Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!





2012 Ford Focus

1101113151666

Comments

  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    The transmission in the new Focus is nothing like the POS 6 speed in the Fusion. I have a 2010 Fusion that I am trading in because of transmission and air in the cooling system concerns. The 2012 Focus has a 6 speed dual clutch dry transmission, the same trans that's in the 2011 Fiesta. Two internal gear sets divide the ratios in half, one odd gears, one even gears. One clutch is always engaged until the transmission needs to shift, allowing 100% of the engine torque to be continually transferred to the wheels. When a shift is needed, the clutch will come on to transfer the engine torque to the other gear set. I ordered an SEL, which along with the Titanium model has the Select Shift option. Before I ordered mine, I checked the Fiesta forums for any info on transmission problems since the Focus wasn't out yet. The only issue I could find involved a grounding strap which caused some programming issues and that's been resolved.
  • gambit293gambit293 Posts: 406
    I have a couple of noobish questions to square away.

    First off, I assume alloy wheels and aluminum wheels are the same thing. For some reason, some of the non-steel wheels at the Ford configurator are listed as alloy and others as aluminum. By contrast, the Focus brochure (which also includes a $750 discount) I recently received lists all options as aluminum.

    Secondly, can someone explain the difference between polished, painted, and machined alloy/aluminum wheels? Are some of these subcategories of the others? Also, what are the advantages and drawbacks of each type?

    Thanks!
  • dodgeman07dodgeman07 Posts: 573
    Alloy just means a mixture of metals. Most wheels these days are aluminum alloy but other metals are used as well. I don't get hung up on the actual composition of the wheels, use the terms interchangeable, and sometimes say aluminum alloy when there are other possibilities.

    Whether the surface of the wheel are polished, painted, machined, etc doesn't mean much except for aesthetics. Again, it's what you prefer that counts. I actually like 16" wheels regardless of composition. They allow for higher profile tires which translate (all else being equal) to better ride quality and lower replacement cost.
  • netranger4netranger4 Posts: 149
    The 2012 Ford Focus SEL at my dealer's showroom was a disappointment. Although the fit and finish were excellent, the driver/passenger area is too cramped. The driver's seat in this car was at maximum rearward position. The sales rep couldn't get into the driver's side rear seat without squirming his way in. He did eventually get in with some difficulty. After that gyration, his knees did fit in the hollowed out back of the driver's seat. The battery was dead so there was no adjustment with the power seat feature.

    The front grille/bumper assembly may please some. It's too busy and would make one wonder if this was a family car OR a sports car. The rear bumper has a stretch of latticework which looks out of place along the lower edge and detracts from the overall design.

    Perhaps it's intended as a famsport or sportfam vehicle. That decision is up to the buyer.

    If the intent was to compete with the Honda Civic, this Focus misses the target by a mile. I drive an '09 Focus SE and have more interior room than this design presents. The design shows some similarities to the Mazda.

    If it was trade-in time for myself, I'd go with the Fusion...a design that has served well and still looks contemporary.
  • tim156tim156 Posts: 308
    I was curious about the size difference between my current 2010 Fusion and my new 2012 Focus so I compared some numbers.
    Focus gain & loss: (front/rear)
    Wheelbase: -3.1"
    Length: -19"
    Height: +.9"
    Width w/mirrors: +1"
    Head room: -.4"/+.1"
    Shoulder room: -1.8"/-2.8"
    Hip room -.1"/-.7"
    Leg room: -.4"/-3.9"
    Passenger volume: -9.6 cu ft
    Cargo volume behind 2nd row vs trunk: +7.3 cu ft
    Fuel Cap.: -5.1 gal
    Focus 459 mi/tank @ 37mpg, Fusion 577/tank @ 33mpg
    The only significant numbers are length, rear leg room, shoulder room and total passenger volume. (After all it's a C segment vs. a D segment car). The front seat numbers are so close I don't think I'll really notice much difference.

    Since I originally compared these numbers, I've had a chance to sit in an SE hatch. I'm average size, slightly over weight and I didn't have any problem getting into either front seat. When I had the manual driver's seat adjusted to my liking, there was plenty of leg room for me in the back.
  • gambit293gambit293 Posts: 406
    Thanks for your thoughts, netranger. Can I ask how tall you are? How about the sales rep?
  • netranger4netranger4 Posts: 149
    I'm 5'6" tall and the sales rep was 5'10 or so. We joked about the rear seat room. My comment was that Olive Oyl, Popeye's girl could probably
    get in with no difficulty with the driver's seat in the rearward position.

    If there had been more rear seat legroom, it would not have been necessary to hollow out the front seatbacks to accomodate the passengers knees.

    This design was brought over from Europe with some modifications for the U.S market. However, Europeans tend to be rather trim and of moderate height. On several trips to the UK and Continental Europe I was amazed at the lack of overweight people.

    The car would be right at home on the narrow streets found throughout Europe, which it was designed for. As I stated, the build quality was probably the best I've seen coming from U.S. assembly plants. Fit and finish beyond reproach.

    The sales numbers will tell the story, as will future postings by discerning prospective purchasers.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    edited April 2011
    Here's my two cents.

    Drive:
    It's very, very quiet, even when compared to the mid-size segment, and the engine note is very nice. It has a little growl and never got rough when it revs up higher. It was very composed when pushed with very little body roll and the steering effort was just about right, not too heavy or light in my opinion. It's powerful enough for me, nothing spectacular though. I can't say anything bad about the drive. I'd say it makes the least amount of compromises of any of the compacts in that regard.

    Interior:
    The front areas are not at all cramped. At maximum rearward position, I could hardly reach the steering wheel unless I pulled the telescoping wheel all the way out, and I'm 6'3". I pushed the steering wheel back in, moved my seat up, and lowered it. After I did that, I could sit behind myself, and I was comfortable in both places. Is it roomy? No, but my son's carseat fits back there well (He's 3). Cargo room was great.

    Tech:
    It has just about anything and everything, but the learning curve is high. There are too many buttons. I would personal skip the MyTouch and stick with the regular Sync. I don't think Ford's quite got the MyTouch system down yet.

    Does it hit the mark? I guess that depends on what your priorities are. Leg room is down from the previous model, but refinement, build quality, and mileage are all up. It's a far better looking and handling car. The 2012 Civic will still be middle of the pack but a good choice for reliability. The best competitors, in my opinion, would be the new Elantra or Cruze.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "The best competitors, in my opinion, would be the new Elantra or Cruze."

    Unless one wants a sportier model with a stick shift, then the Elantra and Cruze are both ruled out and replaced by the likes of the Mazda3 and the Golf, Jetta, GTI, and GLI siblings.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    edited April 2011
    True, but the new Jetta is a turd, even in GLI form (excluding the Sportwagen as it's still based on the previous model). It's far behind industry standard as far as fit and finish and materials quality. The GTI and Golf are premium entries, even when compared to the expensive Focus and Cruze, but they're still great options. The Mazda3 is still a good alternative, but it's not quite as well rounded as some of the others. It tends to err on the sportiness end of the spectrum at the expense of some content and efficiency.
  • shiposhipo Posts: 9,152
    "The Mazda3 is still a good alternative, but it's not quite as well rounded as some of the others. It tends to err on the sportiness end of the spectrum at the expense of some content and efficiency."

    Hence my qualification regarding "sporty" and "stick shift". FWIW, depending upon the configuration, the GTI can be had for less than a new Focus Titanium.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    "FWIW, depending upon the configuration, the GTI can be had for less than a new Focus Titanium."

    True, but minus alot of options. Given similar options, the GTI is between $3k and $4k more expensive. As much as the Focus is described as a premium compact, the GTI is even a step above that in price. Even the regular Golf is more expensive given the options.
  • markus5markus5 Posts: 102
    edited April 2011
    Here is another 2 cents:
    Had my first sit down and drive yesterday. A red SE sedan with "Sport Package" (automatic). Subjectively, quality build is abundant through-out, the sedan is more appealing visually than the Hatch, which is 8 inches shorter but appears to look even shorter than that. My test drive revealed a car quieter than my '04 ZTS FOCUS, as the sales rep was in the car and we drove through a fairly congested area on the short drive, very few performance impressions were revealed to me. Interesting observation: the wipers on the rakish windshield are a throwback to the vehicles of the fifties, (they rotate from the center bottom out rather then left -right, back and forth.) Anecdotally, my passenger said that if we should buy this model, she could not see the speedometer, as she could in the older model, in order to alert me that I was speeding.
  • backybacky Twin CitiesPosts: 18,621
    Anecdotally, my passenger said that if we should buy this model, she could not see the speedometer, as she could in the older model, in order to alert me that I was speeding.

    So, you really want this 2012 Focus now, yes? ;)
  • robr2robr2 BostonPosts: 7,597
    Interesting observation: the wipers on the rakish windshield are a throwback to the vehicles of the fifties, (they rotate from the center bottom out rather then left -right, back and forth.)

    I think that is done due to the long rake of the windshield. The Civic uses the same design. I wouldn't be suprised that the long rake would creat a geometic puzzle. Making a left to right design work would probably required an articulating and expensive wiper arm - similar to the single wiper design used on some MB products.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    edited April 2011
    This design was brought over from Europe with some modifications for the U.S market. However, Europeans tend to be rather trim and of moderate height. On several trips to the UK and Continental Europe I was amazed at the lack of overweight people.

    Yes, & the leg room is modified. Euro comparison found occupants in the rear get marginally more leg and shoulder room than they’ll find in the Golf.

    The car would be right at home on the narrow streets found throughout Europe, which it was designed for. As I stated, the build quality was probably the best I've seen coming from U.S. assembly plants. Fit and finish beyond reproach.

    LOL At 6ft width, its just as fat as the '06 Lexus LS430 sedan! The original Focus, @ 5'7", evaded Japan's old car-width tax, just like the E36 BMW.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    edited April 2011
    Leg room is down from the previous model, but refinement, build quality, and mileage are all up.

    That's the whole conspiracy behind it -- auto makers are not stupid. If the leg room is sufficient, then there's no need for consumers to buy any sedan more expensive then this agile yet refined Focus.

    Why do you think the Lexus IS also has no rear leg room? They need to sell their LS460 sedan. That's why their GS sedan, which used to have supreme rear seating & a cushy ride...not any more!
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    About 6 years ago, the width was about the only thing that kept me from buying a 2002 Focus Wagon. I felt like I was nearly on top of the front passenger. I think my limit is around 70" wide.

    I wouldn't call wide fat because wider is better when it comes to handling. A Lexus LF-A is 74.6" wide and a Ferrari 458 Italia is 76.3" wide. Both are cars with big engines and relatively low curb weights.
  • arumagearumage Posts: 922
    True, overlap is not necessarily a good thing for sales. As car size goes up, so does profit margin. It seems to be something GM hasn't quite figured out yet, but they're learning.
  • creakid1creakid1 Posts: 2,032
    edited April 2011
    Good for you, 'cause I can't stand not having multi-link rear suspension in a narrow little car. & the Mini Cooper rides uncomfortably. In fact, its comfiest-riding model -- the base Mini -- still handles worse than the better-riding Focus SVT, per Consumer Reports.

    Having slightly more width & much less height in order to handle better is no big deal, especially if the ride comfort is also no better.

    High center of gravity hurts the ride-handling compromise. Just take a look at the SUV's. The best ride-handling compromise I've seen is the base-model RX-8 w/ std 16"s. It rides softly over bumps while providing the level of handling limit I can't even reach on public roads.

    Having SUV-like high chairs in such a small package is what makes the old Golf/Jetta & Focus so great, b/c their FWD car platforms keep down the center of gravity.

    By the way, narrow cars like the Mini Cooper & even the tall-&-narrow Focus SVT already provide more than enough handling for street use. The '06 Focus SES also has a pampering ride, unlike its relative Mazda3.
Sign In or Register to comment.