ok seen new focus today and to be honest it looks ok from the front.....and thats about it.from a side on view imo it looks like a seat leon and in a way it kinda looks fat :| interior of the car very good and i was able to fit in the car very comfortably(im 6'3) and there was still room.one thing i couldnt understand is if u open the door it seems along way still you get to where the catch for the lock is and the seel(sp)

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/vRSRacing/b9431498.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/vRSRacing/1ff3beec.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/vRSRacing/ad49046d.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/vRSRacing/e3a4b88a.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/vRSRacing/06eee433.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/vRSRacing/87d3a53b.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/vRSRacing/3eb94409.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/vRSRacing/3ac853a1.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/vRSRacing/7fd548fa.jpg

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v224/vRSRacing/64fdfdd1.jpg

jury is stil out on that one.....what does the second picture down show us lol

Joel

the gap from the edge of the door to the seel

I think it looks worse than the original, and those wheels look way to small considering the current trend for much bigger wheels.

much better with larger wheels and not in bloody silver!!!

those were 16's on that car

I prefer the mk1 myself. Had one for about 10 months and it was a great car. Even though it was a diesel..... and an estate

I had a MK1 and a faclifted MK1 and the new one looks horrible. Can't stand it. It seems Ford have just gone downhill from the great start with the First one. If they had just left it as it was it would still be a bestseller instead of putting plastic all over the outside of it (facelifted Mk1) and now...Front of a fiesta and jacked-up rear, no thanks. Methinks I'll keep my Octy.

It's getting good reviews though.

Pitty anyone not related to a hobbit in the back seats mind...

Could look good...but how does it drive?

As I'm still currently driving a Mk1, I can say the design of the new model was a reason for deciding on a Furby vRS as the next vehicle! I would have probably bought a Mk2 in around 6 months if the design had been better. And I'm pretty sure they'll be other Mk1 owners like me. And with the new model probably about to appear on fleets (hire cars etc) I wanted to sell on before residules collapse on the outgoing model.

Anyway, but of a miss for Ford that one - it says a cross between a Leon and Civic to me...

Steve

Think it looks better than the original, I think I was the only person that didnt like the look of the original... But this one has potential

I was impressed by the figures for the 1.6 diesel engine in the Focus - 108bhp & 177 lbft, but it still does has a quoted official combined mpg of 58.9. Makes the 1.9 TDI in my smaller Furby look a bit inefficient.

I was impressed by the figures for the 1.6 diesel engine in the Focus - 108bhp & 177 lbft, but it still does has a quoted official combined mpg of 58.9. Makes the 1.9 TDI in my smaller Furby look a bit inefficient.

Might I suggest a look at past copies of Diesel Car magazine, as there have been numerous comments on the "generous" fuel consumption figures quoted by Ford, so I would take them with a pinch of salt.

A car that big and heavy would have to be driven tailwind, and like a snails foot to get even close..hardly real world drving.

Took a brief look at this today while in a ford showroom.. nice enough exterior but interior felt disappointing, and I quite liked the old one.

No matter, too small for my clan anyhow....

(Incidentally, surprised how "van like" the driving position in the C-max was.. most other semi-MPV's are doing their best to create a car like "legs out front" driving position, not aping that of a transit... )

Think it looks better than the original, I think I was the only person that didnt like the look of the original... But this one has potential

Nope, you're not the only one - I don't like the Mk1, especially the rear.

But, I do quite like this one.

Might I suggest a look at past copies of Diesel Car magazine' date=' as there have been numerous comments on the "generous" fuel consumption figures quoted by Ford, so I would take them with a pinch of salt.

A car that big and heavy would have to be driven tailwind, and like a snails foot to get even close..hardly real world drving.[/quote'][naive mode]I thought that the whole point of the official government figures was that they were at least comparable - they be hard to reproduce in the real world but you should at least be able to use them to compare cars to see which is more thirsty[naive mode off]

Might I suggest a look at past copies of Diesel Car magazine' date=' as there have been numerous comments on the "generous" fuel consumption figures quoted by Ford, so I would take them with a pinch of salt.

A car that big and heavy would have to be driven tailwind, and like a snails foot to get even close..hardly real world drving.[/quote']

i think your wide of the mark... the 1.9 is an old tech unit and is not very economical.. esp in 130+ trim..

modern units like merc 220/bmw 320/psa/ford 1.6 kick it into a cocked hat

for example got 58mpg from preston to leeds in my father e220. thats a whole 1800+ kg of car.....

the new psa/ford 1.6 will live up to its figures

i think your wide of the mark... the 1.9 is an old tech unit and is not very economical.. esp in 130+ trim..

modern units like merc 220/bmw 320/psa/ford 1.6 kick it into a cocked hat

for example got 58mpg from preston to leeds in my father e220. thats a whole 1800+ kg of car.....

the new psa/ford 1.6 will live up to its figures

As far as the claimed consumption figures, I was referring to the inability of Ford cars (more importantly the Focus) to achieve anything like its claimed figure, and I was using the numerous readers letters, as well as the magazines own test/long term cars for this.

I am quite sure you were able to get that figure on a run, but if talking combined figure which would include town driving then I dont see the Foacus would achieve it.

I was able to get 69.7 out of a fully loaded Octy estate (90hp tdi) on a run to Plymouth, but around town it only ever managed 40-44.

I would have to agree with the general consensus, regarding Ford's figures. As a driver of the Mk1 petrol Focus, my combined MPG was generally 10-12mpg short of the 37.2mpg combined figure listed by Ford for their 1800 petrol unit.

Hopefully they've learnt from their mistakes and from the numerous complaints regarding the fuel consumption claims.

Steve

how the hell did you get a 1.8 focus below 30mpg.. my sister ran one for 40000 and never dropped under 30?

no wonder your in a diesel now

It doesn't help running with a sports exhaust & K&N I suppose and a reasonably heavy right foot. But I know of people who ran standard 1.8s and got similar figures, so I'm not the only one. What sort of driving was your sister using? Because if she was getting places on time I know of plenty of people who'll want to know the trick

Steve

she commuted into london from sutton.... so god knows..

If it was mainly fast A-road and m/way I could understand 32-33 perhaps. That's what I'd get visiting relatives in Glasgow from Manchester. I'm a mile from the motorway here and the same at the other end, so about as good a non-town trip as I was going to get

My usual driving involves quite a bit of town driving, but even still!

Steve

Saw my first today too. i felt it looked better in reality than in the magazines. Really liked the Mk1. This is ok, but not exactly mould breaking.