As the owner of an ST3, I would agree with the A rating. This is my third 5-door hatchback in a row and while previous ones have had better interior materials and fit-and-finish or better interior packaging, neither was anywhere near as fun to drive as the ST.
These ratings make no sense at all. Take the rating you gave the RAV4, for example. Edmunds gives it an 'A', but it received a 'B' in 3 of 5 categories. More than that, in the two categories where Edmunds awards an 'A', it received more individual 'B' ratings than 'A' for the subcategories. How does that work? Without more additional data behind the ratings (e.g. 4 B's + 1 A = A), this tool is worthless. Worse, it's misleading.
You guys made it pretty clear that it's a fun to drive car with hatch utility. The only things that puts me off is the lack of LSD (your canyon runs and autoX sections made it clear this car still needs one), the infotainment system and the quality control issues that at least first year cars seem to be plagued with. Fix these things and it sounds like an everyday hero.
I like the Focus, and it's fine for Edmunds to attempt to simplify their ratings. But when I see A's for the ILX, CR-V and Sienna (all hugely boring vehicles in my mind), I just can't give the rating systems much credence. Is the CR-V that much better than the CX-5? The ILX seems so very mediocre -- that's an A? I guess I don't understand the criteria.
I agree with the A rating even though Consumer Reports shows below average reliability for the Focus (as is the case with all Ford models). So far though, I have to disagree with that reliability rating since the only problems I've had with my ST are with the MyFord Touch entertainment/navigation system, and they've all been software, like crashes other temporary random problems. Unsure about the long-term reliability though.
Comments
"The Focus ST is the best sport compact sorld today."
Perhaps "sorld" should have been "sold"?