2015 Ford Focus Ecoboost 125 Wagon
Discussion
I had one of these as a hire car about a month back, and drove it for a week. You're right about the engine - it really does have some zing, though a fair amount of cog-swapping is needed to maintain speed on country roads. Also, the round-town economy is more than a bit rubbish - I was getting 38-ish, albeit with a heavy foot.
Where it really scores is on the motorway; I was desperate not to fill it up at the stupidly-pricy filling station at Geneva airport, so I squeezed in every last drop just on the French border at a helpful hypermarche and drove a economically as I could on the motorway, whilst still keeping up a decent speed. I had a plane to catch, after all.
65mpg. Sixty five em pee gee. Over a few miles, that would be possible, but this was about 40 miles, at 70-80mph, on a far from flat motorway so it's a real number. Added to which, this car was loaded with people and kit, so there was an additional 400kg to shift above and beyond the car itself.
It brakes well, it handles well, and it's generally a great car - that lightweight engine really makes its presence (not) felt in the corners. The grip is good, the suspension supple, and the noise levels low. And if driven as intended, it's parsimonious beyond belief. The stereo is pretty decent, and the Bluetooth hooked up faultlessly.
Love it, right? Er, no. I'd never buy one, not even if it was half the price. And I'd avoid one as even a hire car, regardless of how badly the alternative handled.
The interior is an absolute horrowshow, most specifically the dash design and (far too many) displays. To me it all felt well-made, but with the style and subtlety of a Christmas cracker. It's all massively OTT, and, worse than that, it's a classic example of form over substance. I hated the shape of the control stalks and the switches, I really don't need two different display elements each telling me that it's 2 degrees outside and I absolutely do not need three different ways of turning up the stereo. The cruise control seemed to have way too many switches and was in any case far from intuitive.
OK, so I come from the other end of the market, being a devotee of the sort of understated elegance you find in an older Mercedes (still the holder of the "you just use it without needing to be told how to" award for their cruise control stalk), but the Ford really did seem like the brashest exemplar of Fisher-Price design.
A real pity; it lets the rest of the (absolutely excellent) car down.
Where it really scores is on the motorway; I was desperate not to fill it up at the stupidly-pricy filling station at Geneva airport, so I squeezed in every last drop just on the French border at a helpful hypermarche and drove a economically as I could on the motorway, whilst still keeping up a decent speed. I had a plane to catch, after all.
65mpg. Sixty five em pee gee. Over a few miles, that would be possible, but this was about 40 miles, at 70-80mph, on a far from flat motorway so it's a real number. Added to which, this car was loaded with people and kit, so there was an additional 400kg to shift above and beyond the car itself.
It brakes well, it handles well, and it's generally a great car - that lightweight engine really makes its presence (not) felt in the corners. The grip is good, the suspension supple, and the noise levels low. And if driven as intended, it's parsimonious beyond belief. The stereo is pretty decent, and the Bluetooth hooked up faultlessly.
Love it, right? Er, no. I'd never buy one, not even if it was half the price. And I'd avoid one as even a hire car, regardless of how badly the alternative handled.
The interior is an absolute horrowshow, most specifically the dash design and (far too many) displays. To me it all felt well-made, but with the style and subtlety of a Christmas cracker. It's all massively OTT, and, worse than that, it's a classic example of form over substance. I hated the shape of the control stalks and the switches, I really don't need two different display elements each telling me that it's 2 degrees outside and I absolutely do not need three different ways of turning up the stereo. The cruise control seemed to have way too many switches and was in any case far from intuitive.
OK, so I come from the other end of the market, being a devotee of the sort of understated elegance you find in an older Mercedes (still the holder of the "you just use it without needing to be told how to" award for their cruise control stalk), but the Ford really did seem like the brashest exemplar of Fisher-Price design.
A real pity; it lets the rest of the (absolutely excellent) car down.
kapiteinlangzaam said:
I can agree with some aspects of your PoV with respect to the interior fussiness, but im perhaps not quite as harshly critical as you 
I like the SYNC 2 system, as far as Im concerned it works really well. Im also a fan (usually) of understated design as im coming to this car from an XC90 and have had a W140 in the past.... I suppose at the end of the day it 'is what it is'. I find the ergonomics fine and whilst there is some slabby plastic to be found, its not horrible by any stretch. I had a MK7 Golf as a rental car recently and wouldnt rate either one as better/worse than the other.
I suppose ultimately they are just cheap family transport, you cant expect miracles.
Oh, I know I reacted badly to it, and perhaps it's not as awful as I recall** but it's such a shame given how excellent the rest of it is. For me,and I absolutely get that it's a personal thing, it's a 9-9.5/10 car mechanically, with a 4/10 interior. Even then, there's nothing especially wrong with the quality of the plastics used - it's a family motor after all - it's the quality of design.I like the SYNC 2 system, as far as Im concerned it works really well. Im also a fan (usually) of understated design as im coming to this car from an XC90 and have had a W140 in the past.... I suppose at the end of the day it 'is what it is'. I find the ergonomics fine and whilst there is some slabby plastic to be found, its not horrible by any stretch. I had a MK7 Golf as a rental car recently and wouldnt rate either one as better/worse than the other.
I suppose ultimately they are just cheap family transport, you cant expect miracles.
- actually, having just Googled a picture, it is
The facelift interior with the touch screen is a huge improvement over the older version. I had a couple of 2012 models as short term lease cars (albeit the 1.6 TDCi) and the infotainment system was awful in both of them - the Zetec and Titanium systems were different but both had too many buttons and a tiny screen.
I actually found myself looking at these yesterday, I can get a new one in Titanuim spec for 18.5k CHF which would be ideal if I found myself deciding to be sensible in my choice of car for once.
I actually found myself looking at these yesterday, I can get a new one in Titanuim spec for 18.5k CHF which would be ideal if I found myself deciding to be sensible in my choice of car for once.
Was wondering when this was going to come around. Well done on not getting a Cashcow! Drove a fiesta with the same engine a while ago and enjoyed it. 43MPG seems excellent so far! The pics you uploaded to the Mini thread make the smaller car look like a much better place to be, but I am sure that this will pay dividends having a family now. With regards to the XCs replacement, what's the username going to be then!? 
Your last two posts really made me laugh. Seeing as Ford do the 1.0 in a 140BHP guise for special edition Fiestas I think you'll be okay with a different map as long as you don't go balls to the wall with a map. The added benefit of the bluefin map is you can revert the car to standard when needed.
Looks very nice indeed!
About the auto high beam, a mate has a new 420GC diseasal for his co car. When we went skiing a few weeks ago, the BMW auto high beam only sought, and very successfully, too, to p
s off truckers driving in the opposite direction on the autoroutes. Have you found the same? (albeit in CloggyLand? )
About the auto high beam, a mate has a new 420GC diseasal for his co car. When we went skiing a few weeks ago, the BMW auto high beam only sought, and very successfully, too, to p
s off truckers driving in the opposite direction on the autoroutes. Have you found the same? (albeit in CloggyLand? )Edited by 5potTurbo on Monday 8th February 16:18
kapiteinlangzaam said:
J4CKO said:
Looks good, when you get used to it, get the Superchips remap, we have it on a Fiesta and its great, best £400 I have spent in ages.
Cheers, Im almost certain to do that... does that load up via the BlueFin device?I noticed a bit of a small flat spot, so contacted them they were very attentive, most impressed, answer really was to run it on SUL once mapped, not that it was a big problem, not had it since despite it being run on Normal Unleaded.
http://www.superchips.co.uk/search?make=9&fuel...
You get an extra 31 bhp, so potentially 156 bhp, ours went from 100 to 140, not sure how accurate but it did feel hugely different, even the missus was impressed and declared it worthwhile, didnt seem to make it any different on fuel when you drive it normally, 2000 miles in and its not made any difference, not using any oil.
True. But I think times have changed to this extent: emissions targets come first, and engineers take decisions that they would otherwise advise against in the pursuit of those targets. If you asked an engineer to design an engine to run 156bhp reliably, he wouldn't start out with 3 cylinders and 1 litre of displacement. He might go for 2 litres NA or 1.2 or 1.4 litres turbo, don't you think?
Gassing Station | Readers' Cars | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff