This leaves the number of American cars I would consider buying at one: the Chevy Bolt. I like the Fusion and Focus.
I test drove a Focus and a C-Max. Both cars were bad. The interior was uncomfortable, cheaply made and even looked cheap. The Focus wagon/hatchback was small and drove like shit. The only C-Max I see on the road are taxis, the only Focus I see on the road have HERTZ stickers on them. I know mo real normal people with either car.
Interesting. A coworker has a plug-in hybrid C-Max. I've seen another regular hybrid C-Max, and it was rare enough I still remember where I saw it. I realize I know of nobody with a Focus. I see them on the roads, but I don't know anyone with one. Another coworker has a Fusion, though. My impression of Ford is they make decent cars, but maybe my impression is flawed and evidenced by their lackluster sales.
Focus has gas terrible luck with transmissions. The dual clutch auto was bad. The fit fair and drive feel was also inferior to the Mazda 3, all it could compete on was price. It will be interesting to see how ford will make their fleet average mileage numbers without cars though. There is going to be a segment of Kia Soul clones out there that Ford will have to sell to make MPG figures
The Mazda 3 is a great car. Drives great, neat interior, good visibility, great build quality. I was a bit upset when the telescope could not fit in the car and I had to go with a different car. It's better than the Ford cars in every way, and less expensive.
The EPA is entertaining the idea of rolling back future target mpg standards. Ford has been playing with the idea of dropping sedans for a while and maybe they think now they'll be able to if the pressure from the EPA for efficiency targets is let up a bit.It will be interesting to see how ford will make their fleet average mileage numbers without cars though.
It's close to irrelevant, because a huge number of "crossovers" are just large hatchbacks. The way car architecture is designed these days, there are platforms on which cars, trucks, and SUVs are all built. The difference, e.g., between a Malibu and an Equinox, is mostly window dressing; same applies to a Prius and a Rav4, and there are many other examples across manufacturers (although I admittedly know very little about Ford). The fuel economy differences are real due to the added weight of a bigger body, and often AWD, but they're not huge.
My understanding is that the overall fuel economy of the fleet has to reach a certain number. I'm no expert, so I may be incorrect. I think that if Ford introduces an all electric truck that would count for a lot no matter that it's a truck (or that electric cars aren't really that great for the environment!). Edit: I mean to say that it's irrelevant in terms of fuel economy by my understanding. I actually think they're making a huge mistake strategically, as fashions change with the wind.
I know a guy who had a Focus. I'm 5'8" and the front seat was cramped. He's six something and I don't know how he drove it. I drive a Chevy Spark which is in the same class as a Smart Car and people are usually surprised by its interior size. In the front. It has a back row in theory more than practice
I've never driven a Focus, admittedly, but I like the size. I had a two door Civic that was small for my height but sort of just right. I think I could manage a Focus.
Does Ford refer to more than one Focus as Foci? What about Nissan with the Leaf? If I went to a dealer, would I ask "do you have many Leaves on the lot?" I've always wondered this. I assume they'd say Leafs, but I kind of hope it's Leaves.
My wife and I are looking this weekend at the Chevy Malibu. So far, from online research it looks pretty solid. Anyone have any personal experience with it? She's getting rid of her 2008 Saturn Aura. It's been a great car, and only now is starting to show it's age in terms of now costing us some bucks in repairs to keep it in top shape.
The new malibu is very different from any previous version. I'm actually surprised they didn't change the name. It's a fantastic car. I drive one for a year, and I loved it. I would recommend the 1.5L engine. They also make a 2.0 (both are turbo), but I never found I needed the extra power, and the milage is a lot better in the 1.5 (I averaged about 33, but I drive like an old person). It drives much more like a perfomance car than you would expect for a mid size sedan. For what it is, I'd give it an A, for sure.
Thanks man. In our research online, finding the Malibu's limitation of a 4-cylinder engine looked like a stopper for my wife. A car with a 6-cylinder, or larger, engine was on her short list of deal breakers to begin with. Some extra anecdotal evidence should help us keep an open mind when we test drive them.
Have to remember it's a 4cyl turbo. That's totally different than your mother's 4. 2.0T engines are in performance cars from the WRX to the Evoque to the ATS, etc, etc. It's a very popular engine because it's fast when you want it to be and fuel efficient when you aren't in a hurry. The Malibu's 2.0 makes 250hp, which on a car of that size is more than enough. Taste is one thing, so you may or may not like the car as much as I did, but I highly doubt you'll be disappointed by the performance.