Megatest: new Ford Focus v every rival

Ten years. That’s how long it’s been since the Ford Focus was Britain’s biggest-selling car over a full calendar year. It may only be to me, but that seems like “blink and you’ll miss a decade” territory.

It seems like just a moment ago that Ford so memorably imposed such a reassuring state of order on the UK car market, at least to road testers like me; one that lasted a full decade itself. The Blue Oval created a family hatchback that was a much better drive than anything else like it: the original 1998 Focus.

Britain had some of the best roads in Europe on which to demonstrate its qualities. And, sure enough, Britons responded. The Focus became the country’s biggest-selling car. We got it. Well done us.

Fourth Focus

And still, even though for every calendar year since 2008 the Focus has been beaten by its little brother the Fiesta in the UK’s annual registration charts (and increasingly by one or two other big-hitters these days), the launch of a new-generation Focus – and this is the fourth of them – feels like a big occasion.

So we’ve convened a welcoming committee: not quite every family hatchback in the class – just the ones from well-known volume brands that we believe could give it some serious competition. We’ve left out the segment’s ‘compact premium’ players, on the basis that doing so ought to make for a simpler, closer and more interesting contest. But among the cars we have included is the recently introduced Kia Ceed, fresh from an encouraging endorsement in the Autocar road test – albeit in diesel-engined form.

When gathered around a common £22,000 price point, then, and powered by similarly powerful petrol engines, which is 2018’s best new family hatchback? We start at ninth place and work our way through to the winner:

9TH PLACE: PEUGEOT 308 1.2 PURETECH 130 ALLURE AUTO

Given that this field might have swollen to something approaching twenty cars if we’d included every family hatchback on the market, ninth place isn’t such a terrible result for Peugeot’s four-year old 308. It made it into the starting blocks on the basis that’s it’s a handsome and desirable hatchback with a characterful engine and a pleasant, quietly ritzy interior: facts which none of our testing confounded.

So what damned this former European Car of the Year (2014)? The answers, simply put, are disappointing practicality, average real-world economy (35.2mpg) and soft, uninspiring handling.

9TH PLACE: PEUGEOT 308 1.2 PURETECH 130 ALLURE AUTO

The 308 has the least spacious second row of all the cars here (pictured inset); its boot may be of a good size, but the sense that the former has been sacrificed for the benefit of the latter is a compromise that none of the rest of our field asks you to accept.

This is a classic European-sized hatchback, however, and as such offers a compactness that you won’t find everywhere else in this group. Ought that to translate as greater handling nimbleness than the car actually has, though?

9TH PLACE: PEUGEOT 308 1.2 PURETECH 130 ALLURE AUTO

We think so. Because distinguishing agility is only present in the 308 driving experience up to a fairly superficial level. Although Peugeot’s downsized steering wheel makes the car flit around car parks and busy junctions quite easily, when you corner at higher speeds you must contend with muted, over-assisted steering, and discouraging amounts of body roll which are enough to blunt the handling balance the chassis might otherwise have, and also to make the 308 understeer quite untidily at the limit of grip.

9TH PLACE: PEUGEOT 308 1.2 PURETECH 130 ALLURE AUTO

The standard sport suspension and bigger wheels of a higher trim level might have made for a more convincing dynamic showing here – but as it was, we could rank the 308 no higher.

SUMMARY

Flawed practicality, underwhelming handling and average fuel economy are no great adverts for Peugeot’s stylish, cheerily-engined Golf-chaser. 3.5/5

Price: £22,350 Engine 3cyls in line, 1199cc, turbocharged petrol Power 129bhp at 5500rpm Torque 170lb ft at 1750rpm Gearbox 8-spd automatic Kerb weight 1204kg 0-62mph 9.8sec; Top speed 127mph; Economy 52.3mpg Test economy 35.2mpg CO2/tax band 123g/km; 25%

8TH PLACE: VAUXHALL ASTRA 1.4 T 150 ELITE NAV

The Astra is the quickest-accelerating car in this test on paper (0-62mph in 7.8sec); not something you were expecting to read about a mid-range Vauxhall, I dare say.  It’s roomy and well-equipped, too, and specialises in the sort of unambiguous value for money which Vauxhall appears to be claiming as its specialty – at least for its more conventional hatchbacks and saloons.

8TH PLACE: VAUXHALL ASTRA 1.4 T 150 ELITE NAV

But none of that will prevent you from noting the distinctly unlovely rental-car vibe conjured by the car’s cheaper cabin materials (of which there are plenty), or the relative lack of dynamic finish that’s evident in the way it drives.

The clutch pedal action feels woolly and imprecise; ride quality is slightly hollow and excitable in its shortage of wheel control; and steering is light and can be pendulous as you add lock, giving you very little impression at all of how hard the car’s front wheels are working.

8TH PLACE: VAUXHALL ASTRA 1.4 T 150 ELITE NAV

The Astra’s 1.4-litre engine is quiet at cruising crankspeeds and makes decent torque (181lb ft), but it doesn’t feel like the most potent or vigorous motor here due to its gathering coarseness and breathlessness at high revs. But for a shortness of footspace in the second row, there are few reasons to complain about practicality.

8TH PLACE: VAUXHALL ASTRA 1.4 T 150 ELITE NAV

But overall, having been presented with at least a glimmer of visual interest by the car’s exterior styling, you’re left with very few reasons to really want this Astra when all is said and done. And meat and potatoes, however competently cooked, can only take Vauxhall so far.

SUMMARY

Delivers decent real-world performance and plenty of rational value-for-money, but remains about as ordinary to drive, and to travel in, as family hatchbacks get.  3.5/5

Price: £22,730 Engine 4cyls in line, 1399cc, turbocharged petrol Power 148bhp at 5000rpm; Torque 181lb ft at 2000rpm Gearbox 6-spd manual Kerb weight 1278kg 0-62mph 7.8sec; Top speed 134mph; Economy 51.4mpg Test economy 36.0mpg CO2/tax band 128g/km; 26%

7TH PLACE: SEAT LEON 1.0 TSI 115 DSG SE TECHNOLOGY

Wondering if a bottom-half ranking looks a bit tough on the Seat Leon, a car that we’ve consistently rated highly in this model generation?  It was an unavoidable quirk of timing that this test had to happen just after Seat switched production of its hatchback into 2019-model-year specification – and from the VW Group’s 1.4-litre turbocharged petrol engines to its newer, WLTP-emissions-compliant 1.5s.

7TH PLACE: SEAT LEON 1.0 TSI 115 DSG SE TECHNOLOGY

The 1.5-litre motors powering the Golf and Octavia in this test only got added at Seat’s Martorell factory on July 31st; not soon enough, regrettably, for demonstrators to have arrived at Seat UK in time to be included here. So this slightly lowly ranking for the Leon is as much about engine as car.

This was an interesting opportunity, however, to directly compare the 1.0-litre and 1.5-litre TSI petrol engine options available in the Leon, Octavia and Golf ranges – and its conclusion must be, if your budget allows, to plump for the full-fat, 148bhp 1.5-litre TSI Evo in whatever car in which you’re considering it.

7TH PLACE: SEAT LEON 1.0 TSI 115 DSG SE TECHNOLOGY

The Leon’s 113bhp 1.0-litre felt every bit as relatively weedy as its vital statistics might suggest, but also quite rough at idle, and considerably less free-revving than some of the other downsized three-pots we tested. Meanwhile, our real-world fuel economy testing exercise revealed that it returns very creditable efficiency (41.8mpg) – but perhaps not significantly better than you might reasonably expect from the bigger VW Group engine in the same car.

7TH PLACE: SEAT LEON 1.0 TSI 115 DSG SE TECHNOLOGY

There is much to recommend the rest of the Leon’s package: it rides and handles well, and would have done so even better on the bigger wheels and less economy-biased tyres that might have been included on a car in like-for-like specification with most of the rest of our field. A more eye-catching exterior design still does plenty to add appeal, too.

SUMMARY

A great hatchback stuck, here, with a less-than-great engine and rolling chassis specification. Would definitely have contended better in like-for-like form to its VW Group rivals. 3.5/5

Price: £21,605 Engine 3cyls in line, 999cc, turbocharged petrol Power 113bhp at 5000rpm Torque 148lb ft at 2000rpm Gearbox 7-spd automatic Kerb weight 1225kg 0-62mph 9.6sec; Top speed 126mph; Economy 64.2mpg Test economy 41.8mpg CO2/tax band 102g/km; 21%

6TH PLACE: KIA CEED 1.0 T-GDI 2

Kia doesn’t like to be talked of, or even thought of, as a budget brand anymore. If only to save their blushes, then, whisper this bit under your breath if you like. The new Ceed is every bit as good a family hatchback as most of the cars here in a lot of the ways that will matter to those who’ll look at the £3k- to £5k difference between its list price and that of some of its opponents, and then imagine what they could do with the saving.

6TH PLACE: KIA CEED 1.0 T-GDI 2

We tested the Ceed in fairly low-rung ‘2’model specification, so it missed some of the equipment to be found elsewhere. Though the car’s interior looked a little bit plain, though, it had consistently good material quality, was well laid out and felt more spacious than the class average.

The 1.0-litre engine delivered only passable outright performance and refinement, likewise failing to ram home much of an advantage in our fuel economy run (36.6mpg). But it’s a viceless powertrain of decent flexibility that’s in tune with the rest of Ceed’s likeably humble and straightforward character.

6TH PLACE: KIA CEED 1.0 T-GDI 2

The Ceed’s ride and handling are similarly straightforward. It’s competent, pleasant and predictable on the road, with decently isolated controls, and a strong enough hand on agility and ride finesse to bear comparison with the most, if not the very best, cars in the class.

6TH PLACE: KIA CEED 1.0 T-GDI 2

I’d want to be sure the car’s £18k list price translated into a monthly finance quote that looked equally appealing next to what you might be offered on the cars ranked more highly in this test. But, with my homework done and showing parity on that score, I wouldn’t expect owning and driving this car to give me a moment’s regret on making a thrifty decision.

SUMMARY

The cheapest option on test – but you wouldn’t guess it. Spacious, pleasant, respectable and entirely inoffensive to drive. 3.5/5

Price: £18,295 Engine 3cyls in line, 998cc, turbocharged petrol Power 118bhp at 6000rpm Torque 127lb ft at 1500-4000rpm Gearbox 6-spd manual Kerb weight 1297kg 0-62mph 10.9sec; Top speed 116mph; Economy 52.3mpg Test economy 36.6mpg CO2/tax band 122g/km; 25%

5TH PLACE: HONDA CIVIC 1.0T EX

It’s a funny car, the Honda Civic – but an increasingly good one. The upper trim level of our test car makes it look expensive next to its rivals, but compared on a like-for-like basis it’s pretty competitive on price. And ever since Honda introduced the latest generation model last year, it’s also had the uncomplicated practicality, the engines and the driving dynamics necessary to be considered a real contender by any hatchback buyer.

5TH PLACE: HONDA CIVIC 1.0T EX

There’s no magic involved in delivering the practicality part of that equation, of course; the Civic has become a significantly larger car than the hatchback class average, and seems like it to drive. But it certainly makes a virtue of its ‘big car’ feel on the road: it’s comfy-riding (albeit having a rolling chassis that’s a touch noisier than it might be), it has weighty and assured steering and good motorway-speed stability. It’s just not as agile, or as crisp in its handling responses, as you might want a hatchback to be.

5TH PLACE: HONDA CIVIC 1.0T EX

The Civic’s cabin offers abundant room both for passengers and cargo – and if it had perceived quality as good as its practicality, it might well have squeezed into consideration in the top-four shootout you’re about to read about. The fact is, the cabin’s standard on material fit and finish leaves just enough to be desired to be off-putting – some ingredients seem solid and expensive, others oddly cheap – while the lack of easy usability about the car’s infotainment and trip computer systems isn’t likely to win it many fans, either.

5TH PLACE: HONDA CIVIC 1.0T EX

The Civic’s 1.0-litre engine is impressively frugal and flexible, though, returning a better indicated fuel economy result on our short test than any other car here, at 42.1mpg. It’s a strong component part of an all-round showing that’s a bit short on attention-to-detail, but is certainly good enough to win Honda a ‘best of the rest’ recommendation here: assuming you can abide those ‘Buck Rogers in the 21st Century’ movie-extra looks.   

SUMMARY

Does more than enough well enough to make it a real contender if you need a bigger-than-average family five-door – and you don’t mind the leftfield styling. 4/5

Price: £23,600 Engine 3cyls in line, 998cc, turbocharged petrol Power 127bhp at 5500rpm Torque 148lb ft at 2250rpm Gearbox 6-spd manual Kerb weight 1275kg 0-62mph 11.2sec; Top speed 126mph; Economy 58.9mpg Test economy 42.1mpg CO2/tax band 110g/km; 23%

THE FINAL FOUR

On to the sharp end of this exercise, then – to be contended by a couple of cars whose progression to this stage regular readers will have probably seen coming several miles off; but also a couple of cars whose presence might just surprise you.

Another surprise, at least as far as this tester is concerned, is that the Kia Ceed isn’t among them. When we road tested the Kia just a few weeks ago, it felt like a car that’d taken several big steps up and might hold its own in competition with the hatchback segment’s elite. But group testing new cars will always confound you and challenge your preconceptions.

And when it came to the crunch, the best of this bunch were just too good for the Kia: and not just for the Kia, it should be noted. If you’re expecting this to descend into a couple of discrete twin tests rolled into one, don’t be so sure: the new Ford Focus, Mazda 3, Volkswagen Golf and Skoda Octavia aren’t so easily separated.

THE FINAL FOUR

These are cars which, over a day’s driving, each gradually assemble an ownership case that’s quite different from each of the other’s, and one strong enough that it could easily make it the right buy for any Autocar reader. Given that we’ve already ruled out so many decent market contenders, there’s no room for anything but very good cars in this final showdown.

It would be broadly true, however, to observe that what we’ve got here, amongst a quartet of leading lights, is a sensible, practical, straightforward Skoda; a desirable, rounded, finely-polished Volkswagen; a handsome, alternative, agile Mazda; and, of course, the latest version of the best-handling family hatchback that Europe has ever known.

KEY ISSUES

Three-out-of-four of these cars will be well-known to you – and I won’t pretend otherwise simply to build some phony sense of suspense that might keep you more interested than you’d otherwise be. The questions we should turn our attention towards now, it seems to me, are as follows.

Firstly, does the new Ford Focus still offer the most driver appeal in its class even on its most ordinary suspension configuration? The answer’s to that is not to be taken for granted, with our Titanium X-trim test car not only doing without the lowered sport-tuned suspension of ST-Line versions, but also without the independent rear suspension and adaptive dampers that more expensive Focuses now have.

And secondly, is it good enough in every other way that matters to seal the deal: to succeed where in last-generation form it failed, and supplant Europe’s bigger-selling VW Golf at the top of our class rankings as an all-round package?

DRIVING QUESTION

First things first, then. We could tie ourselves in knots discussing how much driver appeal actually matters in a humble, workaday family five-door. But whether you take the view that I like to think is typical of an Autocar reader (that it matters quite a lot) or you don’t, you’d have to admit that it matters in a Ford Focus.

Would this car have been so popular with a more ordinary driving experience? We’ll never know, but Ford clearly doesn’t think so – hence the money spent on every subsequent generation to guarantee the preservation of its key selling point – and I don’t think so either.

SKODA OCTAVIA

A succession of back-to-back ten-minute stints in each of our four cars is all you need to find out which of the Focus’ rivals is most likely to challenge it in this respect. And, while it has masses of rational appeal and enough completeness as a product to conclusively dump the Honda Civic firmly out of this top-four contest, the Skoda Octavia isn’t much of a challenger on dynamism. Even with more power and torque (148bhp and 184lb ft) than anything else in this showdown, it feels and drives like ‘Captain sensible’ from bumper to bumper – now as much as it ever did.

The softness of the Octavia’s handling responses is what you expect to naturally follow, with a turn of that medium-weighted and moderately paced steering wheel, having noted the fairly gentle lope of the car’s quiet and well-isolated ride. It makes sense; this is a family saloon masquerading as a hatchback, really. It reminds you of that suspiciously grown-up kid you remember in your class at school, whose 21st birthday party you later went to a year before everyone else’s.

SKODA OCTAVIA

The Skoda handles precisely enough as to be entirely easy to place, and has the body control to tolerate a brisker pace over a challenging road without really struggling. It’s refined, too – more so than any other car in this top four - so it’s featuring at the business end of this test for very good reasons. But if a dose of added poise and verve in your everyday motoring is what you’re after, it doesn’t offer much. VW’s 1.5-litre, 128bhp Golf offers more – mostly by apparent virtue of its size.

VOLKSWAGEN GOLF

The Golf’s notably softer-sprung than both the Mazda 3 and the Focus, being more comfortable than both at town speeds, but keeping better control of its mass than the Octavia when cornering at speed and dealing with bigger lumps and bumps.

The Golf pulls off that genius trick of feeling absolutely right-sized; big enough to accommodate a smallish family in comfort and some shopping – but absolutely no bigger, so that it feels light and agile and maneuverable, as a compact family car should. Now, as ever, the Golf feels like the epicenter of the hatchback’s planetary system: the fixed point around which every other car has to move.

VOLKSWAGEN GOLF

But not because the Golf’s brilliant to drive. You wouldn’t have said that about our test car, which was a little bit soft and short on outright grip when driven more quickly and, though nicely damped at town speeds, came up short on vertical body control at times. The Golf’s engine, meanwhile, didn’t quite share the Octavia’s levels of mechanical refinement and isolation: noisier at high revs than the Skoda, it also revved with less enthusiasm.

All in all, in this specification at least, the Golf probably wasn’t a car a keener driver might pick.

MAZDA 3

But the Mazda 3 certainly was. You couldn’t pick a tougher dynamic test for the Ford Focus than this normally aspirated 2.0-litre Mazda, in fact – and, having spent a day trying, we should know. The car has pin-sharp throttle response, as well as beautifully weighted and feelsome controls; in both respects, it’s actually more than a match for the Ford.

Meanwhile, a slightly busy-riding but honest-feeling, firmly sprung chassis gives the car plenty of cornering grip, flat body control, strong front-driven traction, and the ability to change direction sufficiently smartly and cleanly as to keep you fully interested in how it might tackle the next corner.

FORD FOCUS

Does the Focus do all that? Does it have an answer to the Mazda’s every challenge? Not quite – but you wouldn’t argue that, through its own differing dynamic instruments, it provides an even more compelling driving experience; one it’s as much a delight to find in an ordinary family hatchback today as it must have been twenty years ago, albeit perhaps less of a revelation.

You couldn’t anatomize the biggest lures of the Ford’s driving experience without giving equal billing to its superbly even-hauling and singularly willing 123bhp three-cylinder engine as to its balanced, incisive, absorbing handling. The Focus has always enjoyed one of these relative advantages over its peers, of course – but now it’s got both, and the relative appeal of both has been taken to even greater heights, I don’t know how anyone could deny the star quality of this car.

FORD FOCUS

You might have reservations about the slightly elastic, compliant feel of the car’s new power steering; an awareness, perhaps, that for all its range and prickly enthusiasm, the car’s EcoBoost engine isn’t actually producing as much torque as it might be. But sample the keenness with which the Focus turns in; the tenacity with which it holds on mid-corner; the readiness it has to swing its hips into the action and swivel underneath you on a lifted throttle; and the quite brilliant way in which it combines such eager responsiveness and close body control with supple overall bump absorption.

Now tell me you’re not convinced that the Focus is a cut above. And on this evidence, given that we’re dealing with a car in as ordinary a specification as it’s possible to get, quite possibly now by a wider margin than it’s had since 1998.

FORD FOCUS

But is that enough? I could spend as long as again as I just have on driving experiences detailing the difference between these four cars on cabin quality, boot space and relative passenger practicality – but in the end, all you need to know is that the answer’s yes.

Leaving aside the Honda and Skoda, there isn’t a meaningfully more practical car in this whole exercise than the Ford. For cabin quality and apparent ambient classiness, meanwhile, the Focus has a slightly longer list of betters to acknowledge, among them the Golf, 308 and probably the Octavia as well; but none do enough to recover the ground they gave up as driving machines.

FORD FOCUS

The Focus remains an entirely ordinary and fairly workaday car in which to spend time. Its cabin doesn’t hide its cheaper materials as cleverly as the Octavia or Ceed, and its richer finishes are nowhere near as effective as those of the Golf. Its cabin is a bit monotone and plain; its fittings not creaky or wobbly like one or two in the Astra, but nothing to write home about either.

But by being so ordinary in that sense, the Ford somehow only draws your attention elsewhere – to how it’s so special to drive.

FORD FOCUS

Twenty years ago, the original Focus won both enormous critical acclaim and continued UK market dominance for its maker by comprehensively out-handling its every rival; today, with the public’s collective attention on crossovers, while EVs and autonomous tech hogs the limelight, you wonder if the fourth-generation version will do either. It certainly deserves to, though – because the king is back, and in better fettle than ever.

THE FINAL 4 - VERDICTS

4TH PLACE: SKODA OCTAVIA 1.5 TSI 150 SE L

No driver’s car, but simply too complete as a product to ignore. Refined, cavernous, well-built and decent to drive. 4/5

Price: £22,460 Engine 4cyls in line, 1498cc, turbocharged petrol Power 148bhp at 5000rpm Torque 184lb ft at 1500rpm Gearbox 6-spd manual Kerb weight 1270kg 0-62mph 8.2sec; Top speed 137mph; Economy 56.5mpg Test economy 39.5mpg CO2/tax band 114g/km; 23%

3RD PLACE : MAZDA 3 SKYACTIV-G 120 SPORT NAV

Better to drive, in a handful of ways, than the Ford – albeit at a greater cost to ride comfort. Simple and appealing. 4/5

Price: £21,495 Engine 4cyls in line, 1998cc, petrol Power 118bhp at 6000rpm Torque 155lb ft at 4000rpm Gearbox 6-spd manual Kerb weight 1355kg 0-62mph 8.9sec; Top speed 121mph; Economy 55.4mpg Test economy 35.2mpg CO2/tax band 119g/km; 24%

2ND PLACE: VOLKSWAGEN GOLF 1.5 TSI 130 DSG SE NAV

Beats the Ford on material class, tech sophistication and desirability – but not by enough to offset soft handling and ordinary engine. 4.5/5

Price: £23,760 Engine 4 cyls in line, 1498cc, turbocharged petrol Power 128bhp at 5000-6000rpm Torque 148lb ft at 1400-4000rpm Gearbox 7-spd automatic Kerb weight 1352kg 0-62mph 9.1sec; Top speed 130mph; Economy 58.9mpg Test economy 41.1mpg CO2/tax band 110g/km; 23%

1ST PLACE: FORD FOCUS 1.0T ECOBOOST 125 TITANIUM X

Outstanding driver appeal right where you expect to find it – and possibly with even better versions still to test. Engine and chassis equally brilliant. 4.5/5

Price: £22,820 Engine 3 cyls in line, 999cc, turbocharged petrol Power 123bhp at 6000rpm Torque 148lb ft at 1400-4500rpm Gearbox 6-spd manual Kerb weight 1322kg 0-62mph 10.0sec; Top speed 124mph; Economy 57.6mpg Test economy 39.4mpg CO2/tax band 111g/km; 23%

AND FINALLY - FUEL ECONOMY

Since September 1st was the European car industry’s deadline for all new cars to be certified on the new ‘Worldwide harmonised Light vehicles Test Proceedure’ (WLTP) lab test fuel economy regime, we thought now would be a good time to test our nine group test rivals for ‘real-world’ fuel economy – and how it compares with their new lab test results.

With nine cars to get through our test could only involve a route of around eight miles, and mostly reflects the sort of return you’d get on a fairly vigorous 60mph cruise on a twisting, rising and dipping road. So please don’t write in if you think you’ve seen better from your 1.0-litre Honda Civic: because that’s what we’d expect.

Our test results were indicated ones taken from the cars’ trip computers – which, according to our experience of wider brim-to-brim testing, tend to be accurate to within five per cent, with the vast majority over-estimating true fuel economy – just as speedometers tend to over-estimate true speed by roughly the same margin.