Ask the Car People.SM


Ford Focus Wagon

637 messages,  Last post on Nov 29, 2011 at 9:58 AM

You are in the Ford Focus Forum.

What is this discussion about? Ford Focus, Wagon



Messages Page 50 of 64

#489 of 637 Re: Impressions about a Focus Wagon [mikus] by bdyment

Jun 06, 2006 (4:54 am)

Replying to: mikus (Jun 05, 2006 5:12 pm)
Our new 2006 wagon also has squeaky rear brakes. Our 2002 wagon brakes were quiet. Certainly agree with you re: the rear seat design. A split seatback but no split seat cushion was not one of Ford's better ideas. The engine, Duratec in our 2006, is far superior to the 2002 Zetec. More power, smoother, quieter.
 
Overall a pretty good wagon for the money and a lot more pleasing to drive than any Matrix we have driven.

#490 of 637 Re: Impressions about a Focus Wagon [bdyment] by jazvan

Jun 09, 2006 (3:58 pm)

Replying to: bdyment (Jun 06, 2006 4:54 am)
I have to 2nd that I like the Focus wagon better then the Matrix. The 1.8 is inferior IMO, and even more inferior to the 2.3. However I do agree with some of the previous critiques of the Focus. Front passenger seat bottom is too flat. I have modified mine, lowered the rear support about 1" so it is tilted more (like the driver side in low position) and now it is near perfect. It was not comfy for passenger on long trips, unlike the adjustable driver seat bottom which can be made very comfy. Air flow is just OK, it could be better, but I have no problem with the fan on #2 spot. I too get an occasional squeak on the brakes, but all pads are thick and like new. It's maybe once every 2 drives. Anyway, I got mine with very low miles in near new condition. I have to agree that these are a super deal used, nothing can touch it IMHO and they were ahead of their time in many ways..
 
Jaz

#491 of 637 Re: Impressions about a Focus Wagon [jazvan] by mikus

Jun 09, 2006 (6:04 pm)

Replying to: jazvan (Jun 09, 2006 3:58 pm)
> I have to 2nd that I like the Focus wagon better
> then the Matrix. The 1.8 is inferior IMO,
> and even more inferior to the 2.3.
 
2003 Matrix:
  1.8 liters, 130 hp 6000 rpm, 125 ft-lbs. 4200 rpm, 29/36 mpg (manual)
  1.8 liters, 180 hp 7600 rpm, 130 ft-lbs. 6800 rpm, 25/30 mpg (manual)
 
2003 Focus:
  2.0 liters, 110 hp 5000 rpm, 125 ft-lbs. 3750 rpm, 27/36 mpg (manual)
  2.0 liters, 130 hp 5300 rpm, 135 ft-lbs. 4500 rpm, 25/32 mpg (manual)
 
How 1.8 is inferior than Ford's 2.0? It is more powerful with beter fuel economy. And 36 MPG for Focus? Really? Most people get 25-28 MPG. My best so far is 29 MPG. Mazda's 2.3 engine is a great one I agree.

#492 of 637 brake anomalies by greenhornet3

Jun 10, 2006 (5:05 am)

Folks, it's fairly simple. The brake pad compositon, has been maximized-through research, and much of that-but probably, the 'most bang for the manufacturer's buck', results in annoyance(s), but good stopping power.
The rear drum bakes accumulate this brake dust, and glazing, and the rear brake assembly needs to periodically be cleaned out-degreased, wiped down, reassembled. If the vehicle is still under warranty, they should do it free at your favorite Ford store.

#493 of 637 Re: Emissions light on dash [hotx3] by bobo7

Jun 14, 2006 (4:44 pm)

Replying to: hotx3 (Feb 27, 2001 8:44 am)
hello,
 
im new to this forum, so dont know if this is the proper place to post. but here goes! our 2003 focus se wagon needs brakes, all the way around. (about 40,000 miles) first service its needed since we bought it new in 03! i figure while im replacing the rear drum shoes, id buy the inner seals and pack the inner and outer wheel bearings, if they dont need replacing. someone told me the bearings might be sealed, and i may not be able to repack them, just replace them. is this true???? i havent picked up a wrench in about 10 yrs, due to a disability, but have worked on vehicles most my mylife !
 
ty,, bob

#494 of 637 Re: License Plate Lights [cfpeters] by tomh3

Jun 18, 2006 (5:29 am)

Replying to: cfpeters (Apr 08, 2006 3:06 pm)
In 1/06 similar problem with corrosion in my license plate light bulb holders. Haven't fixed yet. Three Ford dealers constacted and they all said never heard of this type problem! In looking for short, I took off both taillight lens and tried to remove the taillight bulbs. COULD NOT TURN THE BULB HOLDING UNITS AND REMOVE THEM FROM THE PLASTIC LENS. The same lens has the backup light and THIS COULD BE TURNED AND REMOVED!! Two of the Ford dealers said they never heard of such a problem, but the third said he'd get them out, you just have to turn hard. I had pliers on the unit and was sure I'd have broken the unit if I turned harder. You have any such problem. Sounds to me like the lens units made with taillight hole too small in diameter.
 
Tomh3

#495 of 637 Re: License Plate Lights [tomh3] by remowus

Jun 19, 2006 (7:20 am)

Replying to: tomh3 (Jun 18, 2006 5:29 am)
I had a similar problem with my 03 ZTW.
The bolts on the shocks on my rear hatchback door
rusted out. The dealer said they had never seen that problem. But they fixed it under warranty at about 35k miles.
I'm replaceing my squeaky brakes all the way around here in a couple of weeks in my driveway. My son is a mechanic and we will do it when it cools down . Maybe we can have a brake party here in St. Louis. Let me know if you're interested.

#496 of 637 Re: Impressions about a Focus Wagon [mikus] by jazvan

Jun 20, 2006 (11:09 am)

Replying to: mikus (Jun 09, 2006 6:04 pm)
The 2.0 Zetec (old head) has 10 ft/lbs more torque which is significant in this type of car. The new 2.0 Focus engines all have the higher efficiency Mazda heads (Duratec) and they are rated at 136 hp and 37mpg hwy. It has the same head as the 2.3 which is basically stroked with added balance shafts. The 110 hp Zetec engine no longer exists, I wasn't thinking of this one and have to admit it compares poorly.
 
The "hot-rod" 180 hp MAtrix XRS is an interesting comparison point because my 2.3 wagon is faster and smoother and more efficient. 2.3 wagon has 0-60 of 7.9 seconds (Car and Driver) compared to 8.5 to 8.9 for a 180 hp XRS. My highway MPG is 35 compared to 30, I do not require high octane fuel and I have more cargo capacity. BTW I do achieve EPA MPG.
 
But my opinion that the Matrix engine is inferior is not based so much on specs but by just driving both cars. It is just displacement-challenged IMO and the Mazda-designed Focus engines are at least as efficient with more displacement.
 
Jaz.

#497 of 637 Rear wheel noise on 2003 ZTW wagon by jdudzienski

Jul 02, 2006 (1:56 pm)

Has anyone had issues with wheel bearing in the rear of the wagon? My wagon has 43K on it I have replaced all tires and shoes and pads. There is a vibration from the rear left when driving at all speeds. Very easy to hear on fresh blacktop, older roads hide the sound. Dealer said to replace both wheel bearing at 60k. Any thoughts?

#498 of 637 Re: Rear wheel noise on 2003 ZTW wagon [jdudzienski] by jazvan

Jul 02, 2006 (6:46 pm)

Replying to: jdudzienski (Jul 02, 2006 1:56 pm)
Is it just vibration, or a lot of noise too? Just vibration could be tire balance, 'cuz a lot of places never quite seem to get the balance right. Cheap check for that is rotate it with another wheel like the right front. Wheel bearings are possible but it's not normal at 60K. Personally I would just get the bad one done if you are sure that's what it is. I've never had a bad wheel bearing on any car and I drive them up to 150-190K miles. If a bearing seal is shot, that could make it wear out premature, so it's not impossible either. FWIW
 
Jaz

Messages Page 50 of 64

To POST a message, please Sign In.

Advertisement

Browse by Category

Browse by Vehicle
   View All Vehicles

Browse by Board
Browse by Topic
View All Topics

Edmunds Community

Advertisement