2013 Ford Escape : Focus on stilts

[niky]

They won't bring in certain sports models because they won't see a profit on them. Not after federalizing them and applying appropriate emissions controls.

See Pontiac GTO and why it went the way of the Dodo.

They bring in mass market cars like the Ford Contour, Focus and Cruze because the numbers justify it.

 

[White & Nerdy]

They won't bring in certain sports models because they won't see a profit on them. Not after federalizing them and applying appropriate emissions controls.

See Pontiac GTO and why it went the way of the Dodo.

They bring in mass market cars like the Ford Contour, Focus and Cruze because the numbers justify it.

That's what makes the absence of any USDM Speedster even more mystifying. It would have been perfect to sell as a Pontiac Fiero - or they could have called it the Solstice and not spent money developing a special one for the American market. Yes, the Solstice did end up being more powerful, but it was also heavier and looked like a hairdresser's car. The engines in said Solstice were variations of the Ecotec already in the Speedster, as I recall, so they probably would have ended up building them anyway, then they could have put those in the USDM Speedster and ended up giving the home market better cars than everywhere else - which is the way it should be.

One particularly egregious example I just remembered was the Pontiac G5 GT, the Canadian version of which actually HAD A LARGER, MORE POWERFUL ENGINE than the American version. Why, for great justice and crying out loud why?

Maybe their market research suggests everyone here would buy more boring, floppy, watered-down cars than they would the epicsauce foreigners get.

 

[Joey D]

This car strikes me as wrong on so many levels. Number one being, it has a four-cylinder engine AS THE TOP CHOICE!.

An SUV that size should have a large NA four cylinder as the base engine and a V6 as the top engine.

Why? The Turbo 2.0L has the same amount power (within 3hp) and 20 lb.ft. of torque more then the 3.0L V6 that is currently offered. The whole point of EcoBoost is to make smaller engines with larger engine horsepower and torque.

 

[AMCNUT]

but they're always glad to bring home the ones nobody wants (see: Chevrolet Cruze and now this)

The Cruze is actually quite popular. It's one of the best small cars on the market today.

But wish regards to the new Escape, I'm not sure the front end meshes with the rest of the vehicle. Overall it looks nicer than before but nice looks usually translate into less-than-useful amounts of space on the inside. Time will tell I suppose.

 

[Keef]

This car strikes me as wrong on so many levels. Number one being, it has a four-cylinder engine AS THE TOP CHOICE!.

An SUV that size should have a large NA four cylinder as the base engine and a V6 as the top engine.

Technology exists to not have to sell cars based on cylinder count like they did in the 50s. TECHNOLOGY. Your mind is blown.

That's what I'm afraid of.

You're afraid of Ford becoming a stable and profitable global corporation that offers quality products at reasonable prices? Oh, okay.

 

[YSSMAN]

That's what I'm afraid of. A typical reasonably-priced European car is a tin can with less displacement than a large bottle of Pepsi. America's own car manufacturers are very careful not to let many of their good worldwide cars be sold on the home market (see: Opel Speedster, Ford Focus RS, just about the entire Holden lineup), but they're always glad to bring home the ones nobody wants (see: Chevrolet Cruze and now this)

Not to be mean, but I do have to question your ability to understand what it is that sells in the marketplace these days. I assume that you want your "traditional" American vehicles, but understand this... If we are to talk about not selling vehicles like the Cruze, you're basically writing off the entire American automotive industry.

The simple fact of the matter is that, despite your own biases against the Cruze, it has been one of the best-selling vehicles in the US over the past year or so. The car has been lauded for its well-rounded packaging, excellent fuel economy, and handling prowess that rivals cars that cost thousands more. You can whine all you want about the power from the 1.4T, but the fact of the matter is that this is where the industry is going.

One particularly egregious example I just remembered was the Pontiac G5 GT, the Canadian version of which actually HAD A LARGER, MORE POWERFUL ENGINE than the American version. Why, for great justice and crying out loud why?

What are you on about? The Pontiac G8 had the same 3.6L and 6.0L across the board in the North American market. If you're thinking of the GXP, that had the same 6.2L in Canada and the United States as well. So, what exactly is your point?

Maybe their market research suggests everyone here would buy more boring, floppy, watered-down cars than they would the epicsauce foreigners get.

The market is quite different between the US/Canada, the rest of Europe and Asia. The models that come here rarely come with major sacrifices these days, but if they do, it often has more to do with suspension tune than actual power output. More or less, we often receive setups that are slightly more soft, and a little more stable at high speeds simply because of the increased highway usage. Occasionally it can be for the worse (I'd say the Fiesta is a prime example), but it can be for the better as well (the US Fiat 500 ended up being 'so good,' Fiat applied the changes globally).

The big trend now is to have lineups streamlined, globally. If you're so opposed to it, I'd suggest shopping elsewhere. Only problem is that, uh-oh, they're doing the same thing too.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Why? The Turbo 2.0L has the same amount power (within 3hp) and 20 lb.ft. of torque more then the 3.0L V6 that is currently offered. The whole point of EcoBoost is to make smaller engines with larger engine horsepower and torque.

It's about principle. Small engines with turbochargers lack all kinds of things that make a larger engine right. The torqe for one, 20 lb-ft is enough of a difference to warrant a larger engine. If you're buying an SUV to use as an SUV (as opposed to a station wagon on stilts), you want all the torque you can get. Driveability could suffer: unless they're usinging Prodrive's anti-lag technology, however that works, I can't see the midrange response being as good.

The Cruze is actually quite popular. It's one of the best small cars on the market today.

Faith in humanity -50. Not only is that car a downgrade from the Cobalt, it's hideously ugly. I'll take a Cobalt and the knowledge that my engine isn't the automotive equivalent of a farm using... whatever they use to make their chickens heavier.

Technology exists to not have to sell cars based on cylinder count like they did in the 50s. TECHNOLOGY. Your mind is blown.

In this case, technology is a good example of "just because you can, doesn't mean you should." Just because you can make a compact car-sized engine powerful enough to replace a V6 in an SUV doesn't mean you should. In the case of the Cruze, just because you can make a lawnmower engine powerful enough to go in a compact car (maybe - the base Cobalt had more power than the top Cruze and the Cruze is quite a bit heavier) doesn't mean you should.

You're afraid of Ford becoming a stable and profitable global corporation that offers quality products at reasonable prices? Oh, okay.

No, what I'm afraid of is this: Ford will bring home all the turbocharged tin cans in the world, while cars like the Focus RS and their entire Australian lineup will remain forever out of reach. Oh, and while we're at it, the USDM Focus ST had 150hp, while the Euro version had 220.

Not to be mean, but I do have to question your ability to understand what it is that sells in the marketplace these days. I assume that you want your "traditional" American vehicles, but understand this... If we are to talk about not selling vehicles like the Cruze, you're basically writing off the entire American automotive industry.

The simple fact of the matter is that, despite your own biases against the Cruze, it has been one of the best-selling vehicles in the US over the past year or so. The car has been lauded for its well-rounded packaging, excellent fuel economy, and handling prowess that rivals cars that cost thousands more. You can whine all you want about the power from the 1.4T, but the fact of the matter is that this is where the industry is going.

All I know is, it feels like our auto industry, by going over to more European styles of design, has ripped out its own soul and stomped on it. Without even giving us the good cars to make it worth it.

What are you on about? The Pontiac G8 had the same 3.6L and 6.0L across the board in the North American market. If you're thinking of the GXP, that had the same 6.2L in Canada and the United States as well. So, what exactly is your point?

G5, not G8. The one based on the Cobalt. The USDM GT had a 2.2L with 155hp, the CDM GT had a 2.4L with 172hp.

The market is quite different between the US/Canada, the rest of Europe and Asia. The models that come here rarely come with major sacrifices these days, but if they do, it often has more to do with suspension tune than actual power output. More or less, we often receive setups that are slightly more soft, and a little more stable at high speeds simply because of the increased highway usage. Occasionally it can be for the worse (I'd say the Fiesta is a prime example), but it can be for the better as well (the US Fiat 500 ended up being 'so good,' Fiat applied the changes globally).

See the Focus ST example above, and how for a good chunk of the Focus' lifespan so far, we were a generation or two behind Europe instead of the other way around. As for the Fiat, that may be the first recorded incedent of the US market getting a better car, instead of a worse one. Too bad it looks like a New Beetle with a higher roof, at least from the front.

The thing is, you see, the UK is not Ford's home market. Neither Germany nor Australia is GM's home market. Just by virtue of being the company's home country, we deserve their best efforts. Not the bottom of the international barrel combined with specially-built adrenalin antidote (*cough*IMPALA*cough*).

 

[Joey D]

It's about principle. Small engines with turbochargers lack all kinds of things that make a larger engine right. The torqe for one, 20 lb-ft is enough of a difference to warrant a larger engine. If you're buying an SUV to use as an SUV (as opposed to a station wagon on stilts), you want all the torque you can get. Driveability could suffer: unless they're usinging Prodrive's anti-lag technology, however that works, I can't see the midrange response being as good.

Your view on this is horribly skewed.

You're saying a smaller engine with better fuel economy, the same horsepower and more torque is a bad thing? If you want all the torque you can get why would you scoff at an engine that gives you 20lb.ft. more?

There is no principal with it, Ford if giving it's customers a more powerful engine that gives them better fuel economy. I mean seriously what more could you possible ask for?

No, what I'm afraid of is this: Ford will bring home all the turbocharged tin cans in the world, while cars like the Focus RS and their entire Australian lineup will remain forever out of reach. Oh, and while we're at it, the USDM Focus ST had 150hp, while the Euro version had 220.

Are you talking about the new ST? Because that has more then 150hp and will be a phenomenal hot hatch. It's only downfall with be the price.

The older ST was basically a slightly faster Focus with better suspension on it. They couldn't make it better then the SVT they were selling at the same time which put out 170hp and had a really good suspension setup.

 

[AMCNUT]

Faith in humanity -50. Not only is that car a downgrade from the Cobalt, it's hideously ugly. I'll take a Cobalt and the knowledge that my engine isn't the automotive equivalent of a farm using... whatever they use to make their chickens heavier.

Hate to rain on your little love-in, but have you ever driven a Cobalt? Been inside one? I have. My friend owns a Pontiac G5 (same thing). It's a red '06 four-door. It's nothing short of a problem-laden, underwhelming relic of what USED to be wrong with US small-car design. I wouldn't want to drive one. The engine is gutless. The interior has more cheap plastic than the dollar store. Not one, but BOTH rear door locks seized within a month of each other, requiring two separate trips a trips to the shop to fix. While the exterior shape is ultimately subjective, I personally don't want a car that looks like Humpty-Dumpty on steel wheels with 'hubcaps' that barely cover anything.

No, the Cruze will never be mistaken for a Ferrari or a Vette. But I've sat in a Cruze, and I can say it's miles ahead of the Cobalt/G5 in every relevant - heck, almost every possible conceivable - category. The interior is much richer than before, reliability and build quality seem to be up, and it looks SO much better than the car it replaced.

Just so you know.

 

[Bones Brigade]

I quite like it for what it is.

 

[niky]

While I have issues with downsized turbocharged engines, those issues have nothing to do with power outputs.

With dual scroll and variable geometry turbochargers, the all-or-nothing nature of old small displacement turbo engines is a thing of the past. Mostly.

Just last month we drove the new Volvo S60. Last year we drove the T6 which was an incredible piece of kit, a 3 liter six-pot with a twin turbo set-up putting out 300 horses. This year, we drove the new T4 and T5 models.

The T4 is interesting. It's a 1.6 liter turbocharged motor putting out nearly 190 horsepower. Granted, it's impossible to expect such a motor to outshine the T6, but it's more tractable and almost just as quick as the 2.0 turbo and it's a hell of a lot better than the naturally aspirated 2.5 liter five-pot it's replacing.

A 2 liter turbocharged engine nowadays can't match the current crop of V6s (the Duratec MZR 3.5 - 3.7, the Nissan 3.5, the Hyundai 3.8) for flexibility and output, but the tired old 3 liter in the Escape isn't a tough act to follow.

My one worry will be heat build up and maintenance, though the old V6 was not without its own issues. And with the Escape's bigger engine bay, heat may not be as much of a problem as it is in smaller turbocharged cars (MINI, for one).

 

[White & Nerdy]

Your view on this is horribly skewed.

You're saying a smaller engine with better fuel economy, the same horsepower and more torque is a bad thing? If you want all the torque you can get why would you scoff at an engine that gives you 20lb.ft. more?

Sorry, I read the post wrong.

Are you talking about the new ST? Because that has more then 150hp and will be a phenomenal hot hatch. It's only downfall with be the price.

The older ST was basically a slightly faster Focus with better suspension on it. They couldn't make it better then the SVT they were selling at the same time which put out 170hp and had a really good suspension setup.

According to Car & Driver, the 2005 Ford Focus ST, in USDM specification, had 151HP. According to Wikipedia, the European Focus ST had 225 the same year.

Apparently though, the one available in Europe was actually a much newer design - that's a problem in itself.

 

[YSSMAN]

G5, not G8. The one based on the Cobalt. The USDM GT had a 2.2L with 155hp, the CDM GT had a 2.4L with 172hp.

Talking about the G5, you're missing the point a bit. In Canada, the Pontiac brand was so well-regarded that they often received a "full" lineup and a list of options that we wouldn't have had in the US. Keep in mind they had a sedan and coupe version of the G5, which they called the Pursuit. So, choosing between the 2.2L and 2.4L engine was more or less a cost decision on behalf of GM. They were able to charge more for a slightly altered Cobalt coupe, with the smaller and more-affordable engine. They made money.

See the Focus ST example above, and how for a good chunk of the Focus' lifespan so far, we were a generation or two behind Europe instead of the other way around.

If you took the time to read on what you're talking about, Ford had the same reasoning as GM did with the American G5. It was all about money. For them to continue to build the MKI Focus down in Mexico, and only give it slight alterations in style and under the hood, and make a metric ton of money.

For Ford, it was a numbers game. The MKII Focus was significantly more expensive for them to produce and sell to the consumer. To Federalize it, and deal with those drastic changes to the car, the Focus would have went from a $14,500 econobox, to a $20,000 compact that would have cost nearly the same as the Fusion. So, we had the Focus MKI, MKI.2 and MKI.3 soldier on until 2010. When the economy turned down, the MKI.3 model sold like hotcakes, and Ford made a killing. But, the changes by Mullally to streamline global lineups and the demands of consumers for premium compacts made for perfect timing on the MKIII model.

The thing is, you see, the UK is not Ford's home market. Neither Germany nor Australia is GM's home market. Just by virtue of being the company's home country, we deserve their best efforts. Not the bottom of the international barrel combined with specially-built adrenalin antidote (*cough*IMPALA*cough*).

What you're essentially suggesting is a return to what ruined the American automotive companies in the first place. Designing and producing vehicles primarily for a single market (North America, in the case of what you're advocating) dramatically increases costs, decreases efficiency of the company on the whole, and in the end only sets things up for a dramatic disaster.

Cars like the Impala are specifically designed for the American market. It is big, comfortable, and powerful. Its affordable, does alright on gas, and is surprisingly dependable. There is nothing wrong with it outside of the fact it is large, boring, and designed to serve merely as transportation. It is a car designed for the American highway, and rightfully so, it sells quite well. There is nothing wrong with that.

But when you suggest that we get the best vehicles first, you underestimate the work that is done by the international arms of Ford, GM and Chrysler. Their work on engines, transmissions and driveterrain systems far outweigh that of which had been done in America in the past two decades, that's a simple fact. But, those features are being rolled into our vehicles a little at a time.

I love American cars and trucks just as much as the next guy, but if we're going to be competitive in a global market, we're going to need to use the best talent from Britain, Germany, Italy, Australia and America.

 

[niky]

To note: The Focus ST was expensive.

Not expensive in the: "Hey, look, another car whose price is unduly inflated by the insane tax Europeans pay on their cars"... but just plain expensive.

America didn't get the Focus ST because it would have cost Subaru WRX money (really... they cost THAT much)... with less space (strange as that may seem!), less power, no all-wheel drive and no "sporting heritage".

Mazda got away with doing the same thing by offering the Mazdaspeed3 with more power and enough torque to yank your arms out of their sockets. Oh. And that "Zoom zoom" styling and tagline.

Volkswagen got away with it (despite the power deficit) thanks to "premium" branding and "heritage".

But Ford? Ford had a Focus that was more expensive to build than the Mazda3, was less sexy, heavier (spec-for-spec, a Mark 2 Focus is about 200 pounds heavier than a similar Mazda3) and more tuned towards comfort than sport. It would also force them to sell the entire second generation Focus line-up in the US, even though the first generation was still selling relatively well and could be sold much, much, much cheaper than the second generation car.

As Fiat is learning now with the 500... while Americans say they want nice, fun to drive European (or Australian... again... GTO... RIP) cars... they won't actually buy them unless they have the right badge. Which is either MINI or VW and not much else.

 

[White & Nerdy]

Which makes me wonder who's buying them... hmmmm... Mini and VW...

 

[Eunos_Cosmo]

Right. To us, yes, but not to the market at large. They typically equate more power with a bigger engine, and few of them know what turbocharging is or what it can do. That's why this whole engine downsizing thing has been tricky for all manufacturers, because most people aren't comfortable with moving down from a large, capable engine to one that is much smaller and doesn't seem as capable.

Anyways this Escape has been old news since the CX5 was announced.

Not all of us. I, for one, despise turbo engines. For me it's all about response and sound. N/A for the win.