RE: Ford Puma: Spotted
Discussion
When I read articles like this and recall Fords range from the late 90s and early 2000s it does rather emphasise how dull and boring their current range are. I am sure they all drive well, but the Fiesta (non ST Line or ST) the Focus, Mondeo etc just look so dull and anonymous, especially with those awful chrome grilles. Reminds me of Toyotas styling from the 1990s. Look at the blob which is the current Ford Ka and compare it to the original Ka, which was the closest anyone got to replicating a modern Mini (IMO). Just no comparison.
As They need to rediscover their mojo IMO
As They need to rediscover their mojo IMO
Krikkit said:
Nickp82 said:
sc0tt said:
Absolutely the wrong engine to be that money.
AgreedThe 1.4 really was not a bad car at all, the engine was fun, it loved to spin and while never as quick as the 1.7 you could just keep it pinned pretty much everywhere. It wasn't particularly slow either, had a GPS 118mph out of it (126 indicated).
The only real time you noticed the lacking in the 1.4 was on the motorway, as it lacked the low down grunt of the 1.7 so you couldn't short shift into 5th or hope to have much acceleration in 5th unless doing 70+. So the typical 50-70 of heavy traffic could be a bit annoying unless you change down...at which point it accelerated quite nicely. That said, it's hardly the only car with this "issue".
So while I wouldn't *pick* one if given the choice I hardly think it deserves the description "miserable combination", it was still a lovely fun car to drive.
Shaw Tarse said:
There's a new Puma on the way https://www.ford.co.uk/future-vehicles/puma?fbclid...
This pistonheads article claims at least ford haven't sold out on a old success name yet this very link proves that a puma suv is coming in the near future ... research required before they write the next article pistonheads eh.CP12 said:
This pistonheads article claims at least ford haven't sold out on a old success name yet this very link proves that a puma suv is coming in the near future ... research required before they write the next article pistonheads eh.
A Sporty SUV - people who buy these stupid SUV's on the presence of it being sporty should be shot 
! for bad taste against motoring!cluckcluck said:
You are. Ford aren't.
CP12 said:
This pistonheads article claims at least ford haven't sold out on a old success name yet this very link proves that a puma suv is coming in the near future ... research required before they write the next article pistonheads eh.
You do realise the PH article referred to the new SUV using the same name, complete with a link?Had 2, a really early Panther Black 1.7 on an R, then another Moondust silver on a T, had an order for an FRP but 23k back in 2000 ended up being too much for not much more than a bodykit so didn't bother.
Great cars, they could have done a much better version than the FRP though considering what they did with the Mk1 RS Focus.
5k for the s
te 1.4 is mental money.
Great cars, they could have done a much better version than the FRP though considering what they did with the Mk1 RS Focus.
5k for the s
te 1.4 is mental money.Fastdruid said:
While I'd agree on the money side and certainly the 1.7 would be my preference...many years ago my gf as she was at the time bought a 1.4 (wanted a 1.7 but due to age/insurance went for the smaller engine)...and then later my sister bought a 1.7. So I've driven both.
The 1.4 really was not a bad car at all, the engine was fun, it loved to spin and while never as quick as the 1.7 you could just keep it pinned pretty much everywhere. It wasn't particularly slow either, had a GPS 118mph out of it (126 indicated).
The only real time you noticed the lacking in the 1.4 was on the motorway, as it lacked the low down grunt of the 1.7 so you couldn't short shift into 5th or hope to have much acceleration in 5th unless doing 70+. So the typical 50-70 of heavy traffic could be a bit annoying unless you change down...at which point it accelerated quite nicely. That said, it's hardly the only car with this "issue".
So while I wouldn't *pick* one if given the choice I hardly think it deserves the description "miserable combination", it was still a lovely fun car to drive.
The 1.7 is such a gem though - great induction noise, good torque and throttle response, and just enough power that you can really thrash it without worrying about getting up to silly speeds.The 1.4 really was not a bad car at all, the engine was fun, it loved to spin and while never as quick as the 1.7 you could just keep it pinned pretty much everywhere. It wasn't particularly slow either, had a GPS 118mph out of it (126 indicated).
The only real time you noticed the lacking in the 1.4 was on the motorway, as it lacked the low down grunt of the 1.7 so you couldn't short shift into 5th or hope to have much acceleration in 5th unless doing 70+. So the typical 50-70 of heavy traffic could be a bit annoying unless you change down...at which point it accelerated quite nicely. That said, it's hardly the only car with this "issue".
So while I wouldn't *pick* one if given the choice I hardly think it deserves the description "miserable combination", it was still a lovely fun car to drive.
Krikkit said:
The 1.7 is such a gem though - great induction noise, good torque and throttle response, and just enough power that you can really thrash it without worrying about getting up to silly speeds.
I totally agree which is why it would be my pick. I just disagree that the 1.4 is "st", it's not as good as the 1.7 but on its own it's still a decent little motor. mrtwisty said:
Dal3D said:
largely ridiculed as a girls car.
I had a bit of that from a couple of acquaintances when I had mine years ago. My reply was always to throw them the keys and ask them what they thought when they got back from a drive.I never found anyone with an ounce of petrol in their veins who didn't have a lot of fun in a well sorted Puma on an interesting b-road.
I was between cars for a bit back in 2012 and she was looking to move it on for something with an auto box; I said I'd take it on and run it until I sorted myself another car. The Puma was a hoot to drive without needing to hit silly speeds to get a sense of fun and involvement! I still think it has the best gearshift of any car I've ever driven and the engine loved to be revved.
My only criticisms of the car were the love/hate relationship with the gearlever (felt fantastic to use unless it was winter or summer when it would either be icy cold or screaming hot!), the seats which could have done with a little more support and finally the boot lid which dumped rain straight into the boot when you opened it in the wet. Speaking of wet, the other thing that seemed like daft design was the wheelarch liner material - this gets soaked (obviously) and then holds the moisture in place against various bits which then corroded...
I'm surprised that Ford don't have plans for something interesting in that space; the ingredients could even still be the same - take the Fiesta chassis and pop a coupé body on it, the engines are already there to do it all the way up to an 'ST' variant. They could even do a roadster variant to compete with cars like the MX-5 and Fiat 124 Spider. Ford are already seeing their market share at the top end squeezed with fewer and fewer people buying things like Mondeos or the Vignale (isn't that just a posher Mondeo?) and cars like the new Fiesta ST and Focus variants have shown they know how to make fun, interesting cars that handle and go well. I think they're missing a trick...
I sold the car on for her around 2013 to someone a few counties over, bizarrely I then spotted it parked up again in my local town late last year!
Fastdruid said:
Did you ever drive one?
If anything the 1.6 was the st one, only 100cc down on the 1.7 but barely any more power than the 1.4.
I agree. The 1.4 was a really sweet engine compared to the 1.6, and barely any slower.If anything the 1.6 was the s
t one, only 100cc down on the 1.7 but barely any more power than the 1.4.The 1.7 is really the one to have though. We bought a shed of one a couple of years ago as a cheap track car. No mods at all, and it was far from disgraced on track in the company of significantly more expensive cars. The corner speed you can carry is just incredible, and like Peugeots of a certain era, you can take absolute liberties with it to the point of over-driving it to a degree, and the chassis never falls apart. That said, I did spin it into turn one at Abingdon, but that was me being a dick! ;-) Brakes could only stand four laps at a time, but otherwise it never faltered. One of the nicest gear changes of any car I've driven, too.
Lovely light, communicative and beautifully balanced thing with a peach of an engine. Just a shame the underside had turned to bran flakes, as they almost all do.
Edited by Limpet on Wednesday 3rd April 12:48
There was a young lady at the gym yesterday in an immaculate FRP, made me smile seeing that amongst all the posh German stuff, just looked so right.
Remember when the Tigra emerged and seemingly everyone wanted one, then a bit later the Puma arrived and Vauxhall must have just gone "Oh fk".
Remember when the Tigra emerged and seemingly everyone wanted one, then a bit later the Puma arrived and Vauxhall must have just gone "Oh f
k".
Limpet said:
I agree. The 1.4 was a really sweet engine compared to the 1.6, and barely any slower.
The 1.7 is really the one to have though. We bought a shed of one a couple of years ago as a cheap track car. No mods at all, and it was far from disgraced on track in the company of significantly more expensive cars. The corner speed you can carry is just incredible, and like Peugeots of a certain era, you can take absolute liberties with it to the point of over-driving it to a degree, and the chassis never falls apart. That said, I did spin it into turn one at Abingdon, but that was me being a dick! ;-) Brakes could only stand four laps at a time, but otherwise it never faltered. One of the nicest gear changes of any car I've driven, too.
Lovely light, communicative and beautifully balanced thing with a peach of an engine. Just a shame the underside had turned to bran flakes, as they almost all do.
We're the brakes stock or st ?The 1.7 is really the one to have though. We bought a shed of one a couple of years ago as a cheap track car. No mods at all, and it was far from disgraced on track in the company of significantly more expensive cars. The corner speed you can carry is just incredible, and like Peugeots of a certain era, you can take absolute liberties with it to the point of over-driving it to a degree, and the chassis never falls apart. That said, I did spin it into turn one at Abingdon, but that was me being a dick! ;-) Brakes could only stand four laps at a time, but otherwise it never faltered. One of the nicest gear changes of any car I've driven, too.
Lovely light, communicative and beautifully balanced thing with a peach of an engine. Just a shame the underside had turned to bran flakes, as they almost all do.
Edited by Limpet on Wednesday 3rd April 12:48
Re the corner speed a well known renault sport mechanic said the same thing , you can just sling it into corners and it doesn't lift a wheel unlike the clios .
It might be down in hp/torque but the flip side is your not braking as much .
Fastdruid said:
TIGA84 said:
5k for the ste 1.4 is mental money.
Did you ever drive one?te 1.4 is mental money.If anything the 1.6 was the s
t one, only 100cc down on the 1.7 but barely any more power than the 1.4.Neither the 1.4 or the 1.6 could hold a candle to the 1.7.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff