The Ford Puma is back for 2020...

  • Thread starter FT-1
  • 108 comments
  • 11,398 views
FT-1

FT-1

7,928
United Kingdom
Wreckage, Turn 1
PrecisionXCIV
...But not as you would expect it to be. As is the case with the Mitsubishi Eclipse Cross, Ford have taken the nameplate of a fondly-remembered FWD coupe and slapped it on the back of a compact crossover (intended to be the replacement for the EcoSport). :boggled:

All we have so far is a teaser:
2243adbb-2020-ford-puma-1.jpg


And there are some spy shots to give you an indication of the dimensions (based on Fiesta platform, expect similar engine options including the new 155hp EcoBoost Hybrid.)
2c86f95e-2020-ford-puma-scoop-01.jpg

cd0078fd-2020-ford-puma-scoop-03.jpg
 
I don't mind Ford reusing the name - never been too bothered about that kind of thing. It has to be better than the Ecosport too, though that wouldn't be difficult.

I do think it's a shame that this is now the norm though. This is all the automobile industry has to show for us in its dying breath before they're either banned or autonomous - the crossover.

It puts me in quite a bad mood that the best the industry can do, and the best the buying public want to buy, after a century and a half of innovation and experimentation, is a two-box pseudo off-roader that's heavier, thirstier, slower and less attractive than a conventional car.
 
How did I know before I even clicked this thread that it would be another SUV/Crossover walking all over the grave of old car model names... Also the design kinda looks like an E-Pace rip off with a bit of Model X mixed in.
 
FT-1
replacement for the EcoSport
Click to expand...
Well, no matter what else, it'll certainly be an improvement on its predecessor.
homeforsummer
I do think it's a shame that this is now the norm though. This is all the automobile industry has to show for us in its dying breath before they're either banned or autonomous - the crossover.

It puts me in quite a bad mood that the best the industry can do, and the best the buying public want to buy, after a century and a half of innovation and experimentation, is a two-box pseudo off-roader that's heavier, thirstier, slower and less attractive than a conventional car.
Click to expand...
Yeah, it's a real shame. I think some of it is self inflicted, as well. Decades of telling buyers that they "need" a 4x4 or AWD vehicle to go anywhere in the mud, snow, gravel, wet, or generally any conditions that aren't perfect have convinced buyers that SUVs are inherently more capable. That combined with decades of marketing and misconceptions about bigger vehicles being safer have convinced buyers that SUVs are also safer. And, unfortunately, it's worked. People want SUVs, even though they cost more for what is typically an inherently worse vehicle.

I will say, though, that now that I work at a dealership in Harrogate (which, for those unaware, is full of well off older white people) that I get quite a few buyers who want an SUV simply because of their age and/or disability which makes it difficult to get into and out of a lower vehicle. And that I certainly understand. But I also get a lot of people who are convinced that they need a 4x4 because "it snows sometimes" and they "drive on country roads", which coincidentally tend to be the same buyers who want a luxury badge and newer car with low mileage, but cannot pay more than ~£250 a month and don't have anything to put down...
 
Beeblebrox237
Yeah, it's a real shame. I think some of it is self inflicted, as well. Decades of telling buyers that they "need" a 4x4 or AWD vehicle to go anywhere in the mud, snow, gravel, wet, or generally any conditions that aren't perfect have convinced buyers that SUVs are inherently more capable.
Click to expand...
I know what you mean, but based on my experiences (and tow truck bills), I wouldn't include mud in that list. :) Or off-road snow.

Beeblebrox237
I will say, though, that now that I work at a dealership in Harrogate (which, for those unaware, is full of well off older white people) that I get quite a few buyers who want an SUV simply because of their age and/or disability which makes it difficult to get into and out of a lower vehicle. And that I certainly understand...
Click to expand...
I think the age/generational factor is behind much of what's going on in the industry today, from crossovers to the bloat of safety and convenience features. Many younger people aren't buying cars even if they can afford one.
 
Wolfe
I know what you mean, but based on my experiences (and tow truck bills), I wouldn't include mud in that list. :) Or off-road snow.
Click to expand...
True, mud or snow off road is definitely proper 4 wheel drive territory, and I think most people who actually have to contend with it know this and will buy something with the actual capability to handle it. People in the UK are scared to death of the snow; quite literally a dusting will put people off of driving, so when I hear that "I need it for the snow" I tend to try and explain that if they're that worried they need winter tyres. I did have a customer in the other day asking for an AWD vehicle since he occasionally drives around his friend's farm and has to contend with muddy fields and the like, for which I thought AWD was very much a justified choice.

Wolfe
I think the age/generational factor is behind much of what's going on in the industry today, from crossovers to the bloat of safety and convenience features. Many younger people aren't buying cars even if they can afford one.
Click to expand...
Millenials are ruining the car industry!
 
Ford does realize I was only joking when I recently proposed bringing back every older iconic nameplate as a crossover... right? :nervous:
 
TheCracker
It's not the first time Ford has defiled a previously used name.
Click to expand...

Fortunately in that case one was only sold in the US and the other wasn't so there might have not been as much awareness of the nameplate being reused in the respective countries. Also strictly speaking the original Galaxy was the Galaxie so I guess its slightly different.

Another example was the Ford Fusion, first appeared in Europe as a small MPV in 2002 then became a saloon in the US in 2005. Both not available in the others respective countries.
 
Coming to think of it, there are some things the Racing Puma and new Puma will have in common; both of them...
  • Are based on a Ford Fiesta Platform
  • Use bulbous headlight designs
  • Have a variant with an output of ~155hp
  • Come in a shade of Royal Blue
  • Feature massive wheel arch gaps! :P
 
Liquid
But they did change the spelling like they did with the Cougar and Kuga.
Click to expand...
Oh, so that's why it's called "kuga". I kept thinking Ford just randomly made it up.

----
So, Ford is making yet another CUV when they already have a lot of CUVs and SUVs in their lineup and already have 2 more on their way? Right...
Is it too early to call it pointless? because it's sounding pointless.
 
Another retro nameplate I'm sure many people are fond of, insulted and destroyed by the fact that it's yet another lame crossover.

Hey car companies! Stop destroying everything we love, plzkthx.
 
Really sick of car companies keep attempting to launch crossovers as something "new" "unique" "out there", literally every new car model is a crossover now it isn't innovative!

I don't get the fuss about the name though, I would hardly call the Puma iconic, Ford could be using the name on a range of custom rubbish bins for all I care.

In my opinion, there were better cars to be had for the same money at the time it was launched, it really is rather ugly and if you couple that with the build quality and rustability (definitely a word!) it's hardly a great car. There are so many car names I could class as iconic but this isn't one of them :)

But that doesn't change the fact the new one is terribly boring!
 

Latest Posts

Back