Talk:Ford Focus/Archive 2

Archive 1

Archive 2

Fusion model name

Just realised I hadn't logged in when adding info about Fusion model name. Mentioning it here in case anybody wants to check veracity (I don't like anonymous entries!). My source for the info is personal, but my colleagues from the time would back it up I expect; we were working on the launch CDs for the Frankfurt and Hannover shows and had to rework from Fusion to Focus at the last minute! We suspected it was a security measure to avoid contractors leaking the name to the media. Kierant 16:41, 24 December 2005 (UTC)

I love the Focus! No wonder it's the most popular car in the UK! Charlie123 13:13, 8 Dec 2004 (UTC)

Ugly Photos

Why are there only photos of the ugly estate and saloon versions of the Focus? Couldn't someone add a photo of the far more common (and attractive) hathcback version.

They're only ugly according to you. --ApolloBoy 05:31, 13 March 2006 (UTC)

I have taken a couple photos that might be of interest? #1, #2 --DavidChief 21:45, 19 April 2006 (GMT)

Bean Counters

To quote from the main page: "The Focus is arguably the biggest indication of the change in Ford's design and engineering philosophy. After the Escort Mk IV was criticised by the motoring press as being designed by the "bean counters" and for its mediocre ride, handling and quality, Ford decided to take more risks in its replacement. As a result, the Focus had bold styling, increased quality and critically-acclaimed handling and refinement."

Does anyone have a source for this bean-counters comment and subsequent description of why the focus looks how it does? If not, I propose this section be removed. Although I do remember the Escort being rubbished by the press, these statements appear to be worded more as opinion than fact. thelight1 17:48, 27 January 2006 (UTC)

I've found this Autocar road test of the Focus that reads, "The accountants, it was decided, would no longer get the final say, and the design-by-committee approach would be given a thorough overhaul." Also, this review of the Escort is very critical of, well, pretty much everything about it. --DavidChief 19:29, 20 April 2006 (UTC)

External links

The external links seem to have just changed again. The order has been altered and a fansite is at the top. What is the justification for this change? Thanks! --DavidChief 07:47, 21 April 2006 (UTC)

I went ahead and reverted the edit. From what I read in Wikipedia:External linking, the official Ford sites are more appropriate than a fan forum. TireKicker 07:51, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed a few more. Some of them had no useful content and seemed to be self-promotion. --DavidChief 08:20, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I've removed one that were just added and a couple that were fluff. The article already has plenty of external links without them. --AbsolutDan ^(talk) 16:59, 1 May 2006 (UTC)

Problems with this article

This article is not written in the neutral tone, and it sounds like it has been run through a translator. For example: "Famously, the interior of the Focus was too far developed for a shocked Ford to do anything major, so the Focus was launched with an interior that was not the standard setter Ford hoped it to be. It was still considered to be the best of the rest by the press."

If I were to guess, wildly, at what the original-language version might have said: "The Focus' interior design was too far along for a surprised Ford to make any changes, so the Focus was launched..."

Adding to the above:

-Some stuff could use sources - the miles per gallon and performance figures of the European engine lineup, for example.

-While some effort has been made to split up information pertinent to the US and European cars, it isn't entirely complete.

Also: Is it appropriate to refer to an aftermarket tuner (Saleen) in an article that is otherwise worded about the car as it came from the factory? While Saleen was sold as new from certain dealers, it still isn't Ford. Just a thought.

TireKicker 06:13, 17 April 2006 (UTC)

I have removed the Saleen content for now. If it is going to be introduced again, I suggest some kind of dedicated section relating to aftermarket parts and tuning is created. --DavidChief 08:09, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Please check information in Performance section - as it states the SVT/ST170 has a Zetec engine and states Duratec engine elsewhere in the article. Both the SVT/ST170 have Duratec engines. --Darkfearytales 13:02, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

No, the ST170/SVT used the old 1989cc Zetec block. Although Ford is using the Duratec name left and right, the Focus ST170 uses the same engine as the 130hp Focus 2.0 Ghia. The main difference is the use of VVT, which is the Ford rationale for sticking it in the Duratec family, although it is unrelated. --Pc13 14:33, 14 June 2006 (UTC)

The information about no US focus recalls since 2002 is incorrect. My parents own a 2005 ZX4 that had a trunk latch recall in early 2006.

Cleanup tag

Does anyone know why the cleanup template is on this article? Dalf | Talk 07:42, 7 January 2006 (UTC)

I would guess because the article does not read smoothly, it jumps back and forth to similar topics. It is also hard to distinguish US topics from UK or rest of World topics. thelight1

I've made a bit of progress with the clean up. I've integrated much of the US / EU content and corrected some problems with the article hierarchy and order. See what you think! --DavidChief 07:49, 25 April 2006 (UTC)

Well done - the article reads much more nicely now that the European and N.A. segments are integrated.

Is it appropriate to refer to past Fords as MK x (x being the generation)? If you know Fords well enough, it probably makes sense, but I get the feeling that someone unfamiliar with their European lineup wouldn't have as easy a time with it. TireKicker 08:16, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Yeah, you might be right. What would an alternative be? --DavidChief 08:19, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

Maybe a small explantion of terms near the start of the page? In enthusiast circles the European Foci are split into 3 verions, the Mk1 Mk1.5 and Mk2. Most dealers would know the different Mk1's as the Mk1 pre-facelift and Mk1 facelift models, and the Mk2. Although the majority of the public would not realise any of this it doesnt mean it should be left out of the article as long as some kind of explanation is given, there are differences between European Mk1 and Mk1.5 foci which go beyond different bumpers and lights. --thelight 16:34, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I agree with you that the Mk1/1.5/2 Focuses are fine - they're explained, to some extent, in the article. Regarding the other Fords (the Mondeo and Escort that it is compared to in the introduction area, for example), maybe we could alter the internal links to point to the relevant anchor in this sites (so clicking Mk 1 Ford Mondeo would take you to the Mk 1 section of the Mondeo page)? TireKicker 21:49, 26 April 2006 (UTC)

I had to read the first entry in this section several times - I thought it was a joke. "Does anyone know why the cleanup template is on this article?" .....Are you kidding? POV is a major issue for a start, for example

• "[replacing the Mk1] was a task few manufacturers would have relished; to replace a car which was universally praised and set unprecedented new standards to a class. The Mk 1 was a rare car which dominated its class with such consummate ease and set new standards for rivals to follow."

Grammar is also an issue and the formatting is terrible in places. Mark83 20:40, 17 August 2006 (UTC)

New Focus not in NA?

How come Ford offered the new Focus in nearly all markets excluding North America?

No one buys American compacts anymore, so there's no reason to expect them to.Mustang6172 05:12, 27 August 2006 (UTC)

I would rather say it is a lack of attitude of FoMoCo towards the buyers of small cars. Fixed to the old american belief "big is beautiful", management thinks small car buyers have no money and all what they want is to spend as little as possible. To my opinion, the continuation of the old model for North America is a big mistake.

Split into separate Europe/North America articles?

I'm suggesting this be split into two separate articles for the European and North American versions of this car - much like the European and North American Ford Fusion - since the only thing they share nowadays is the name. Ford recently unveiled the design for the US-model 2008 Focus at the Detroit Auto Show and it in no way resembles the model sold in Europe and Asia. This might help keep the articles to a digestible size and allow the information to be a lot more easily read. Greg the White Falcon 20:27, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

I agree. The two are very different cars. The Ford Escort has a European and an American page and so should the Focus scancoaches 20:49, 10 January 2007 (UTC)

One of the 2 articles ledes may be wrong as they both read "a compact/small family car made by the Ford Motor Company and sold in most Ford markets worldwide".

Also, could one of the experts take a few moments and disambiguate the links to this page? Ewlyahoocom 05:26, 25 February 2007 (UTC)

disambig text

The text on this page made me chuckle "Ford Focus (International), the model sold outside North America." I know there are alot of american users on this site and that it's a big country but is this really needed? Considering that more people live out side of America than in it then surely it should be "Ford Focus (International), the model sold in North America?" and then "Ford Focus (International), the model sold in the majority of Ford markets." Also i'm pretty sure the focus was designed by the europe division anyway. 81.129.166.156 18:37, 1 May 2007 (UTC)

Plural

Ford Focus, when plural, can be any of the following.

1. Focus (singular plural)
2. Foci (mispronounced Fo-kye, related to the actual plural for focus)
3. Focuses (general plural)

It's a propper noun in this sense so the plural should be Focus or Focus' — Preceding unsigned comment added by Morcus (talk • contribs) 07:46, 13 February 2011 (UTC)

spare part

sir, I ride Ford Focus ZTS 2001 CAR. How can i get new ignition coil. The fairly used coils are not working. The VIN NUMBER is - IFAFP383XIW367773. My e-mail address is sundaniel2006@yahoo.com Name :seun ogunjebe, lagos, Nigeria

Thanks, Best wishes — Preceding unsigned comment added by 82.128.2.219 (talk) 10:04, 26 May 2012 (UTC)

2 separate articles for EU and NA?

It just seems a bit extensive, considering that the article is already split up by generation, to have a separate second generation article for the European Focus as well as the North American Focus. To make the article(s) make a little more sense, I propose we merge the two second generation articles into one second generation article, sort of similar to Toyota Corolla and Toyota Corolla (tenth generation). Bookster451 (talk) 23:47, 26 June 2012 (UTC)

Why? both cars are completely unrelated. The "different" Corolla models sold globally are really the same car, but with different frontal styling or similar, not all-new designs. OSX (talk • contributions) 09:26, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

I guess. It just seems a bit confusing, considering that the first and third generations have their own articles. I'm out of ideas, but if someone else has an idea that would be great. Bookster451 (talk) 16:13, 1 July 2012 (UTC)

Reliability Issues

As far as reliability issues for the Mk 1 Focus, would it fit to add that the engine often experiences problems around 100,000-115,000 miles, because of the timing belt? It generally breaks around then, which causes the valve train to lose sync with the pistons. Since there is zero clearance for the open valve, so several valves get smashed by the pistons. I'd rather ask here first and post if everyone is OK with it, rather than get in trouble.—the preceding comment is by Sleeping143 (talk • contribs) 2006-11-08: Please sign your posts!.

Do you have a WP:RS for it? // Liftarn

Here in Germany Ford clearly states that the timing belt has to be replace at latest after 100.000 km or ten years. It's generally strongly recommended to replace the timing belt and other _wear parts_ according to the given time interval no matter the model-line or brand. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 91.15.123.22 (talk) 21:28, 13 December 2012 (UTC)

Bergeron?

"Also known as "the bergeron"....? Huh? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 84.202.7.24 (talk) 21:02, 24 November 2013 (UTC)

It appears to date back to an unregistered user's edit on 7 November 2013. I'm reverting as vandalism, as I have never ever heard of this and can't find any evidence for it. Chathamh (talk) 04:03, 29 November 2013 (UTC)

Focus RS

Just wondered if anyone had thought of entering some info on the Focus RS? Its an absolute marvel of engineering and probably one of the most saught after of the Foci.

Yes there is a complete lack of information on the Focus RS road car version and this needs to be fixed. --81.129.18.164 (talk) 22:56, 1 June 2013 (UTC)

someone should ask jinstall on focus st. he knows alot about the focus rs. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 71.235.41.202 (talk) 19:28, 16 December 2013 (UTC)

ZX models?

Elsewhere, I've seen mention of ZX3 and ZX5 models, but there only one mention here of a ZX in a reference. Are we missing something? -- SEWilco (talk) 16:36, 14 October 2014 (UTC)

NPOV???

I don't understand why the following is considered NPOV:

"For decades, in the U.S., small cars like the Ford Focus were seen as a tool to draw in younger buyers looking for a cheap basic transportation and to increase auto makers' fleet average fuel economies to meet U.S. federal standards. Ford was said not to concern about losing money on the Focus so the company could sell gas guzzlers for big profits."--Now wiki (talk) 15:02, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

It might be construed as an opinion and it might be construed as a statement of the bleeping obvious. However, you've given it a source (or someone has) which under most circumstances would be expected to anticipate and take us beyond a tiresome p***ing contest about NPOV. My only other thought is that by putting it in the "executive summary" at the start of the entry you place it where lots of folks who never get past the first 200 words will find it, and with so many people involved there is a heightened probability that one of them will jump in to disagree your judgement. There might be a more constructive argument to be had on whether it belongs in the executive summary or whether it would be better placed in a section on the car's positioning in the Ford range and / or a section on the marketing. I think that one could probably be argued either way. Regards Charles01 (talk) 16:06, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

First, the article you referenced is from 2008, and it's outdated (fuel prices are down now). Second, it's the market analysis of one person and you make it sound like Ford said it with broken English ("Ford was said not to concern"). Third, the phrase "sell gas guzzlers for big profits", which you copied from the article, sounds critical of Ford, and veers away from the Ford Focus itself, which is the subject of this Wikipedia page. Fourth, even if there were a place for this paragraph in this article, it would definitely not be the second paragraph, where you are talking about small cars and fuel economy, instead of telling the reader what the Ford Focus itself actually is. So, to summarize, in the second paragraph of the lead section, you are adding a paragraph, from an 8-year old editorial/analysis article, with broad, subjective critique on the auto industry in general. You can read WP:LEAD and WP:CREATELEAD for more information and writing tips. --Vossanova ^o< 17:51, 19 October 2016 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 8 external links on Ford Focus. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120719091103/http://www.autoweek.com/article/20010214/FREE/102140701 to http://www.autoweek.com/article/20010214/FREE/102140701
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100121171755/http://www.autoweek.com/article/20100118/DETROIT/100119915 to http://www.autoweek.com/article/20100118/DETROIT/100119915
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110430101525/http://media.ford.com/pdf/Dec2002sales.pdf to http://media.ford.com/pdf/Dec2002sales.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090212180838/http://media.ford.com/article_download.cfm?article_id=27379 to http://media.ford.com/article_download.cfm?article_id=27379
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20090206054304/http://media.ford.com/images/10031/dec08sales.pdf to http://media.ford.com/images/10031/dec08sales.pdf
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20100826033739/http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=31604 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=31604
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20110902084030/http://media.ford.com:80/article_display.cfm?article_id=33704 to http://media.ford.com/article_display.cfm?article_id=33704
• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20120131003153/http://media.ford.com/images/10031/Dec11sales.pdf to http://media.ford.com/images/10031/Dec11sales.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 18 January 2022).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 18:06, 2 January 2017 (UTC)