Selling an SUV in today’s market is financial suicide. Residual values have dropped by double digits— and that was just last week. Buyers who somehow managed to complete the SUV exodus better watch out for the next auto da fe: fully-loaded versions of entry-level whips. Expect a serious depreciation hit for these luxury econoboxes at trade-in time. Still, checking the options list wisely works wonders for your driving pleasure. To wit: the lame duck Ford Focus.
Too bad the new Focus doesn’t come standard with beer goggles. Farago insists the Blue Oval’s smallest player hails from the same mold as the Chrysler Sebring. I beg to differ. Ford recovered from the car’s ungainly proportions by beating them with a beautification stick. Sure, the sedan’s tall and goofy profile remains, but the band saw-trimmed bumpers and yacht-like swage lines add enough aesthetic flair to keep my lunch down.
The options help too: the chrome-plated door handles, mirrors and tailpipe add visual justification for the (faux) fender vents’ existence, stopping short of true integration of form. The trim taillights are a clever step away from most automaker’s amoeba-fetish, and the headlights’ geometric details provide a safe refuge for displaced GORF junkies. Even the Focus’ rear bumper relief-cum-trunk handle justifies the hood’s obscure Mister T homage. I pity the fool; the Sebring wishes it was this cool.
While the base by name and nature Focus is no place like home, the upgrades make it a modern interpretation of the 1970s Bro-ham fetish. Now the center stack’s silver trim extends to the dash’s corners, gauges get a Scionistic attitude adjustment and the smooth-operator vent registers move up market with chrome accents.
Adding a thumpin’ subwoofer and in-car SYNCronization to a respectable entertainment system may not have been a stroke of genius, but it’s an arrhythmia of extra attitude. Surprisingly enough, the extra fun includes a button-intensive, leather-wrapped tiller. It’s a much-appreciated distraction, helping the grieving process for upscale SUV escapees.
Then again, the Focus is the Explorer Incarnate. And small cars riding high in the saddle are nothing but CUVs with non-climate controlled cargo holes. Maybe that’s fine: getting stuck in bumper to bumper traffic gives new appreciation for the Focus’ tall seating position.
Ditto the fairly quiet cabin. The Focus’ up-gauged side glass is a page (silently) taken from Buick’s gospel of Quiet Tuning, while its lightweight (2700 lbs.) frame smoothes over the harshest pavement lumps, bumps and undulating waves.
Adding to the respectable cruising stance is a 2.0-liter Duratec four-pot with 140 horses. The smooth revs are class-mandatory, but the extra kick above 5000rpm is almost VTEC in delivery. Then again, there’s still a wide ratio four-speed autobox holding the revs down (and keeping mpgs up), delaying crucial downshifts and effectively dropping the Focus out of its powerband. So it comes as no surprise that the runs to 60 are in the respectable but unflattering 8.5 second range.
Here’s the real shocker: the sky-high Focus stays “tall” in the twisty stuff. Body roll won’t defy the laws of physics, but understeer doesn’t kill the fun. While the last-gen Focus (MacPherson) strutted its way to glory on the promise of fun on the cheap, the new generation’s cadence is slower but more confident. The steering is still intuitive, never lacking road feel in its reassuring helm.
That said, the Focus’ dynamics depend on buying the right model and checking the right box. And the mandatory option for anyone young enough to read this site on a regular basis, or old enough to remember the original GTI, is the “European Inspired” rear sway bar. It’s standard on the SES models, optional on the SE trim level and unavailable on the base S.
If you do without, the Focus pitches and dives in anything harder than a congestion-soaked roundabout. With the bar, the fun-to-drive factor of the last-gen Focus is somewhat present and accounted for. Next, add the optional 16” wheels and upscale Pirelli rubber. The combo– which adds reasonable grip to the roll control– is only available on the SE models.
American pistonheads are collectively crying for the Euro-spec Focus, hoping it won’t be dumbed-down. Meanwhile, the stateside Focus has enough going for it to keep Sebring references at bay. But the upgrade known as the “SE Deluxe” package is compulsory. This combo includes all the exterior sizzle, interior accommodations and those sorely needed hi-po tire and suspension bits. So what of high-content, small car depreciation? At just $395 for the package, the bullet is dodged.
No doubt: these additions to focal fortitude make the Focus work. They help keep craptastic competitors like the Sebring and Cobalt at arms length, and stop the sniggering from Civic LX and Corolla LE owners. Why Ford didn’t make this package standard on the mid-grade SE is beyond me. Live and learn?
117 Comments on “2008 Ford Focus SE Review...”
Back to TopLeave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
You can also login using Facebook Connect.
The ‘new’ Focus is just another typical rolling turd on wheels from Detroit aimed squarely at the fleet/rental market. It’s selling well now for no other reason than its rather outré appearance, it’s cheap, and it gets good gas mileage. If the Aztek were still being built and it was as cheap and got as the same gas mileage as the new Focus, it would be selling well now, too.
Slotting it above the Cobalt and Sebring (or, more accurately, the really craptacular Caliber), but below the Civic LX and Corolla LE, is just about right.
“Tis a shame in my opinion. The Focus was a great car when it first came out, and the media reviews/sales numbers reflected that. Now, look at the monstrosity it has devolved into.
I can’t wait until the Fiesta gets here; I’m confident that it’ll be a great car for a few years, until that gets dumbed down too.
The big question is: Does this review justify a position on the Ten Best for the lame duck Focus?
Sajeev,
Excellent GORF reference! Man, has it been a long time since I heard that.
As for the Focus, it is somewhat of an eye-sore to be sure, but easily fogotten in the crowd. As has been mentioned, it sells (relatively) well due to the MPG and comparatively low price point. Still, for that money I’d rather find a nice, used three-year old Civic…
When this new Focus was first released, I admit that I was an unabashed hater, but then I rented one for a week and found it to be a comfortable, competent little car. I was impressed enough that I suggested my mom pick one up to replace her wheezing, break-downy van, and she did, and she’s more than happy with her decision. She’s averaging 33 mpg lifetime, and paid about 14000 for the car brand new with Sync and some other options. It’s no sports car, but this is a quiet, competitive player on the small-car commuter market, and I think it more than holds it’s own against the Civic and Corolla, both of which my parents test drove and decided against (citing the superior comfort of the Focus). The Focus is an old but proven platform, and the research I’ve done has shown good reliability information. Bring price into the equation, and going Japanese has a lot more to do with badge prejudice than actual performance or reliability numbers.
Of course, I’m a bit of a homer on this one, but it’s nice to see an American badge on a fuel-efficient, well-built small car (I didn’t see any duct tape in my mom’s engine bay). It’s still pretty ugly, but underneath the skin it’s a decent value proposition.
Nice counterpoint…no mention of Farago’s loathed duct tape-bound wiring harness, though!
Body roll won’t defy the laws of physics, but understeer doesn’t kill the fun.
So are you saying “understeer can still be fun” or that “there is no understeer to kill the fun”? ‘Cause if it’s the latter, then you just weren’t pushing hard enough….and if it’s the former, well, ditto, space cadet!
The panties will drop once they get a glimpse of your chrome Focus door handles!
In all seriousness, it’s nice to see the SE package can provide relatively cheap thrills. Now if only they can design a decent looking car to start with…
Sajeev,
I can’t believe you said, “the chrome-plated door handles, mirrors and tailpipe add visual justification for the (faux) fender vents’ existence”.
I’m sorry but, the faux fender vent is not justified. It is horrible. It is the worst faux fender vent of all time, IMHO.
While the Focus chassis is solid, I am amazed that people buy this car with that body. Its low, low price has got to be the deciding factor. If Ford hadn’t dumbed down the driving dynamics and had given it better styling, I believe they could actually get a premium for Foci.
My dad always taught me that it is no shame to admit your ignorance, but it is truly shameful to pretend you know what’s going on when you truly don’t. You miss opportunities to learn that way. In that spirit, would somebody please explain the meaning of GORF to this ignorant soul?
Beauty may be in the eye of the beholder, but this thing is fugly from every angle to my eyes. I would say it is about as retarded looking as the Sebring. Classic example of design by committee.
To Mark: You are either too old to have played arcade games in the 80s or too young… http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorf
2700 lbs? Hell, my Impala only weighs about 500 pounds more than that! No wonder the Focus doesn’t have great fuel economy (which, interestingly, wasn’t mentioned in the review… just sayin’)
Mark MacInnis: Gorf is an old arcade game.
see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gorf for more details.
I haven’t driven the 2008 yet. Like many others, I’m too upset that they ditched the awesome SVT and then the also-quite-good-and-cheaper ST. I also don’t care for cars that aesthetically attempt to appear other than they are.
TrueDelta doesn’t have enough data on these yet. Maybe in November. Aside from the 2000, earlier years appear to be about average in reliability. But more recent Ford models have been quite solid, and it’s possible that Ford similarly improved the Focus with the 2008 redesign.
To participate in this research:
http://www.truedelta.com/reliability.php
If Ford could dial down the silliness (*cough*fender*cough*), the Focus might actually look good.
That has to be the best way of saying “WTF are y’all talking about?” ever.
Still, for that money I’d rather find a nice, used three-year old Civic…
Or a used Mazda 3, or 4-pot Mazda 6, or a ‘06-’07 V6 Sonata…all with low miles, like below 15k. I could go on.
Pass. No matter how good it is on its own merits there are still much, much better
lookingbuys for the same money in the used car market.(faux) fender vents’ existence
This trend needs to be laid to rest asap.
This car is a leftover from pre-Mulally days. Things will get better.
lprocter1982 : There is no way an Impala weighs 3200lbs. Unless you’re talking about an Impala from the mid 20th century, and even then I think they were heavier.
The Cobalt’s styling, both inside and out, is in an whole different league than the Focus. Although from the sound of it, it seems like that’s the only advantage the Cobalt has over the Focus. I don’t understand why Ford has felt the need to make the Focus so offensively ugly since its inception.
The Sebring is a competitor of the Focus now? When did that happen?
The fender vents can be blacked out on certain ‘09 sporty models. So, that takes care of that issue for those that think it’s an issue.
Overall, I think this is a competent entry into the field. The dash just scares me a little bit.
The original Focus styling was idiosyncratic and people loved it or hated it. At least there was some emotion associated with the style. This thing is bland, bland, bland. It doesn’t offend; it doesn’t attract. It’s neutral.
barberoux : I would argue that the style of this Focus absolutely does offend. I am disgusted by it to the point where I’m not even sure I would want to rent one. I would honestly rather suffer through the dismal driving experience of a Cobalt or Aveo then to have to get behind the wheel of a car this ugly. It’s that bad
And the original wasn’t much better. I don’t think I’ve ever met a person who ‘loved’ the style of the original, and I’m not sure I really want to meet a person that finds a car like that good-looking
The Focus does lose it’s faux fender vent in the 2009 model year.
http://blogs.cars.com/kickingtires/2008/05/2009-ford-focus.html#more
After driving the ‘08 Focus SES (5-speed) and an ‘08 Mazda3 (5-speed) hatch back to back, the choice was obvious. When the Ford dealer heard that I had driven a Mazda3, he said, “Gah, losing another one to the Mazda3!”
In 2004, the Focus should have moved to the C-1 platform in the U.S., along with the then-new 3 and Volvo S40. Ford had a chance to encourage current Focus owners to upgrade. But Ford blew it.
Sounds like a Civic LX wannabe. Let’s compare numbers:
Focus SE:
MILEAGE: 24/33 PRICE AS TESTED: $18,920
Civic LX:
MILEAGE: 25/36 PRICE (w/destination charge): $18,395
Sure, you can deal and get incentives on the Focus that you can’t get on the Civic, but the Civic will still be worth $12k when you’re done paying it off.
Result: epic FAIL for Ford.
Having seen both the 2-door and 4-door in person, the 4-door styling is not that bad. The 2-door makes me want to bleach my eyes.
The Focus isn’t really bad looking, more like a composite of 3 or more vehicular/styling takes. All in all for Detroit, not a bad package. The ultimate genuine concern is will it: pop out spark plugs, catch fire and burn your house down or be found on road dead.
What a shame. The old Focus was still a competitive car–a testament to how good the original design was–and it’s a shame that Ford’s efforts over the past ten years have amounted to either decontenting said excellent design (cheaper materials, loss of features with each generation), or flat-out whacking it with the ugly stick.
I have to disagree with the review’s take on the Focus’ aesthetics. The contention seems to be that the shape is wrong but the detailing helps it. I don’t agree: the basic Focus shape is a good one, but the details clutters it up. The comparison to the Sebring is apt: not bad lines, awful brightwork and detailing. The New Edge version was by far the most cohesive-looking and combining it’s exterior with the current interior would have been a winner.
I will say, though, that the Focus sedan looks the most awkward of the old bodystyles: the shape looked a lot better on the hatch and was perfected in the wagon. The sedan and coupe suffer from “Toyota Echo Syndrome”; the sedan was a compromise badly derived from a hatch/wagon body.
Thank you all for reading. If Ford’s reading, its time to make the SE Deluxe Package standard, so the SE is just as “good” as the SES, and so that monochrome cosmetics are all that differentiate them. You have the base model for crappy car purchasers, no need extend the pain to your higher models.
————–
rudiger : If the Aztek were still being built and it was as cheap and got as the same gas mileage as the new Focus, it would be selling well now, too.
LOL, its funny because its true.
————–
NetGenHoon : The big question is: Does this review justify a position on the Ten Best for the lame duck Focus?
Please, no!
————–
threeer : Excellent GORF reference! Man, has it been a long time since I heard that.
If those headlights could talk, they’d talk like that GORF guy. You feelin’ this, Space Cadet?
————–
kazoomaloo : When this new Focus was first released, I admit that I was an unabashed hater, but then I rented one for a week and found it to be a comfortable, competent little car. I was impressed enough that I suggested my mom pick one up to replace her wheezing, break-downy van…
You described my time with a Focus over the course of a few weeks. Pretty much why it got 3 out of 5 stars.
————–
doctorv8: Nice counterpoint…no mention of Farago’s loathed duct tape-bound wiring harness, though!
I looked and it wasn’t there. Nice, respectable engine bay. But I found plenty of that mess in a friend’s new 2008 Escape Limited. Obviously Farago needs to do another podcast with that Ford Quality Guy.
————–
guyincognito : I can’t believe you said…I’m sorry but, the faux fender vent is not justified. It is horrible. It is the worst faux fender vent of all time, IMHO.
Ok, let’s talk integration. ☺
When you look at how the swageline wraps around the vent, goes down the body side in harmony (sorta) with the chrome door handles, becomes the cutline on the chromey taillights and the height transition on the decklid…well, let’s just say that I like how J Mays and crew made lemonade from that lemon.
The worst vent? Nope, I give that title to the new, poseur, Lincoln MKS. That vent is the lamest, least integrated item ever to grace a fender. And worst of all, it makes a mockery of the four pointed star that graced real Lincolns for over 50 years.
————–
guyincognito : While the Focus chassis is solid, I am amazed that people buy this car with that body. Its low, low price has got to be the deciding factor.
Price and SYNC. Plenty of people at this price point have MP3 players and SYNC is a big draw. People ask me about it all the time, too bad I’m perfectly content with a CD player.
————–
Mark MacInnis : You miss opportunities to learn that way. In that spirit, would somebody please explain the meaning of GORF to this ignorant soul?
Man, I feel so old right now. It’s the same Farago-Cheesecake Shot moment he posted on a podcast.
Mark, Google is your friend. :)
————–
lprocter1982 : 2700 lbs? Hell, my Impala only weighs about 500 pounds more than that! No wonder the Focus doesn’t have great fuel economy (which, interestingly, wasn’t mentioned in the review… just sayin’)
It gets pretty good economy, my tight-motor’d tester got 33 on the highway and 26 city, and I wasn’t a lightfoot all the time. And, like others have said, your Impala is more like 700 lbs heavier.
————–
Buick61 : The Sebring is a competitor of the Focus now? When did that happen?
From a styling standpoint only. Although I know the deals are getting sweeter and sweeter at your local Chrysler dealer…
————–
detroit1701 : In 2004, the Focus should have moved to the C-1 platform in the U.S., along with the then-new 3 and Volvo S40. Ford had a chance to encourage current Focus owners to upgrade. But Ford blew it.
And they used to say it was too cost prohibitive to make a C-1 Focus for America. But, about a year ago, they changed their tune and rumor has it that the REAL Focus is coming back to our shores. (Maybe as a Mercury)
————–
Axel : Sure, you can deal and get incentives on the Focus that you can’t get on the Civic, but the Civic will still be worth $12k when you’re done paying it off.
Your comparo doesn’t include the fact that my tester had a better (Audiophile) stereo and SYNC…the Civic will cost more when you option them up correctly.
You pay more for the Civic and it will be worth more. No arguement there. But demand for small cars is so crazy that I’m shocked at how well the used car market is treating ALL Foci. Turnaround is fast and depreciation is better than any other Ford…
Well, except for the GT. That doesn’t count.
I am still not onboard with the chrome fishgills, but the rest of the Focus looks quite a bit better in person than it does in photographs. It also looks quite a bit better in darker colors that play up the brightwork inside of the tail-lamps.
I agree with your overall driving impressions, it handles respectably in a quiet and comfortable manner. You won’t be autocrossing with one, but at the same time you won’t fear for your life hitting the backroads or a fast twisty onramp either.
The best things about this Focus though are the interior amenities and ergonomics. While it is not a high grade interior by any means, it doesn’t look bad in the black colorscheme, and it is roomy and comfortable. However, nice touches like a full 10 digit numeric keypad (for quickly punching in AM/FM or Sirius station numbers), two powerports on the front stack (so a radar detector and a cell phone, two cell phones, or whatever combination you want can charge), the heads up display for climate/compass/radio/etc to keep eyes on the road, and bevy of steering wheel mounted controls all add up to make it intuitive and pleasurable to operate.
Also, Sync is hands down a killer feature. Bluetooth cell phone and USB audio integration with voice control that actually works all for around $395 on the options list can’t be beat. Other cars have bluetooth, and others have iPod stereo in jacks, but no other system will automatically download your phonebook and allow you to make a call by touching a button on the wheel and saying ‘Call ‘ or let you jam out to Sting by saying ‘Play album All This Time’.
Overall the situation with the Focus is that while other cars in the segment may handle better, look nicer, or return slightly higher fuel economy numbers, the Focus beats them all in the category of being a cohesive easy to live with easy to take for granted daily driver for those who just want a car they don’t have to work to enjoy or take advantage of.
I have to laugh. There are so many uglier cars out than this (I am looking at you Audi, Toyota,Pontiac). The fake vent doesn’t bother me a bit. It’s what it is, a reasonably priced entry level car.
I want to ask all of you guys dumping on the focus if you actually seen it in person? I mean, I thought the focus looked like shit when I saw the first PR pictures of it, but I then saw one in a parking lot. I looked around at it at all angles, and I didn’t think it looked half bad in person.
Sajeev:
Your comparo doesn’t include the fact that my tester had a better (Audiophile) stereo and SYNC…the Civic will cost more when you option them up correctly.
If you could get the Civic EX without the moonroof that might be a better comparison. It’s just a hair over $19,510+dest with the moonroof, so take the moonroof away and its MSRP is in your tester’s ballpark.
RoweAS:
I have to laugh. There are so many uglier cars out than this (I am looking at you Audi, Toyota,Pontiac).
The new Corolla, for example, looks like a current gen Camry that’s had a run-in with a car crusher. When we were shopping, my wife took one look and said “Ew.” No test drive required.
Of course, she said the same thing about the Focus.
Was this article meant for Autoblog? Or am I reading “The Onion” in TTAC disguise?
“Ford recovered from the car’s ungainly proportions by beating them with a beautification stick.”
It’s a design only a fanboy could love.
“it comes as no surprise that the runs to 60 are in the respectable but unflattering 8.5 second range.”
Unflattering especially compared to the four-ton Super Duty that does 0-60 in 8.7 seconds (as tested by Car and Driver).
And that dash, my Jeebus, that dash. Too much silver plastic in the wrong orientation. It should be running vertically so as not to blind passengers when driving east from the setting sun. It’s like the interior designer(s) just gave up!
This has to be the worst looking car–inside and out–since the Aztek.
For a tiny bit more money than a loaded Focus ($21K)…I’ll take the MUCH better Cobalt SS. The only reason this Focus is selling is because of gimmicks and gas prices. Otherwise, there is ZERO reason to spend a dollar on it…let alone thousands.
“I don’t think I’ve ever met a person who ‘loved’ the style of the original”
Well, not in person, maybe. I thought the original sedan was as nice looking small sedan that I’d seen (I’m old – maybe that explains it). I have yet to meet a Toyota, Honda, or anything else that was better. The original interior sucked though. The new one seems much better.
factotum: when has Autoblog said that a car’s styling “add(s) enough aesthetic flair to keep my lunch down.”???
Like I’ve said before, I think that swage line is pretty nice. It integrates the middle of the car pretty well with the rear. If only the Focus was 1-2 inches shorter (i.e. not a CUV), the styling might actually make sense for a car. The Sebring on the other hand, takes the Saturn Ion’s disjointed design and raises it another ugly card.
A silly feature like SYNC is not a good reason to purchase a sub-standard car! Auto-makers have always tried to compensate for poor quality by loading up a half-a$$ car with “nice” features.
That has been the domestic way of selling cars for a very long time and it has NOT helped them at all.
A crappy car is still a crappy car no matter how much “nice” junk is offered as standard equipment! If Ford wants to survive they need to aim their products at the “smart” shoppers the way that Toyota and Honda do.
The Civic, Corolla, Accord, and Camry all cost more than the domestic competition yet they continously outsell them. This is because “smart shoppers” are looking for REAL value in a HIGH QUALITY product not a bunch of “features” stuffed into a low-buck ride.
In three to four years when that Focus starts to show its age, has lost all remaining value, and is still not paid-off Folks will no longer care about that SYNC system and chrome door handles but they will be stuck with a worthless POS car.
P71_CrownVic: For a tiny bit more money than a loaded Focus ($21K)…I’ll take the MUCH better Cobalt SS.
You’d have to be nuts to buy a fully loaded Focus. I wouldn’t spend a dime more than the car I tested. (and be nuts to pay MSRP, but that’s a whole ‘nother story)
Oh, and the SS is expensive and kinda thirsty. Not that isn’t a decent ride (from what everyone says) but its almost comparing apples to oranges.
I’ll have to agree with Runfromcheney: it does look better in person. I walk past one regularly with my pups and in the flesh it isn’t that bad looking. On the other hand, the faux fender vent looks worse in person. Please ditch it, Ford.
I think what bothers me most, however, is that this Focus is based on the same platform as the Mazda3 which is, for my money, one of the best looking sedans on the market at any price. So you shouldn’t have to qualify an opinion of the Focus by saying it looks better in person. They should have done it right from the get-go.
I have seen this focus in person, both the 2 and 4 door models. I think they are unbelievably hideous. The chrome gills and accents just look cheap and tacky. Yes they do look better at night, specifically, pitch black with the lights off.
The old one was better, I didn’t hate it. Though it a bit awkward looking, but the SVT version looked pretty good lowered a bit.
Sajeev:
I withdraw my Autoblog comment. But you do not take umbrage at my Onion jab?
AB is more disliked around here than I thought…
@ dean:
It is not based on the same platform as the Mazda 3. This is part of the reason for the ugly styling.
factotum: no worries, I like both websites, but neither captures the spirit of what I’m trying to do here with the Focus.
Watching GORF on YouTube really nails it. Everything else, not so much.
Too bad SYNC’s voice synthesizer doesn’t talk like that.
The red coupe in KickingTires doesn’t look too bad… looks like a Focus was raped by a Saab Turbo X a little bit, with the attack of the killer graphite paint…
While the focus is no Mazda3, it does meet the market demand for affordable and safe transportation. My neighbor bought two of these for his teeneage kids at $11K per car and it meets their needs perfectly – safe, practial, not too fast and under warranty.
Those lamenting the lack of a Euro C1 Focus should visit their local Mazda dealer.
Definitely not a bad little car, and does well for those wanting simple transportation that is easy to live with and fun to drive. And they still have the nimble dynamics of the first generation.
My neighbor bought a coupe (to complement their old VW Fox coupe…go figure) and it’s not bad looking from some angles. The big side windows remind me of a late 90’s Civic. My Mazda3 wagon drives a bit better but it’s also heavier and has a bit more torque/power.
I think a fun Focus would be a pretty basic model with the Mazda MX-5 2.0l I4 (which is similiar to the old SVT Focus I4) or just fit the 2.3l (or updated to 2.5l) in there and use some older RS suspension components. Would I trade my Mazda in for that? No, but it’d be nice to secretly desire.
Michael Karesh “I haven’t driven the 2008 yet. Like many others, I’m too upset that they ditched the awesome SVT and then the also-quite-good-and-cheaper ST. I also don’t care for cars that aesthetically attempt to appear other than they are.”
I agree Michael. I have a 2005 ST and it runs great. I upgraded to Bridgestone Potenzas for better wet grip but other than that it is stock. I can understand Ford doing away with the ST because it didn’t sell and I got quite a deal on it. I get 30MPG highway (my wife gets 25-27 but thats another story) and it drives like a go-kart. Very stable, good steering, good brakes and great suspension (but you can get airborne if not careful)Sorry to see it not renewed.
As for the look of the new model at first I hated it but it has kind of grown on me and now I can tolerate it or at least look at it without puking. It is selling well so Ford might be smarter than we think with the general public. Us car nots will have to wait for the Euro-Focus.
As a big fan of the original Focus (while not overlooking all the areas where Ford went wrong – NVH, reliability, etc.), I’m just so, so disappointed in you, Ford. You can do better. You have potential.
This little dewdrop of guilt was courtesy of my mother. I hope it inspires you to do better next time, or spend years in therapy – your choice.
There’s a black one in the parking lot where I work. It’s usually parked near a New Edge-era Focus wagon and not too far from a post-2005 facelift ZX5 hatch. Believe me, the wagon and the hatch look a lot better. Some of that is the general dorkiness of the Focus sedan, but most is the detailing.
The worst–the absolute worst–is the trunklid. It’s this awful expanse of metal that actually looks warped. My father has a 2002 sedan that looks clean, if econodorky** in proportion. The trunk area is not at all objectionable prior to 2008.
The grille is the next most objectionable feature. I like the three-bar grille on the Fusion, Edge and Taurus. I think it’s a nice touch and makes Fords easily identifiable. The Fusion is especially striking. The Focus’ two-bar looks cheesy by comparison; like they tried to do the three-bar but couldn’t find a cheap way to make it fit.
Oddly enough, I like the fender vents. They look like a stylized “F” from certain perspectives and add a nice touch to the car. From the side, it’s not bad looking.
I almost bought a wagon in 2002. I didn’t because the reliability rankings were still problematic, but functionally it was such a good car I was very close to saying “heck with it, I’ll take the risk”. That’s what gets me about the Focus: it was just so good in 2000 that it’s sad to see how far it’s fallen. You can excuse the Cobalt because it’s “Meh” and has always been “Meh”, but the Focus was a worldbeater in 2000: handled better than the Civic and Protege, rode better than the Corolla and Golf and had better packaging than all of them. And now it’s not just an also-ran, but a worse car than it was in 2000. Pathetic.
** I own a Fit and pre-2003 Saab. I know from dorky.