Currently reading: Comparison: Ford Focus versus Volkswagen Golf
Ford has revamped the Focus in a bid to reclaim class leadership from the VW Golf. Mark Tisshaw finds out if it succeeds
Mark Tisshaw
7 mins read
22 November 2014

‘Too close to call’ is a phrase that I’ll keep in the first sentence of this comparison test rather than use as a cop-out verdict at the end.

Splitting these two – reigning everyman hatchback champion the Volkswagen Golf Mk7 and the newly revamped Ford Focus Mk3 –
is going to be tricky, such is their respective excellence. But here goes.

It’s the arrival of the latest Focus on these shores that brings this test together. When we had the chance exactly two years ago to drive an early left-hand-drive version of the latest Golf and put it up against its rivals, the VW saw off all comers, including the Focus – just – and went straight to the top of the class.

So with the opportunity to have an early go in a left-hand-drive Focus this time around, we want to find out if the deep-running changes allow the Ford to usurp the Golf as class leader.

No other rivals are needed here. Although there’s real strength and depth in the class, with the likes of the Audi A3, Mazda 3 and a revised version of the Volvo V40, to name just three, none would trouble the top two here. 

What’s new with the Focus, then? You’ll have already spotted the obvious visual differences, chiefly its exterior reskin. That ‘Aston Martin grille for the people’ finds its way on to the Focus as part of a new front end, and there are detail exterior changes elsewhere.

But visually, the most significant changes come inside, where the switchgear is significantly pared back. The fussy interior was always a big weak point for this generation of the Focus, and we’ll come back to whether or not this rationalisation of the controls, done in conjunction with a leap in quality and extra cubbyholes, works in practice.

Chassis tweaks also feature on the Focus. An overhaul of the suspension system is said to reduce chassis flex and in turn allow the steering to be tuned to reduce the amount of effort needed while maintaining the precision. Which all sounds okay in theory, so long as the changes do indeed maintain and even enhance the Focus’s position as the driver’s car of choice in the class.

Under the bonnet, there’s the usual array of fleet-friendly diesels, now downsized from 1.6 to 1.5 litres in various outputs, plus a range-topping 2.0-litre version.

However, it’s the petrol versions that still intrigue most private buyers, and there’s a new 1.5-litre EcoBoost in place of the previous 1.6, plus that firm favourite, the three-cylinder, 1.0-litre EcoBoost, in various flavours, including the 123bhp version fitted to our test car. Our example is a plush and extremely well equipped £22,295 Titanium X version, with almost another £3000 in options on top, pushing it into premium money at £25,775 all in. 

Read the 2014 Ford Focus first drive

The Golf here is a 120bhp 1.4 TSI petrol-powered mid-range Match model. You won’t be wanting for much equipment, our £21,700 test car (£20,335 base price plus £1365 worth of options) coming with the likes of touchscreen infotainment and adaptive cruise control.

On the spec sheet, this Golf gives away 3bhp to the Focus but has identical peak torque of 148lb ft (the Ford’s maximum figure achieved on overboost). The Focus, on paper, has an economy advantage, though. Its combined figure of 60.1mpg eclipses the Golf’s 53.3mpg, and its CO2 emissions of 108g/km also comfortably beat the Golf’s 123g/km.


Find an Autocar review

Read our review

Car review
Ford Focus 2011-2014

Can the Ford Focus capture the hearts and minds of hatchback buyers, or have its traditional rivals managed to perfect the formula?

Back to top

I jump in the Golf first, to refamiliarise myself with the class’s benchmark. To get the subjective stuff out the way first, I think that it’s still the classiest-looking car in its sector.

The more Mk7 Golfs that I see on the road, the more I like it. I just can’t see the lines of this generation of Golf aging any time soon. Compare that with the Focus. The original Mk3 design was quite faddish and soon dated. It’s much improved now but still lacks that timeless quality.

The Golf is a car into which you can quickly relax. Like the exterior, the interior oozes timeless class and sophistication and is constructed from materials of a high perceived quality. The controls are laid out clearly and nicely weighted, and a comfortable driving position with good visibility is easily found.

Time hasn’t harmed this Golf’s visual appeal inside and out, then, and as it’s only two years old, it’s no surprise that the Golf remains a very fine car indeed to drive. It simply glides everywhere in a smooth and quiet fashion; the ride quality is unruffled by the worst that an early winter B-road can throw at it and it  steers with a good level of feedback and precision, even if it’s a little light. Body control is also excellent. 
VW has tuned this Golf to excel at comfort, refinement, stability and predictability.

That might read as ‘unexciting’ to some, but the Golf is able to lose its straight, sensible face for a moment. That fine body control also endows the Golf with a sense of poise and nimbleneess, thanks in part to 
the relatively light kerb weight of 1225kg. It’s no GTI, but it grips well and urges can be satisfied. 

The 1.4 TSI engine helps to that end. The old cliché that it feels quicker than its official 0-62mph time (9.3sec) suggests can be wheeled out here. It’s far from express pace, but it has a good spread of torque when you need extra shove and is a smooth, calm companion in its default running mode. Much like the rest of the car, then. 

Read the full Volkswagen Golf review

The high bar that the Golf set two years ago has not got any lower, in other words, so does this Focus climb over it? Although I’ve got reservations about how well the Focus will age, there’s no doubt that its new look brings it closer to the Golf in terms of visual sophistication, perhaps overcoming in part that subconscious badge snobbiness.

The new interior is a huge improvement, too. The design of the switchgear is much simpler, with buttons easier to find and some functions ported over to the touchscreen that runs Ford’s new Sync infotainment system, which is a doddle to use. The perceived quality is also greatly improved, with more soft-touch materials and some handsome brightwork.

The VW still has the edge, though. As improved as the Focus’s interior is, it’s clear that Ford has tried to fix something that was fundamentally flawed, rather than getting it right in the first place. And the Golf’s perceived quality is still a level above. 

Back to top

On the move, though, the Focus claws back most of the margin lost to the Golf on static appeal. Much of the Ford’s initial driving pleasure comes from the sound of that three-cylinder engine, which oozes enthusiasm 
and urgency and encourages you to work it hard.

Mostly, doing so is optional and a delight, but there are times when you have to because, unlike in the Fiesta, this engine in 
the Focus can occasionally feel like it’s the big turbo pulling you along 
in a bigger, heavier car.

This also partly explains why the Focus returned indicated economy in the low 40s on this test, compared with the mid-40s of the Golf, whose four-cylinder engine never has to work as hard as the zesty Focus’s. 

The Ford’s greater enthusiast appeal extends to the way that it rides and handles. It steers with a touch more feel and precision and is more engaging than the Golf. Its ride is firmer than the Golf’s but no less comfortable for it, the benefit being slightly superior body control.

It has keener turn-in, helped in part by that lightweight three-pot engine over the driven wheels, and it is agile and responsive enough for some mid-corner adjustability. 

In truth, though, every point that one of these cars scores over the other is marginal, and much will come down to personal preference. Which means that it’s time to get off the fence, dust off that tape measure and gauge the width of the cigaratte paper that splits this pair. 

The verdict

The Golf and its superior breadth of ability nudges it. The Focus is closer to it than ever and in certain circumstances – particularly when you want to take the long way home – better to drive. But the Golf is close enough to its rival in the areas where the Focus excels and that bit further ahead in the others, such as refinement and interior quality. Whichever you buy, though, you won’t be disappointed.

Read our full review on the Ford Focus

Volkswagen Golf 1.4 TSI 122 Match

Price £20,335; 0-62mph 9.3 seconds; Top speed 126mph; Economy 53.3mpg; C02 123g/km; Kerbweight 1225kg; Engine 4 cylinders, 1395cc, turbocharged, petrol; Power 120bhp at 5000rpm; Torque 148lb ft at 1800-4000rpm; Gearbox Six-speed manual

Ford Focus 1.0T EcoBoost Titanium X

Price £22,295; 0-62mph 11.0 seconds; Top speed 120mph; Economy 60.1mpg; C02 108g/km; Kerbweight 1270kg; Engine 3 cylinders, 999cc, turbocharged, petrol; Power 123bhp at 6000rpm; Torque 125lb ft at 1800rpm; Gearbox Six-speed manual

Get the latest car news, reviews and galleries from Autocar direct to your inbox every week. Enter your email address below:

Join the debate


22 November 2014
It wasn't the nose that needed redesigning, it was the rear end and those awful light clusters. The interior still looks low rent, always a put-off for me when it comes to Fords and I can't believe it costs 5 grand more than the Golf!

22 November 2014
Considering the price difference this is more of a blow out rather than a nose out. Include the expected difference in depreciation rates and this is really a no contest. You can flog the handling "advantage" as much as you want but the way these cars are used in the real world means this is a paper chase.

22 November 2014
Why do Ford persist with their ridiculous "List Prices" when everyone knows that you can't change peoples perceptions by just charging more and that as soon as you walk in the showroom the dealer will knock off at least 10% without even asking anyway.

22 November 2014
for no other reason than the ford interior is still far to fussy, seemingly cluttered and in your face.

22 November 2014
I run both cars, the Focus in it's current Titanium form, the Golf in GT guise, each car has as the report says it's good and bad points. Price wise, forget it... those list prices are an indication for company tax figures, the private motorist needs his or her head examined if they pay full price for either car. The new Match is probably the equivalent to the Zetec and in that respect, it's a no brainer - Golf every time. Unlike the SE the Match is loaded with useful std equipment, the Focus looks positively bare in comparison. Add to that it has a larger and more useful boot and the Golf wins again. It's more comfortable and has more passenger space - the difference in rear leg room is night and day. And with a gentle right foot, not only will that Golf match but it will exceed avg mpg figures, the Ford on the other hand - good luck! And another thing, your Focus needs attention serviced every 12mth whereas you can stick VW on longlife service plan (every two years). or the avg mile motorist. I expect to pay approx £160-£180 a year for the Focus, £160 every two years for the VW (have your VW serviced by Skoda - same VAG engine but cheaper prices). To me at least, the above contest is a no brainer.

22 November 2014
Also, next to the Golf with its depth of design, the Focus, Aston grille or no, looks like someone wearing bling jewellery. The interior is particularly awful, as other posters noted. This Focus is an aesthetic failure compared with the Mk 1 Focus which had many fresh ideas that translated beautifully into the production car.

22 November 2014
"This also partly explains why the Focus returned indicated economy in the low 40s on this test, compared with the mid-40s of the Golf, whose four-cylinder engine never has to work as hard as the zesty Focus’s. "

Having just traded our Ford C-Max 1.6TDCI in for a Mk7 Golf 1.4TSI I was interested in seeing what you'd say about the real world economy figures.

Our CMax was meant to do 60+mpg but in the real world it actually only achieved an average 38mpg! The Golf however was meant to do 'only' 53mpg and we're getting 45mpg average, so whilst on paper the CMax should be more economical, in the real world the Golf is much more so.

We also have an old Renault Clio 1.2 which is meant to do 47mpg and real world I get 43mpg, so not bad. And a Porsche Boxster S which gets 25mpg from a claimed 28mpg (I think), so again pretty close.

So how do Ford manage to claim economy figures so much higher than real world figures, where as other manufacturers claims are so much closer (But still not accurate)?

22 November 2014
Surely the 1.4 TSI Golf has the independent rear suspension?

22 November 2014
Androo is quite right.
The 1.4 petrol versions has the multi-link set-up.
It's the 1.2 petrol and 1.6 diesels which have ‘only’ a torsion beam rear suspension.

23 November 2014
wiltspeter wrote:

Androo is quite right.
The 1.4 petrol versions has the multi-link set-up.
It's the 1.2 petrol and 1.6 diesels which have ‘only’ a torsion beam rear suspension.

Yes, it is not right that VW refuses any mag to test drive the lower power versions (which also includes their 'green' version) with the archaic torsion bar. The last model had multi link across the board so why not this one. I have driven and rode in the 1.6d with the torsion bar and it is some way off the pace in ride and handling. It has that typical Golf III and IV stodgy ride and handling that drives through bumps and imperfections rather than gliding over them. Also, the lower powered versions loose some interior finish refinements with a few more harder plastics here and there. I'm not a fan of the faux 159 silver console finish, which somehow feels cheap against the 159's aluminium original. Also, only £1300 of options? I would say you need to add between £2-3k to bring it to class spec average. You can probably tell I am not a big fan of this Golf, but my Mum had to send her's back after 11 months of trouble and poor build issues. Literally the most unreliable car she has ever owned and she has had AlfaSuds and Renaults!


Add your comment

Log in or register to post comments

Find an Autocar car review