Skip to content
Ever seen one of these?
bertandnairobi
30 August 2012
Average rating: 0
Add your comment
Sign in You must be signed in to submit a comment.
Media Gallery Detail
Subject
Your comment
By submitting your comment, you agree to adhere to the CAR Magazine website Terms and Conditions
Cancel
You must be logged in to subscribe to a topic
Login or register now
bertandnairobi says
RE: Media Gallery Detail
I´d like to clear up any misundestanding. Ford haven´t called this a coupe, to their credit. I was making an ironic reference to some non-coupé Mercedes were talking up as a coupé. They may as well call their S-class based 3-door, raised-chassis, 4WD liftback a "motorbike". I was trying to say that if M-B can call a five-door sausage a "coupe" so Ford can call their Focus a coupé. Which they don´t. That title could have gone to the Focus 3-door (which they don´t bother making). The Focus 2 was confident in that they felt it was quite alright to keep it dead simple, in a good way. A lack of confidence can involve over-doing it, as this car and many others do. As the years have gone by (and how quickly they do) the Focus 2 has crept into my slim catalogue of cars I consider thought provoking and eye-catching. By this I mean I always want to stop and study the Focus 2 (phase 1) in the way old Saabs and the Citroen CX make me look and look again. Am I mad? B&N
I´d like to clear up any misundestanding. Ford haven´t called this a coupe, to their credit. I was making an ironic reference to some non-coupé Mercedes were talking up as a coupé. They may as well call their S-class based 3-door, raised-chassis, 4WD liftback a "motorbike". I was trying to say that if M-B can call a five-door sausage a "coupe" so Ford can call their Focus a coupé. Which they don´t. That title could have gone to the Focus 3-door (which they don´t bother making).
The Focus 2 was confident in that they felt it was quite alright to keep it dead simple, in a good way. A lack of confidence can involve over-doing it, as this car and many others do. As the years have gone by (and how quickly they do) the Focus 2 has crept into my slim catalogue of cars I consider thought provoking and eye-catching. By this I mean I always want to stop and study the Focus 2 (phase 1) in the way old Saabs and the Citroen CX make me look and look again. Am I mad?
B&N
04 October 2012 11:56
AReader says
Has Ford called this a coupe? I recognize it as a dolled up (wheels + skirts) version of the Ford Focus sedan. My neighbour has one - with more normally sized alloy wheels. Having read through the earlier comments, a few thoughts come to mind. I'm not sure I'd use the word confident to describe any design. I'd describe the Focus II as restrained, perhaps clean. The Focus III seems overdone, unnecessarily complex. I'm not sure of the timing of the various models, but think that Focus II fits in with the 2nd generation Mondeo, and in the US, the Ford 500, as being somewhat VW/Audi-ish. All these cars seemed a bit characterless, as if J.Mays was not very confident about where to take Ford's design. By contrast, whatever you think about "kinetic" styling or whatever it is now called, Martin Smith seems to have had the confidence to take Ford in a direction he believes in. I think it was Smith who coined the term "surface entertainment" when observing Bangle's efforts. His comment seemed a bit critical, but it did not stop him from jumping on the bandwagon. He beat out Horbury in the stakes to design One Ford. I do think that the Focus III is overdone, but think it fits into a world which is focused on overachieving. I think people now associate complexity with technology with cutting edge - and so perhaps the designers of today's Fords see their cars as reflecting society's current state.
31 August 2012 14:50
To be fair to the Focus 2, it´s not only because the successor is so dire that this one looks acceptable. I think the Mk2 was a solid bit of work and built on firm design principles. Chris Bangle´s concept of surface entertainment is open to interpretation. I read it as meaning that a single surface is dynamic and varied in its curvature. I don´t take it to mean that there should be a lot of different surfaces. Actually, the more surfaces you have, as per this "coupe" shown above, the less room for any one surface to develop. Are these modern designs just rock and roll to the earlier Mantovanis? No, it´s more as if contemporary design is reaching for a mass of tried and tested formula and using them all at once. The Focus 3 is not remotely radical and nor are any of the busy shapes from Citroen. Rather than bust out of the framework, these designers are re-using stale tropes in greater quanity. A single good design can be simple. A tired concept needs make-up and spangly garnishes to hide its emptiness. This car is Stock, Aiken and Waterman.
31 August 2012 13:43
seant says
I understand what B&N means about appreciating the Focus 2 more, but I need to remind myself that, for me at least, that is because the yardstick set by the dire Focus 3 just elevates it by default. My natural inclination has not been for conservative designs, it is only in the last few years that I have become so reactionary, for want of a better word. Why is this? My attitude towards bad US car design was always that the designers had too large a canvas to work on, and too little respect for their clients. Thus, they considered the poor souls unable to follow a line or shape for more than a specific length (let’s say 27½” since we’re in Detroit) without the need to stop and be amused by a gewgaw. This isn’t true, as a classic design like the Lincoln Continental testifies. With smaller canvasses, it’s only in recent years that European designers have felt the same need. I hesitate to raise Chris Bangle’s name, since I consider what he did perfectly reasonable, but the dogma of ‘surface entertainment’ is horribly patronising, with its assumption that your attention span is so pathetic that you require the visual equivalent of elevator music to ease your eye’s journey. Looking at this car, I ask myself what sort of music those curves on the flanks represent. I think I understand them, and justly condemn them, but am I right? I remember my Grandmother’s wail of ‘Oh those horrid screechy electric guitars - why can’t they just play a nice tune like Mantovani’. Maybe I have become the same. To me those side bulges are incoherent and crass, but to younger eyes are they clever and brave. Is someone playing Stockhausen in the elevator that is automotive styling?
31 August 2012 13:26
kubrick says
Parking the Focus II next to a Golf V, I'd have to agree with your assessment. The Golf IV, however, I rate highly, which is why I'd attribute that car's sheer surfaces to a clear intention - or strong confidence, to use your choice of words - and artfulness. The Golf IV and Passat B5 are sensational pieces of styling in my opinion, which makes it all the more astonishing how VW could feel the urge to move away from this template with the underwhelming Golf V and ghastly Passat B6. The Bird Fords I consider minor siblings of this golden generation of Volkswagen models. That puts them quite some way ahead of the Günak/Schreyer dross, but not at eyelevel with the best of the Warkuß era.
Parking the Focus II next to a Golf V, I'd have to agree with your assessment. The Golf IV, however, I rate highly, which is why I'd attribute that car's sheer surfaces to a clear intention - or strong confidence, to use your choice of words - and artfulness. The Golf IV and Passat B5 are sensational pieces of styling in my opinion, which makes it all the more astonishing how VW could feel the urge to move away from this template with the underwhelming Golf V and ghastly Passat B6.
The Bird Fords I consider minor siblings of this golden generation of Volkswagen models. That puts them quite some way ahead of the Günak/Schreyer dross, but not at eyelevel with the best of the Warkuß era.
31 August 2012 12:58
