a lot of small cars. The stereo sound is quite good (better than average for an entry-level car), and the stereo controls all work well, although I already mentioned that I didn't like the readout being way above the controls themselves. My car had the XM satellite option which brought in some nice stations. It also came with Ford's Sync system....a high-tech, voice-activated communications/entertainment system which is best left to the tech-junkies who will understand it a lot better then I did.
The vinyl-covered steering wheel was generally comfortable (I like a wheel where you don't feel leather stitches pressing into your fingers), and the 3-spoke design generaly didn't block any of the gauges. The two primary gauges, speedometer and tach, were clear and relatively easy to read, except that the numbers could have been spaced a little better. The smaller fuel and coolant-temperature gauges, above and in between the two primary gauges, matched the two primary ones in style, but IMO were too small and hard to read at a glance....they were only about an inch and a half in diameter, where I think 2-3" would have been better. All of the gauges and controls had, in typical Ford/Mercury fashion now, the nice ice-blue panel lighting that I much prefer to the garish red/orange lighting you find in BMWs, Audis, and Pontiacs. And I missed the nice, chrome rings that GM puts around some of the gauges/***** in their cars......they were missing from the Focus. And, last, unfortunately, the excessively cheap, poorly-made sun visors spoil otherwise OK interior materials.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Even with the relatively high roofline and good rear headroom, the roof still slants back enough to take a big chunk out of the trunk lid, so the opening itself is fairly small. The trunk lid, though, closes with a tank-solid "thunk", and opens up with the same nice articulated hinges that I've complemented on other cars....they let the lid open up past vertical for head and loading clearance. The trunk space itself, inside, is fairly roomy for a small car, but poorly-finished with the same thin gray mouse-fur fabric and fiber-board panel that I saw in the Chevy Cavalier last week. The rear seats split-fold for added cargo space, but there is no remote seat-release for them in the trunk.....you have to open the two rear doors and pull them down wih straps. Under the trunk floor panel, in the ususal spot, is a temporary spare tire and wheel, but this time I won't complain......a real spare tire/wheel assembly is not expected in a car of this class. And, at least, the temporary spare doesn't cost extra, with a standard compressed-air bottle, like in the Chevy Cobalt.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 2.0L four with a conventional ignition key and side column switch.....the key and switch worked noticeably better than in the crude ones on last week's Cobalt. Ford's Duratec 2.0L is also noticeably smoother and quieter than GM's 2.0L Ecotec, despite the lack of an underhood insulation pad in the SE model. Engine response was not bad at all for an economy car with an automatic and A/C, despite the rather low torque peak of 136 lbs at a high 4250 RPM....it appears to be a rather flat torque curve. It doesn't give you a particularly strong shove in the back, but is enough to get out of its own way if it has to.....I was pleased with it, by economy-car standards.
I was also pleased with the automatic transmission, despite its having only 4 gears and the lack of a separate automanual shift function. It was smooth, quiet, responsive, and readily kicked down automatically, for more power, with just a slight blip of the throttle, without any fuss. It then smoothly went right back into a higher gear when you let off. The shifter itself was smooth and Honda-slick in operation, well-shaped, and, best of all, had none of that ziz-zag nonsense (which I hate). Just smooth, simple fore/aft motion, and if you did have to downshift for, say, some engine braking on hills, you could still pull the lever back another notch despite the lack of the separate automanual feature.
So the engineers, to an extent at least, did a nice job on the drivetrain, by economy-car standards. The chassis, however, is a different matter. There, it's back to the economy-car roots. The 15", 195/60-series tires give a reasonably smooth ride on this rather short-wheelbase car, but that suppleness also translates to fairly slow steering response and a fair amount of body roll. This is not a car to go autocrossing in, especially in stock form. With its good wind/road noise isolation, fairly supple ride, smooth, quiet engine and generally civil driving manners, it is more of a cruiser than a bruiser....if you find the seats comfortable enough for a long trip.
Brakes, likewise, were a mixed bag.....and mildly disappointing. The power front disc/rear drum combination had a nice firm pedal and no big-foot hang-ups in brake/gas-pedal placement, but response was low and the car didn't show a lot of real deceleration, even with some pressure. It wasn't sponginess or delay in the response....just felt to me like the rotors and pads (and the rear drums/linings) were a little too small for the job, like on some former Hondas. Not dangerously slow or inadequate....the car could do an emergency stop in a reasonable distance if it had to (and within Federal standards), but it's clear that these are not Porsche 911 brakes. (BTW, I was not impressed with the new Ford Escape's brakes either....it uses brake and chassis hardware from both the Focus and Fusion).
THE VERDICT:
Ford, with the American-market version of the new Focus, has come up with a fairly nice economy car that is a good choice for those who commute mostly on straight roads, want fairly smooth, quiet operation, want reasonably good gas mileage (it's good for a conventional gas-powered compact, but is no match for small diesels or hybrids), want an American-nameplate vehicle, and want at least OK reliability, though it probably won't be Toyota or Honda-reliable. Acording to Consumer Reports, reliability has been more or less average on past-model Focuses, though brakes and electrical components have been issues (witness the alternator on my friend's Focus). The current model is still fairly new, so its long-term reliability is still unclear. Its paint job is excellent, and its interior quality, despite a cheap surface look, is well-done, with few exceptions.
A few things, however, need work. A different steering rack, with a quicker ratio, would improve both steering response and feel without roughening up the car's ride, though it wouldn't help the body roll any. The stereo readouts need to be moved back down, flush with the adjustment *****. The transmission could use an auto-manual functon, though it seems to do OK without it (I didn't complain), and perhaps another gear. Ford (along wth some other manufacturers) also needs to stop penny-pitching and start using locking gas caps and swiveling outside mirrors.
And, last, if more handling and agility is desired, the Focus SE coupe and uplevel SES models (and numerous Ford/dealer-approved accessories) add more chassis/tire options that firm things up a bit, for the enthusiasts. Me?................I'll just sit back and enjoy the SE sedan's supple ride.
http://www.ford.com/vehicles/vehicle...ord-focus-2009
In a Nutshell: A good drivetrain and interior for an economy car, but a somewhat unimpressive chassis (by enthusiast standards), brakes, and exterior trim/hardware.
(Sorry, guys....some of these shots aren't quite perfect, but they were the most accurate ones I could find. There isn't a lot of stuff on Google images yet for this exact model 2009 Focus)
Ford has been very successful over the years with its compact Escort and Focus lines (Mercury much less so with their own versions). The Escort/Focus lines, while not as profitable on a per-vehicle basis as Ford's wildly sucessful F-series truck and SUV lines, nevertheless have found good, steady sales over the years with those who want a reasonably good American-nameplate compact. Spinoffs, over the years, have included 2-door ZX-3 and LN-7 coupes, small wagons/hatchbacks, world-platform derivitives shared with Mazda and Volvo, and, of course, a number of European versions not sold in the American market. The Escort/Focus lines have shown reasonably good reliability over the years (though, of course, individual cars vary), though of course, have not been as bulletproof as Civics and Corollas. And, Ford, unlike Honda and Toyota, has not gotten around to introducing a U.S. market compact hybrid, having chosen to introduce its first hybrid on the small Escape/Mariner SUVs (using some Toyota hybrid parts under license, I might add). The Focus would be a good candidate for a hybrid, but Ford has not gotten to it yet.....perhaps the company is waiting for its own in-house-developed hybrid system. Nor are diesel versions offered in the U.S. market, as in Europe.
And that brings us to the next issue....American vs. European Focus models. There has been a great deal of complaining in the automotive press and among enthusiasts that Ford does not offer the same Focus models here as they do in Europe, and that somehow the American-market ones are "inferior". Well, it's true that the European models are substantially different, for many reasons (I won't list them all here), but are they actually inferior? That, of course, is a question I can't directly answer in this review, as I don't have access to the Euro-models, but I can cover the American-market version in depth. And the American versions, of course, like any other car, have their strengths and weaknesses.
Ford, in the U.S. market (Mercury having dropped their versions several years ago, though rumor is they will return), offers several Focus lines. Entry-level models start with the base S sedan, move up to the SE sedan and coupe, and move up again to the SEL sedan and SES coupe. All models come with Ford's normally-aspirated 2.0L Duratec four and a choice of 5-speed manual or 4-speed automatic, though slightly different power ratings come with manual-transmission engines and the super-low-emission P-Zero models for CA and the Northeastern states (the P-Zero engine can be ordered outside of those states as an option). The top-level SES coupe has a automatic option with a slightly shorter final-drive ratio for better performance.
I chose an SE sedan for the review, since that model, while not the most enthusiast-friendly, would likely be the best-selling model, and the one that many commuters would probably choose as a daily driver. It seemed to be the best combination of price and basic features, as, for example, it includes a keyless entry system not available on the base S model. Still, in typical domestic-compact car fashion, several options were needed to bring it up to Japanese-compact levels, which inflated the base price of $16,000 to $19,000. The $815 automatic transmission is pretty much a given for dense traffic (that's a good price for an automatic option, although this one, admittedly, lacks a few features). The $745 Anti-Lock brakes, of course, where not standard, are well-worth the money for safety. The $415 Drivers' Group included several nice features. I could have done without the $395 Sync system, however, which is an overly-complex electronic voice-activated communications/entertainment system. When I get behind the wheel, I like to drive, not play with electronics.
An interesting thing happened when I got back from the review/test-drive......the timimg was perfect. A friend of mine (an older lady) was just pulling in with a electrical-charging problem in her 2006 Focus....the alternator-warning and Check Engine lights were on. She had bought her used Focus at that dealership early last year to take advantage of a 0%-promotion financing. I had helped her through the deal, looked the car over myself, test-drove it......it checked out fine at the time. But, 18 months later, it looks like the alternator decided to crap out....a fairly common issue with some older Focuses.
Anyhow, they hooked up the diagnostics and gave her.....(guess what?).....a new 2009 Focus as a loaner while her car was laid up. She climbed inside it and was almost lost...the layout and controls of the 2009 were very different from her 2006, and, of course, seats, mirrors, etc... had to be adjusted for her. I was just out of a 2009 Focus myself after the review, so I was able to get her all set and explain the controls and features to her so she could get home with a minimum of fuss. And, while I was there, I discussed Ford's upcoming Parental Control feature for their cars with the service people (that feature is the subject of another CAR CHAT thread, so I won't go into detail on that here, except to say that the Ford people have a lot of confidence in it and its ability to resist teenage attempts to override or disable it).
OK........on with the review.
Model Reviewed: 2009 Ford Focus SE 4-door
Base Price: $16,180
Major Options:
Automatic Transaxle: $815
Ford Sync System: $395
Drivers' Group: $415
Anti-Lock Brakes: $745
Destination/Freight: $695
List price as reviewed: $19,245
Drivetrain: FWD, transversely-mounted 2.0L DURATEC in-line 4, 140 HP @ 6000 RPM, Torque 136 Ft-lbs. @ 4250 RPM, 4-speed automatic transmission.
EPA Mileage Ratings: 24 City, 33 Highway
Exterior Color: Sangria Red Metallic
Interior: Medium Stone (Beige) cloth
PLUSSES:
Fairly peppy, smooth, quiet engine for an economy car.
Responsive automatic transmission despite only 4 gears.
Slick-operating, fore-aft transmission shifter with no zig-zag..
Reasonably smooth ride.
Good noise isolation for a small car.
Excellent paint job.
Nice paint colors.
Solid-closing trunk.
Fexible trunk hinges.
Good underhood layout.
Good headroom, front and rear.
Reasonably good legroom, front and rear.
Clear primary gauges.
Comfortable steering wheel.
Nice ice-blue panel lighting.
Nice chrome trim on grille/headlights.
Positive-feeling, quality *****/controls inside.
Interior trim looks cheap but doesn't feel cheap.
Good stereo sound quality.
Many dealer/Ford-approved custom/graphic accessories available.
MINUSES:
Relatively slow steering response.
Marked body roll in cornering.
No auto-manual shift function for transmission.
Mediocre brake response.
No underhood insulation pad (but the engine was fairly quiet even without it).
Rigidly mounted, non-swivel side mirrors.
Awkwardly-mounted turn-signal lever.
Non-locking gas-filler door.
Awkward manual seat-rake lever.
Relatively small trunk opening.
Cheap sun visors.
Cheap-looking outside door handles and pillar trim.
Relatively non-supportive seats.
Underhood prop-rod.
Clunky-sounding doors.
Split stereo readout and controls.
So-so trunk finish.
EXTERIOR:
The current American-version Focus is sill fairly new on the market, so there are few, if any, exterior changes for 2009. I like the general overall shape for its tastefulness, relatively high roofline for headroom, double-chrome bar on the grille, and restrained taillights, but I don't particularly like the way they swept the headlights back to triangular points on the fenders...that's a little too aero for my tastes. The exterior sheet metal is pretty good.....the doors generally feel solid, but shut with a rather clunky-sounding noise. The paint job, regardless of exterior color, is excellent, especially for a domestic economy car......this is one of several areas where both Ford and GM have been improving markedly in the last few years. And the paint colors themselves are, IMO, pretty nice as well. There are a few of the usual funeral-parlor shades, but also a nice Ice Blue Metallic, Amber Gold Metallic, Vista Blue Metallic, and my test car's shade....Sangria Red. My favorite, hands-down, was the Amber Gold...a gorgeous bright Amber/Mustard yellowish color that's guaranteed to open your eyes.
Ford apparantly cut a few costs on the outside mirrors, though.....they have the usual domestic-car flimsy plastic housings, are rigidly attached to the car and don't swivel (I'll bet you won't find those mirrors on the European Focus, where pedestrian-impact car regulations are more strict than here). The flat-black plastic door handles and pillar trim look cheap, but don't feel particularly cheap. I liked the 7 double-spoked design of the SE sedan's alloy wheels, but the 15", 60-series tires on them did more for ride comfort than handling.....more on that below. The SE sedan has semi-fairings on the sides and under the front end, but they are not low enough to compromise ground clearance or going over any reasonable-size ramps, speed bumps, etc... An annoying feature, unfortunately common on many domestically-designed cars, is a gas-filler door without a lock, and the current Focus is true to form. In an age of expensive gas like this, that just makes it one step easier for someone to siphon gas out of your tank.
UNDERHOOD:
Open the rather thin but strong hood (it feels like either thin-gauge sheet steel or a very strong aluminum), and you must prop it up with a rod mounted on the extreme left. Under the hood itself, there is no insulation pad, but nevertheless, the engine is relatively quiet even without it (more on that later). The general underhood layout is quite good, despite the rather tight fit of the transverse-mounted Duratec four. Like the Chevy Cobalt, there is no big annoying plastic engine cover or panels to block things.....everything on top of the engine, and some of the components on the front side as well, are easily accessed. Fluid reserviors, dipsticks, filler caps, battery, engine computer, etc.... almost everything except the oil filter is rather easily available....and like most cars, you can reach the filter from below.
More cars today should be like this underhood....lots more.
INTERIOR:
The interior is rather interesting, if somewhat plain-looking, in the SE sedan, though there are some 21 (yes, that's right, 21) different leather two-tone seat-color packages as dealer accessories to spruce it up, if desired (I like the purple/black one myself). Anyhow, the standard interior, in general, looks rather cheap on the surface, but, unlike the interiors in some of its entry-level GM and Dodge competition, doesn't necessarily feel cheap. The large silver-plastic area on the dash, for example, doesn't look or feel as flimsy as that from a number of other manufacturers. The seats have a nice-feeling fabric that, oddly, is quite soft on the edges/side bolsters and firm in the center, where you park your butt. The seats, unlike the superb Recaro-style seats in last week's Cobalt SS, are rather poorly shaped for support, and are obviously not designed for spirited cornering (which the car's chassis does not deliver, either...more on that below). All of the interior trim, though, while a cheap, plain look, feels at least of fairly good quality and solid materials. The *****, switches, controls and buttons generally work well, with slick and positive action. The only ones I didn't like were a couple of the manual seat controls (the rake-adjustment lever, in particular, felt like it kept snapping on something), the turn-signal stalk, which was Honda-slick and smooth, but mounted at too upward an angle on the steering column, and the stereo-readouts which were up above the stereo controls in a little window at the top of the dash. I don't like split readouts/controls; never have and and never will.
There was plenty of headroom both front and rear, thanks to the fairly high, conservative roofline and the lack of a sunroof (when are carmakers finally going to learn that low, humpback-whale rooflines are for midgets?). Legroom was not huge, but is adequate front and rear for persons my size (6' 2")....which you don't see in a lot of small cars. The stereo sound is quite good (better than average for an entry-level car), and the stereo controls all work well, although I already mentioned that I didn't like the readout being way above the controls themselves. My car had the XM satellite option which brought in some nice stations. It also came with Ford's Sync system....a high-tech, voice-activated communications/entertainment system which is best left to the tech-junkies who will understand it a lot better then I did.
The vinyl-covered steering wheel was generally comfortable (I like a wheel where you don't feel leather stitches pressing into your fingers), and the 3-spoke design generaly didn't block any of the gauges. The two primary gauges, speedometer and tach, were clear and relatively easy to read, except that the numbers could have been spaced a little better. The smaller fuel and coolant-temperature gauges, above and in between the two primary gauges, matched the two primary ones in style, but IMO were too small and hard to read at a glance....they were only about an inch and a half in diameter, where I think 2-3" would have been better. All of the gauges and controls had, in typical Ford/Mercury fashion now, the nice ice-blue panel lighting that I much prefer to the garish red/orange lighting you find in BMWs, Audis, and Pontiacs. And I missed the nice, chrome rings that GM puts around some of the gauges/***** in their cars......they were missing from the Focus. And, last, unfortunately, the excessively cheap, poorly-made sun visors spoil otherwise OK interior materials.
CARGO AREA/TRUNK:
Even with the relatively high roofline and good rear headroom, the roof still slants back enough to take a big chunk out of the trunk lid, so the opening itself is fairly small. The trunk lid, though, closes with a tank-solid "thunk", and opens up with the same nice articulated hinges that I've complemented on other cars....they let the lid open up past vertical for head and loading clearance. The trunk space itself, inside, is fairly roomy for a small car, but poorly-finished with the same thin gray mouse-fur fabric and fiber-board panel that I saw in the Chevy Cavalier last week. The rear seats split-fold for added cargo space, but there is no remote seat-release for them in the trunk.....you have to open the two rear doors and pull them down wih straps. Under the trunk floor panel, in the ususal spot, is a temporary spare tire and wheel, but this time I won't complain......a real spare tire/wheel assembly is not expected in a car of this class. And, at least, the temporary spare doesn't cost extra, with a standard compressed-air bottle, like in the Chevy Cobalt.
ON THE ROAD:
Start up the 2.0L four with a conventional ignition key and side column switch.....the key and switch worked noticeably better than in the crude ones on last week's Cobalt. Ford's Duratec 2.0L is also noticeably smoother and quieter than GM's 2.0L Ecotec, despite the lack of an underhood insulation pad in the SE model. Engine response was not bad at all for an economy car with an automatic and A/C, despite the rather low torque peak of 136 lbs at a high 4250 RPM....it appears to be a rather flat torque curve. It doesn't give you a particularly strong shove in the back, but is enough to get out of its own way if it has to.....I was pleased with it, by economy-car standards.
I was also pleased with the automatic transmission, despite its having only 4 gears and the lack of a separate automanual shift function. It was smooth, quiet, responsive, and readily kicked down automatically, for more power, with just a slight blip of the throttle, without any fuss. It then smoothly went right back into a higher gear when you let off. The shifter itself was smooth and Honda-slick in operation, well-shaped, and, best of all, had none of that ziz-zag nonsense (which I hate). Just smooth, simple fore/aft motion, and if you did have to downshift for, say, some engine braking on hills, you could still pull the lever back another notch despite the lack of the separate automanual feature.
So the engineers, to an extent at least, did a nice job on the drivetrain, by economy-car standards. The chassis, however, is a different matter. There, it's back to the economy-car roots. The 15", 195/60-series tires give a reasonably smooth ride on this rather short-wheelbase car, but that suppleness also translates to fairly slow steering response and a fair amount of body roll. This is not a car to go autocrossing in, especially in stock form. With its good wind/road noise isolation, fairly supple ride, smooth, quiet engine and generally civil driving manners, it is more of a cruiser than a bruiser....if you find the seats comfortable enough for a long trip.
Brakes, likewise, were a mixed bag.....and mildly disappointing. The power front disc/rear drum combination had a nice firm pedal and no big-foot hang-ups in brake/gas-pedal placement, but response was low and the car didn't show a lot of real deceleration, even with some pressure. It wasn't sponginess or delay in the response....just felt to me like the rotors and pads (and the rear drums/linings) were a little too small for the job, like on some former Hondas. Not dangerously slow or inadequate....the car could do an emergency stop in a reasonable distance if it had to (and within Federal standards), but it's clear that these are not Porsche 911 brakes. (BTW, I was not impressed with the new Ford Escape's brakes either....it uses brake and chassis hardware from both the Focus and Fusion).
THE VERDICT:
Ford, with the American-market version of the new Focus, has come up with a fairly nice economy car that is a good choice for those who commute mostly on straight roads, want fairly smooth, quiet operation, want reasonably good gas mileage (it's good for a conventional gas-powered compact, but is no match for small diesels or hybrids), want an American-nameplate vehicle, and want at least OK reliability, though it probably won't be Toyota or Honda-reliable. Acording to Consumer Reports, reliability has been more or less average on past-model Focuses, though brakes and electrical components have been issues (witness the alternator on my friend's Focus). The current model is still fairly new, so its long-term reliability is still unclear. Its paint job is excellent, and its interior quality, despite a cheap surface look, is well-done, with few exceptions.
A few things, however, need work. A different steering rack, with a quicker ratio, would improve both steering response and feel without roughening up the car's ride, though it wouldn't help the body roll any. The stereo readouts need to be moved back down, flush with the adjustment *****. The transmission could use an auto-manual functon, though it seems to do OK without it (I didn't complain), and perhaps another gear. Ford (along wth some other manufacturers) also needs to stop penny-pitching and start using locking gas caps and swiveling outside mirrors.
And, last, if more handling and agility is desired, the Focus SE coupe and uplevel SES models (and numerous Ford/dealer-approved accessories) add more chassis/tire options that firm things up a bit, for the enthusiasts. Me?................I'll just sit back and enjoy the SE sedan's supple ride.
Last edited by mmarshall; 10-08-08 at 08:02 AM.
10-08-08, 07:56 AM
#2
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Posts: 1,489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I had the first-gen Focus as my first car and I absolutely loved it! I put it through hell including wrecking it 4 times and it never broke down once. I wish I kept it for a daily beater 
10-08-08, 08:01 AM
#3
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
10-08-08, 08:11 AM
#4
Lexus Test Driver
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Coral Springs, FL
Posts: 1,489
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Of course, 2001 ZX3. I had the same love for that car as I do for my IS, which is borderline obsession. It was all blacked out slammed on some OZ Superleggera knock offs, Euro RS front, Euro fenders, SVT rear and wing, full fiberglass stereo in the trunk, HKS exhaust, etc. Unfortunately, all my pictures of her were lost when my laptop was destroyed, so all I have are memories.
Oh, and I have an extra Focus alternator in my garage for your friend
Oh, and I have an extra Focus alternator in my garage for your friend
10-08-08, 08:15 AM
#5
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Of course, 2001 ZX3. I had the same love for that car as I do for my IS, which is borderline obsession. It was all blacked out slammed on some OZ Superleggera knock offs, Euro RS front, Euro fenders, SVT rear and wing, full fiberglass stereo in the trunk, HKS exhaust, etc. Unfortunately, all my pictures of her were lost when my laptop was destroyed, so all I have are memories.
Oh, and I have an extra Focus alternator in my garage for your friend
Oh, and I have an extra Focus alternator in my garage for your friend
10-08-08, 08:16 AM
#6
Thanks for the review, Mike!
I actually like the new look of the Focus, and I noted that you made a lot of references with "things that look cheap, but doesn't feel cheap."
Do you think the Ford Focus equals or exceeds cost-cutting measures when compared to other vehicles (such as the Corolla) that also cut corners to save costs? Was quality sacrificed significantly? I heard it doesn't even have grab handles over the doors...
Does the Ford Focus deliver value, or is it really just "cheap"?
I actually like the new look of the Focus, and I noted that you made a lot of references with "things that look cheap, but doesn't feel cheap."
Do you think the Ford Focus equals or exceeds cost-cutting measures when compared to other vehicles (such as the Corolla) that also cut corners to save costs? Was quality sacrificed significantly? I heard it doesn't even have grab handles over the doors...
Does the Ford Focus deliver value, or is it really just "cheap"?
Trending Topics
10-08-08, 11:43 AM
#8
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
Sure....anytime. 
This is true primarily in the interior trim and *****.
I didn't notice if it had grab-handles or not.
The Focus actually outdoes the Corolla in some areas, such as the solid feel of interior ***** (where the Corolla's wobbly ***** are a joke). Ford also delivers a paint job on the Focus that is virtually as good as the superb Toyota paint.....and Ford also has, IMO, nicer paint colors as well.
The Corolla, of course, has virtually bulletproof reliability (markedly better than that of the Focus), a better primary and secondary gauge panel, a better-designed stereo/control system, and perhaps slightly better climate control (it's hard to beat Toyota/Lexus A/C).
Both cars have nice, smooth drivetrains, fairly smooth/quiet rides, lackluster handling/steering response, and so-so brakes.....the Corolla's LE's brakes are even mushier than less effective than on the Focus.
If you want the Focus compared to any other specific vehicle, just name it, and I'll address that on a case-by-case basis.
The tested SE model was good value as a nice commuter car or that can be used for occasional long trips, but primarily on level straight-line or mildly-curving roads. I wouldn't particularly recommend it for sharply twisting roads or steep mountain downgrades, where the weakness in handling, brakes, and limits in transmission gearing are most likely to be noticed.
I actually like the new look of the Focus, and I noted that you made a lot of references with "things that look cheap, but doesn't feel cheap."
Do you think the Ford Focus equals or exceeds cost-cutting measures when compared to other vehicles (such as the Corolla) that also cut corners to save costs? Was quality sacrificed significantly? I heard it doesn't even have grab handles over the doors...
The Focus actually outdoes the Corolla in some areas, such as the solid feel of interior ***** (where the Corolla's wobbly ***** are a joke). Ford also delivers a paint job on the Focus that is virtually as good as the superb Toyota paint.....and Ford also has, IMO, nicer paint colors as well.
The Corolla, of course, has virtually bulletproof reliability (markedly better than that of the Focus), a better primary and secondary gauge panel, a better-designed stereo/control system, and perhaps slightly better climate control (it's hard to beat Toyota/Lexus A/C).
Both cars have nice, smooth drivetrains, fairly smooth/quiet rides, lackluster handling/steering response, and so-so brakes.....the Corolla's LE's brakes are even mushier than less effective than on the Focus.
If you want the Focus compared to any other specific vehicle, just name it, and I'll address that on a case-by-case basis.
Does the Ford Focus deliver value, or is it really just "cheap"?
10-08-08, 02:51 PM
#10
Super Moderator
This is from Ford's UK site, http://www.ford.co.uk/ns7/focmca/-/-/-/-/-/-
10-08-08, 03:30 PM
#11
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
10-08-08, 03:54 PM
#12
Compared to the US Focus the Euro Focus has a better depth of engineering, driving dynamics and quality - but then again it is more expensive so you probably get what you pay for.
The main objection I have to the US Focus is the styling which is truly dreadful. 5 year olds should not be designing cars.
10-08-08, 06:29 PM
#13
Super Moderator
10-09-08, 11:24 AM
#14
Lexus Fanatic
Thread Starter
It's absolutely beautiful and the turbocharged version was always a welcome competitor at my 1/4 mile track back in Mexico.
This is from Ford's UK site, http://www.ford.co.uk/ns7/focmca/-/-/-/-/-/-
This is from Ford's UK site, http://www.ford.co.uk/ns7/focmca/-/-/-/-/-/-
10-09-08, 11:43 AM
#15
Lexus Champion
