Was surprised by this...

zetec1 2005 · 09-10-2007, 07:11 PM

I was surprised by findings here...
http://westnet.drive.com.au/Editoria...eID=40283&vf=1

Focus was second slowest out of all of these on the uphill run!!!

jweb · 09-10-2007, 08:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by zetec1 2005

I was surprised by findings here...
http://westnet.drive.com.au/Editoria...eID=40283&vf=1

Focus was second slowest out of all of these on the uphill run!!!

Wouldnt listen to a Word of that,that is the LS anyway theres been an update.

Rhubarb · 10-10-2007, 07:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jeremyweb

Wouldnt listen to a Word of that,that is the LS anyway theres been an update.

not to the engine or gearbox there hasn't

jweb · 10-10-2007, 08:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhubarb

not to the engine or gearbox there hasn't

I am aware of that,but the article states some of the bad points for the focus being the available saftey equipment.Since the update The Focus has these as options,as for the engine i do not agree with the article,there are too many factors that may have affected times.

eXtremist · 10-10-2007, 11:38 PM

I am surprised they didn't include the Suzuki Swift in that review.

BlackLS · 11-10-2007, 12:33 AM

Auto + no torque till 2500-3000rpm won't be good for 0-100 up hill.

Try the same in a manual and see what happens

BrisVegas · 11-10-2007, 09:12 AM

Yeah, anyone buying a compact car with auto transmission is not buying it as a hillclimb racer. Let's be honest here, the Focus (non-XR5) is not a sports car. I love mine and it's fun to drive as it handles beautifully, but it's not that quick. However, it happily pulls up the Toowoomba range with my family on board without the need to paddle the gears and it covers most other hills in 5th gear with cruise control on. There's more to life than 0-100km/h.

raymon81 · 11-10-2007, 10:21 AM

Nicely put BrisVegas, it's not all about the 0-100km/h.

This test is a load of . This sounds more like a safety test rather then an overall verdict on which car is actually better. All im reading is which car has stability control and curtain airbags and thats how they are judging each vehicle. I test drove the Corolla and nothing has changed from the previous model, still very plain and boring but cheap to run. Mazda3, Golf and Civic are good but the rest of the group are crap and for them to put the Elantra, Astra and Corolla ahead of the Focus says alot about this test.

jweb · 11-10-2007, 10:47 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by raymon81

Nicely put BrisVegas, it's not all about the 0-100km/h.

This test is a load of . This sounds more like a safety test rather then an overall verdict on which car is actually better. All im reading is which car has stability control and curtain airbags and thats how they are judging each vehicle. I test drove the Corolla and nothing has changed from the previous model, still very plain and boring but cheap to run. Mazda3, Golf and Civic are good but the rest of the group are crap and for them to put the Elantra, Astra and Corolla ahead of the Focus says alot about this test.

The Focus has an NCAP rating of 5 stars,Wouldnt listen to the article at all it is a load of.The Focus in comparison to its competitors it reasonably sporty.

Rhubarb · 11-10-2007, 09:49 PM

The NCAP 5 star rating actually only applies when the side and curtain airbags are fitted. This is available now on LT model with safety pack but wasn't an option when I bought mine (LS Zetec). Ford were a bit cheeky advertising the NCAP rating previously.

The acceleration thing still puzzles me. Sure its not a hill climb racer but neither is the mazda 3. The mazda is only 14kgs lighter and with 1 extra kW (108 v 107) but has 3Nm less torque than the Focus and both peak at 4500rpm. The gear ratios are also very similar, with the focus being slightly higher in every gear.

So how the hell does it do the 0 to 100 hillclimb in 14 sec when the focus takes 17 ? Its the differential here that puzzles me not the absolute time by the way.

There must be a massive difference in the torque curve below 4500. Anyone else got an explanation????? I did notice the mazda max power was at 6500 rpm v the focus' at 6000rpm. Is that it???? Holds longer in lower gear??? 1 less gear change on the way to 100???? I wouldn't have thought that would make 3 secs difference.

jweb · 11-10-2007, 09:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Rhubarb

The NCAP 5 star rating actually only applies when the side and curtain airbags are fitted. This is available now on LT model with safety pack but wasn't an option when I bought mine (LS Zetec). Ford were a bit cheeky advertising the NCAP rating previously.

The acceleration thing still puzzles me. Sure its not a hill climb racer but neither is the mazda 3. The mazda is only 14kgs lighter and with 1 extra kW (108 v 107) but has 3Nm less torque than the Focus and both peak at 4500rpm. The gear ratios are also very similar, with the focus being slightly higher in every gear.

So how the hell does it do the 0 to 100 hillclimb in 14 sec when the focus takes 17 ? Its the differential here that puzzles me not the absolute time by the way.

There must be a massive difference in the torque curve below 4500. Anyone else got an explanation????? I did notice the mazda max power was at 6500 rpm v the focus' at 6000rpm. Is that it???? Holds longer in lower gear??? 1 less gear change on the way to 100???? I wouldn't have thought that would make 3 secs difference.

Yes i read that,but still its an option.

Piotr · 11-10-2007, 10:05 PM

The Mazda 3 has VVT. Fatter torque spread

BlackLS · 11-10-2007, 11:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Piotr

The Mazda 3 has VVT. Fatter torque spread

Not sure if it has it on the 2.0 tho? I thought it was only on the SP23

pupmeister · 12-10-2007, 03:14 PM

I just had a glance through this test again (This article appeared in a earlier thread)

The author of this article does not seem to know how to compare various vesicles and does not even seem to have a very clear understanding of vechicles. For instance he is using the automatic Ford and comparing it various manual versions. In this type of car, the automatic version is always going to be down on power.

He also vary proud to point out that the Ford is manufactured in South Africa, but he seems to forget to tell you that both the VW and the Toyota are also manufactured in South Africa.

To do true performance comparisons, you have to use similar cars with similar gearboxes and engines to get any fare comparisons. Besides the automatic for the Ford he also uses a 1.6 liter version of the VW, which again would totally skew the results of the test.

Cheers
Pupmeister

raymon81 · 12-10-2007, 05:14 PM

Just picked up on another thing this fool wrote in the focus review....

"The audio system has no auxiliary input and the crease in the dash reflects badly in direct sunlight."

Doesn't all the range come with the auxiliary input in the glove box so u can plug the ipod/mp3 player in?