Ford Focus (Mk III) 2010-

[IBrake4Rainbows]

do only children like previous better-designed automobiles?

The "things were better in the good old days" schtick is childish and old-man at the same time, and incredibly tiresome.

The estate looks good, the hatch not so much.

The problem isn't its contemporaries. The problem is the Mk I, which showed what was possible given enough cojones. By the there were already bland cars in the market, including Ford's own Escort, but Ford was brave enough to launch the Mk I Focus. This Mk III biggest enemies aren't its contemporary rivals, it's the original Mk I Focus.

I don't think you have a fair comparison between this and the Mk1.

That'd be like comparing the Golf MkIV to the MKVI, or the 1998 Astra to the Modern one. There are difference in the market, in what's acceptable, what is possible, and indeed, how far have things come.

I get that there is a spirit of daring that permeated the Mk1, but really there wasn't - the New Edge was familiar to the market and the shock value was based more on it's ability than it's style.

I highly doubt this car won't have the ability of it's predecessors. And I find more value in a Contemporary design that manages to look at once modern and Familiar than one which throws out the old completely and leaves no marker for Historical reference.

[Ferrer]

I don't think you have a fair comparison between this and the Mk1.

That'd be like comparing the Golf MkIV to the MKVI, or the 1998 Astra to the Modern one. There are difference in the market, in what's acceptable, what is possible, and indeed, how far have things come.

I get that there is a spirit of daring that permeated the Mk1, but really there wasn't - the New Edge was familiar to the market and the shock value was based more on it's ability than it's style.

I highly doubt this car won't have the ability of it's predecessors. And I find more value in a Contemporary design that manages to look at once modern and Familiar than one which throws out the old completely and leaves no marker for Historical reference.

I agree that this will be a good car, all Fords have been since the last 15 years. But I think that the Mk I's shock value was based on both, the ability and the design, which was a big break up with what preeced it.

This only has the ability. I'd even say that the Mk II was a disapointment too, because after the Mk I the Mk II seemed bland and uninteresting in comparison, if a very capable family hatchback.

I agree that the market is now different than what it was 10-15 years ago, but if you wanted to be daring and different there's still an opportunity, the Citroën C4 3 door is a clear example. The thing is, if there hadn't been a Mk I we would probably not be so hard on the Mk III. That's why I said that the Mk III's biggest enemy was the original Focus.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

This is like being disappointed in the MkIII because the MarkII was a good car.

the Focus was a break from a lacklustre series of Escort's, which made the fact it was so good so much more palpable. It's not a better car than a MarkII in terms of ability, or in my opinion styling - and thats my point. It's like saying Ford have gone backwards, when that is plainly not the case.

Because Ford have steadily improved the breed rather than having a break with the past and starting afresh with successful results, you're lambasting the car? That doesn't make much sense to me.

You're comparing a memory with a reality, in contexts that are different, and with competition that has markedly improved, and it hardly seems fair on a car that hasn't had a chance to prove you wrong.

[Ferrer]

I'm not discussing the ability of any of the three Focus generations. Previous ones have been good, and this one will almost certainly be too.

In terms of looks I think they've gone worse a bit, this Mk III isn't the best looking car in the world, it looks a bit bloated, but then again it isn't a sin like the back of the previous Renault Megane.

Of course it isn't fair as you say to compare the Mk I to the Mk III, because the market was different and Ford was different too. In 1998 Ford needed something. The Escort was failing badly and another Escort wouldn't do, which is why they went ahead with the Focus. Nothing wrong with that, it's what needed to be done.

Fast forward 12 years and Ford is in a completely different position. Their cars are good and the sell, and they certainly don't need any sort of revolution like they did in the late 90's. But the thing is, everyone still remembers the Mk I Focus, which will be a future classic, the car that break up with everything.

And that's the problem of the Mk III, even before having driven it. Other manufacturers don't have such problems. They don't have relatively recent iconic and different models. For instance the Golf has been the same since, well since forever, the old Megane was ugly and the Astras has never been particularly striking. But the Focus once was, and this being so averagely looking is what could kill it.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The Golf had it's renaissance with the Mk5 in terms of recapturing it's original market statement as the aspirational hatchback - If there is such a thing. Currently they're spending as much time keeping what they have as engaging in furthering the brand.

The Astra is a car which has always been considered an also-ran, but you can't deny a modern Astra is at least as good, if not better, than a previous generation Focus or Golf. As it should be.

In terms of looks....This car is a further progression of the modern Kineticism Ford first released with the Iosis concept back in the day, and for the record I don't mind it - I think it's somewhat overstyled (as is the fashion these days, where blank panels and unfettered edges are the enemy) but It's handsome.

I still don't get the argument, to be honest. Ford doesn't need a revolution because their start point was so good, and this builds on that start point and progresses the brand further. But your point is what, that the original Focus was good? thats not in doubt, but this is, all things considered, likely to be much better.

Memory is a powerful thing, Hell, it was used to sell Lancias when they became little more than rebadged Fiats, harking back to the days of unfettered beauty and raspy engines...

But this constant living in the past, where nothing is as good as it once was schtick is getting really, really old (If you'll forgive the pun). If everyone remembered how easy and comfortable is was living in caves, and decided not to improve the situation, where the hell would we be now?

Perfection can always be improved upon, especially when it has four wheels.

[fpv_gtho]

If i could criticise the Mk3 Focus for one thing, its for being too big. It started almost when the current Mondeo was released as it was so much longer than its predecessor and left too much space between the Mk2 Focus. The new Fiesta then was almost as big as the Mk2 Focus, and now the Mk3's probably bigger than the car the current Mondeo replaced.

If they offered the new Fiesta with the IRS and the old Focus engines they might be onto something for the purists. The best they'll do is probably a 1.6 Ecoboost for the ST

[Ferrer]

My point was that if there hadn't been a Mk I we wouldn't criticise this so much. But compared to the Mk I this looks so... normal if you know what I mean.

I think that's the best explanation I can come up with.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

So it's a context thing.

Because everyone is doing swoopy lines, it's no longer unusual. It's poor reasoning, but I do understand.

Just because it's not unusual doesn't mean it's not good.

[Clivey]

I agree that this will be a good car, all Fords have been since the last 15 years.

Every Ford since 1996? I'm not so sure about that!

Some have (e.g. the new Mondeo is brilliant for anyone who wants a no-nonsense family car but who also enjoys driving), but others have been lacklustre (European Ford Fusion - box on wheels).

But I think that the Mk I's shock value was based on both, the ability and the design, which was a big break up with what preeced it.

Precisely. The Mk1 was a revolutionary car in times when the competition was largely bland and boring. The best way of explaining our disappointment in the successive models is that the Mk1 was a certain percentage (for the sake of the discussion let's say 30%) better / more revolutionary than the preceeding Mk6 Escort and the majority of the competition at the time, whereas the new models are no better more original than the other cars in the class (or certainly not 30%). The problem is not that the Mk3 isn't a good car, it's that it doesn't stand-out from the competition in the same way as the original. In effect, it seems that Ford showed with the Mk1 what they can do when they put 100% effort into it, however, it seems they've been lazy since. The Mk1 was probably twice as good as the Mk6 Escort before it, but the Mk2 and 3 "Focii" aren't significantly better than their predecessors.

This only has the ability. I'd even say that the Mk II was a disapointment too, because after the Mk I the Mk II seemed bland and uninteresting in comparison, if a very capable family hatchback.

I agree that the market is now different than what it was 10-15 years ago, but if you wanted to be daring and different there's still an opportunity, the Citroën C4 3 door is a clear example. The thing is, if there hadn't been a Mk I we would probably not be so hard on the Mk III. That's why I said that the Mk III's biggest enemy was the original Focus.

Yes...but now look: Citroen have done the same with the new C4. I bought my Mk1 Coupé precisely because it stood out amongst the dull Focus & Golf clones. The new C4, as you say, is like a ZX...zzzzzzzz.

the Focus was a break from a lacklustre series of Escort's, which made the fact it was so good so much more palpable. It's not a better car than a MarkII in terms of ability, or in my opinion styling - and thats my point. It's like saying Ford have gone backwards, when that is plainly not the case.

Styling is a very personal thing. However, you'd be mad to argue that the Mk2 Focus was more of a step forward than the Mk1. Our argument is that Ford have proven that they can shake-up the sector with the Mk1, so why didn't they do it with the Mk2/3, especially when (in the UK at least) they seem to be losing ground in terms of sales to small MPVs and supposedly more upmarket cars like the Audi A3 and VW Golf? Granted, the current Focus isn't as terrible as the Mk6 Escort was, but another good shake-up wouldn't hurt!

Because Ford have steadily improved the breed rather than having a break with the past and starting afresh with successful results, you're lambasting the car? That doesn't make much sense to me.

But that's the thing: They haven't. We expect a certain level of improvement / progress from generation 'X' to generation 'Y', and Albert and myself both feel that there hasn't been enough. Indeed, when I drove a (then brand new - less than 1000 miles on the clock) Mk2 Focus in 2006, it reminded me of Transit van. It was very crude and unrefined, it was already rattling and squeaking and the design inside and out was a definite step backwards - it looks and feels like a tupperware box (especially pre-facelift) and reminds me of the kind of design videogame companies used to use for cars as props when they didn't want to pay royalties to car manufacturers.

You're comparing a memory with a reality, in contexts that are different, and with competition that has markedly improved, and it hardly seems fair on a car that hasn't had a chance to prove you wrong.

How do most buyers decide which car they want next? Nope, not buy test-driving (otherwise the original Audi TT wouldn't have been such a strong seller), but by how it looks. This new Focus design is a complete mess - a real dog's breakfast that looks like a mix-match of 20 other cars that have been pressed together - so much so that as a kind-of hobby I've designed an alternative in my spare time (it's about 75% finished - I've not designed a car for a long time and I'm seriously out of practice! ). The front end (grille, lights etc) isn't too bad (except that awful "mouth" on the ST / Electric versions) but the back end looks like a Dodge Caliber on LSD.

So it's a context thing.

Because everyone is doing swoopy lines, it's no longer unusual. It's poor reasoning, but I do understand.

No. You don't. Some cars (the new Astra is a prime example) aren't revolutionary but still manage to look good.



- And much nicer than the 2011 Focus ST:

[Commodore GS/E]

I'm not sure abot the new Focus. Before it came out, I was awaiting a revolutionary design change, but the final product didn't meet my expectations. It's not bad looking, but it's not nearly as suprising as the MK1 (or even the MK2). I like the interior, but the looks just aren't my thing.
The ST on the other hand makes the styling work for me (somehow).

[Ferrer]

And on top of all that apparently it isn't as sharp to drive to not scare americans...

(Top Gear is saying this not me)

Every Ford since 1996? I'm not so sure about that!

Some have (e.g. the new Mondeo is brilliant for anyone who wants a no-nonsense family car but who also enjoys driving), but others have been lacklustre (European Ford Fusion - box on wheels).

Well most of them.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

But that's the thing: They haven't. We expect a certain level of improvement / progress from generation 'X' to generation 'Y', and Albert and myself both feel that there hasn't been enough. Indeed, when I drove a (then brand new - less than 1000 miles on the clock) Mk2 Focus in 2006, it reminded me of Transit van. It was very crude and unrefined, it was already rattling and squeaking and the design inside and out was a definite step backwards - it looks and feels like a tupperware box (especially pre-facelift) and reminds me of the kind of design videogame companies used to use for cars as props when they didn't want to pay royalties to car manufacturers.

Ah, so now it's a quantitative thing. The Mk1 dash was a piece of tat. swooping gashes and odd shaped air vents. Mk2 was at least a cohesive piece of design. Both weren't brilliantly made.

How do most buyers decide which car they want next? Nope, not buy test-driving (otherwise the original Audi TT wouldn't have been such a strong seller), but by how it looks. This new Focus design is a complete mess - a real dog's breakfast that looks like a mix-match of 20 other cars that have been pressed together - so much so that as a kind-of hobby I've designed an alternative in my spare time (it's about 75% finished - I've not designed a car for a long time and I'm seriously out of practice! ). The front end (grille, lights etc) isn't too bad (except that awful "mouth" on the ST / Electric versions) but the back end looks like a Dodge Caliber on LSD.

I think that's a bit unfair to the TT, it's again being compared with some pretty high end stuff.

The new Focus is much more agressive, certainly. and the rear lights are somewhat challenging, but it's got character and a kineticism that the MK2 lacked. A shock value the MK1 was famous for, and an interior which doesn't appear to be made of Nintendo 64 knock off plastic.

By claiming it's a mash up of 20 other things doesn't make it worse or better. All cars have, for better or worse, the same basic design features. Window goes here, light goes there.

No. You don't. Some cars (the new Astra is a prime example) aren't revolutionary but still manage to look good.



- And much nicer than the 2011 Focus ST:

That Astra looks like it's got a case of the squnty eyes. Can't read a road sign, perhaps.

And having a design degree (didn't want to play that card, but there you go) The Astra is likely to be rather washed out against even the staid Golf, purely because it's tried it's darndest to be something I like to call "corporate edge". Instead of actually taking things to the limit in terms of design (Citroen C4 3 door f'rinstance) it tries to blend a few minorly edgy things into what is essentially a very considered, measured and ultimately unexciting design. Like a bank manager with a single earring in his ear.

The Focus is a challenging piece of design that's likely to set tongues wagging generate interest, and I suspect become popular because of it's quirkyness. Would you say that about an Astra?

[Clivey]

Ah, so now it's a quantitative thing. The Mk1 dash was a piece of tat. swooping gashes and odd shaped air vents. Mk2 was at least a cohesive piece of design. Both weren't brilliantly made.

The key phrase here is "for the time". For the time, the Mk1's interior wasn't that bad - it was competing with the likes of this:



(2002 Citroen Xsara)

Now before we go any further, I must admit that the design of the Mk1 Focus is not at all to my personal taste, but I can appreciate how cutting edge it was. Compared to the competition at the time, the Mk1's interior was acceptable and at least a bit interesting. However, things (should) have moved-on, IMHO Ford didn't make enough progress with the Mk2. It's hard for something that's that basic and boxy not to be "cohesive" - it doesn't have any distinguishing features to clash or jar with anything else. It should have been much better - especially as in the same year, Citroen launched this:



- I've found my car to be much more comfortable and (in the real sense of the word*) luxurious than many supposed premium or more upmarket vehicles. Even the little touches such as the storage compartments being lined with soft-touch felt make cars like the equivalent Audi A3 feel less special.

* "luxury" cars, to me should not be about expense or the badge on the grille, but how comfortable you are on a long journey or how much stress, tiredness etc. the car prevents by being a nice way to travel. Cars like the Citroen C6, I feel, make a BMW 520d with 19" wheels and sports suspension seem absurd and the owners immature or ignorant. Try driving 500 miles in each and you'll see what I mean. In the same way, my experience of the C4 is that it's a far nicer place to spend time than many a rival.

I think that's a bit unfair to the TT, it's again being compared with some pretty high end stuff.

I don't think I understand where you're coming from. The original TTs main rivals (Boxter, S2000, Z4 and even the SLK) are all better to drive than the TT (which was very disappointing in terms of actually driving it by all accounts). - But that's another topic for another thread.

The new Focus is much more agressive, certainly. and the rear lights are somewhat challenging, but it's got character and a kineticism that the MK2 lacked. A shock value the MK1 was famous for

It may have "character", but in all honesty to my eyes it looks as if different parts of the car were designed in isolation by different people, then made to fit together at the last minute - the "face" of the car doesn't appear to be from the same design as the rear, and the side profile is a complete mess.

and an interior which doesn't appear to be made of Nintendo 64 knock off plastic.

Hey, don't knock the N64! I have one (in perfect condition) and it's better built than many a car interior!

By claiming it's a mash up of 20 other things doesn't make it worse or better. All cars have, for better or worse, the same basic design features. Window goes here, light goes there.

Of course, but that's not what I meant. What I meant is that it seems they've tried to merge different mismatched styles and ideas together and they've ended-up with something odd-looking as a result (imagine joining a Nissan Juke front-end with a Dodge Caliber rear without blending them together and you get a mental image that's not too far away from how this car looks).

And having a design degree (didn't want to play that card, but there you go) The Astra is likely to be rather washed out against even the staid Golf, purely because it's tried it's darndest to be something I like to call "corporate edge". Instead of actually taking things to the limit in terms of design (Citroen C4 3 door f'rinstance) it tries to blend a few minorly edgy things into what is essentially a very considered, measured and ultimately unexciting design. Like a bank manager with a single earring in his ear.

I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say that despite the Astra being what is essentially a plain design, it still manages to look good, unlike the Mk2 Focus, which is too generic - like an 8-year old's drawing of a car.

[IBrake4Rainbows]

The key phrase here is "for the time". For the time, the Mk1's interior wasn't that bad - it was competing with the likes of this:

(2002 Citroen Xsara)

Now before we go any further, I must admit that the design of the Mk1 Focus is not at all to my personal taste, but I can appreciate how cutting edge it was. Compared to the competition at the time, the Mk1's interior was acceptable and at least a bit interesting. However, things (should) have moved-on, IMHO Ford didn't make enough progress with the Mk2. It's hard for something that's that basic and boxy not to be "cohesive" - it doesn't have any distinguishing features to clash or jar with anything else. It should have been much better - especially as in the same year, Citroen launched this:

The Focus II was designed during Fords conservative period, which also spawned the Fiesta and Mondeo of the time. as such the Focus' interior was meant to go upmarket to match the Golf. now it wasn't brilliant but it was a leap ahead of it's predecessor.

As I've argued an inheirantly conservative big company like Ford is in it's best interests to maintain what customers love about a brilliant product. In the Focus' case they took the negatives - interior, in particular - and ironed them out, while maintaining a relatively high driving pleasure ratio in comparison to the competition.

I've found my car to be much more comfortable and (in the real sense of the word*) luxurious than many supposed premium or more upmarket vehicles. Even the little touches such as the storage compartments being lined with soft-touch felt make cars like the equivalent Audi A3 feel less special.

Having just acquired a 2002 Golf IV I can say the difference in interior between equivalent french cars of the day (Notably a 307 I was looking at) is profound. It's the grain of the plastic, the matching, the touch points, that make things special. With a Citroen they thought about it and created something pretty cool. Having sat in a brand new Focus what struck me was a slight lack of cohesion, but a still-brilliant set up.

* "luxury" cars, to me should not be about expense or the badge on the grille, but how comfortable you are on a long journey or how much stress, tiredness etc. the car prevents by being a nice way to travel. Cars like the Citroen C6, I feel, make a BMW 520d with 19" wheels and sports suspension seem absurd and the owners immature or ignorant. Try driving 500 miles in each and you'll see what I mean. In the same way, my experience of the C4 is that it's a far nicer place to spend time than many a rival.

a 520d with 19" wheels is moronic and anything with a modicrum of suspension travel is going to feel better to drive longer distances.

Luxury is never having to want for anything. This can be found in the smallest of touches, and the cheapest of brands.

I don't think I understand where you're coming from. The original TTs main rivals (Boxter, S2000, Z4 and even the SLK) are all better to drive than the TT (which was very disappointing in terms of actually driving it by all accounts). - But that's another topic for another thread.

My point was that while it was pitted against these cars the reality of it's situation was that it was more suited to comparisons to a Ford Cougar or Renault Megane 3 door in conception.

The TT is not a bad drive, it's just not as good as some of it's more dedicated competition. Again, relativity.

It may have "character", but in all honesty to my eyes it looks as if different parts of the car were designed in isolation by different people, then made to fit together at the last minute - the "face" of the car doesn't appear to be from the same design as the rear, and the side profile is a complete mess.

The side profile maintains the kinetic elements Ford love - the swage line, almost hexagonal daylight opening, wrap around lights...all very normal.

The rear is almost staid, but functional.

And the front is no better or worse than a Peugeot 308 or Renault Megane. Perhaps the teeth might not have been my choice, but you can't deny it's individualistic, and likely to please potential purchasers (which lets face it, you're not really, are you?)

Hey, don't knock the N64! I have one (in perfect condition) and it's better built than many a car interior!

Pretty sure if you press up-down-up-down etc on the window switches you get cheats.

Of course, but that's not what I meant. What I meant is that it seems they've tried to merge different mismatched styles and ideas together and they've ended-up with something odd-looking as a result (imagine joining a Nissan Juke front-end with a Dodge Caliber rear without blending them together and you get a mental image that's not too far away from how this car looks).

To you, maybe.

It's a cohesive piece of design because most items flow into each other and exert a prescence. The time of aerodynamic blobs appears to be over and, while I do lament the overstyling of the details, it's bang up to date.

My only fault with the car is it's perhaps not class-leading in terms of styling, but it's a mass market product and to meet the 25-75th percentiles this is what they do.

I think you misunderstood my point. What I was trying to say that despite the Astra being what is essentially a plain design, it still manages to look good, unlike the Mk2 Focus, which is too generic - like an 8-year old's drawing of a car.

I disagree the Astra looks good. It's inoffensive, not good. As I said, it's corporate edge and more than a little bit cynical to me.

I quite like the subtlety of the Mk II Focus, it's grown up and in facelift mode fairly spirited. The Mark I was the bold experiment, the Mk II was the mature assurance of purpose, the Mk III should really be the perfect mix. Perhaps it is, perhaps not.

[Ferrer]

We had a Mk1 and the interior help up reasonably well. Better than a premium Lancia Delta, anyway.

As for the TT, if it drove anything like the Golf Mk4 (and I guess it does), it didn't drive very well. Porsche Boxster or not.