Ford Eco Sport Titanium-Looking to buy

Forums › Transport (cars, bikes and boats) › Ford Eco Sport Titanium-Looking to buy

1 | 2 | 3

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1435805 27-Nov-2015 09:43

MikeB4:
joker97:
MikeB4:
joker97: What kind of car is a Ford Eco Sport Titanium?

An Urban SUV

I've never heard of a Ford Eco.

I did it for you

Haha I did a google and lo and behold! I had pictured a large version of a Smart ForTwo ... close!

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1435811 27-Nov-2015 09:48

joker97:
MikeB4:
joker97:
MikeB4:
joker97: What kind of car is a Ford Eco Sport Titanium?

An Urban SUV

I've never heard of a Ford Eco.

I did it for you

Haha I did a google and lo and behold! I had pictured a large version of a Smart ForTwo ... close!

Actually when you see it for real it is a very nice looking car and nice inside. I had a close look at one a few weeks back.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1435839 27-Nov-2015 10:03

Oh, but surely that really is a mouth that only its mother can love?

What is it with Ford and their open-mouthed grill on so many of their models? Guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder as many people buy them, but personally I think that grill is even uglier than that on the new Mondeo. I think it's partially a result of this "suving" of small cars means the designers needs to stretch the height, sometimes with some 'interesting' aesthetic results.

As for the Juke? If I was it's mother I'd be tempted to expose it at birth.

OP - have you had a look at the Honda HRV? I saw one in the flesh recently and thought it was pretty good looking. Given it's based on the Jazz one can be sure it'll have a good-sized boot as well as a roomy and efficient interior (including the magic seat set-up). Personally, I'd not consider the CX3 (despite being a Mazda owner myself) and a number of those other small SUVs due to the tiny boots.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1435855 27-Nov-2015 10:30

jonathan18: Oh, but surely that really is a mouth that only its mother can love?

What is it with Ford and their open-mouthed grill on so many of their models? Guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder as many people buy them, but personally I think that grill is even uglier than that on the new Mondeo. I think it's partially a result of this "suving" of small cars means the designers needs to stretch the height, sometimes with some 'interesting' aesthetic results.

As for the Juke? If I was it's mother I'd be tempted to expose it at birth.

OP - have you had a look at the Honda HRV? I saw one in the flesh recently and thought it was pretty good looking. Given it's based on the Jazz one can be sure it'll have a good-sized boot as well as a roomy and efficient interior (including the magic seat set-up). Personally, I'd not consider the CX3 (despite being a Mazda owner myself) and a number of those other small SUVs due to the tiny boots.

Never buy an SUV if you are looking for large luggage space, the exceptions are Mitsubishi Challenger and like. If you want lots of boot look to a station wagon, if you want space and off road then the Subaru Outback is very good but at a premium price.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1435888 27-Nov-2015 10:52

MikeB4: Never buy an SUV if you are looking for large luggage space, the exceptions are Mitsubishi Challenger and like. If you want lots of boot look to a station wagon, if you want space and off road then the Subaru Outback is very good but at a premium price.

I would say that this really depends on the model, and is also influenced by the contemporary design trends for wagons - given the preference for a lower curved rear, boot capacity in many wagons is nothing like that of the old squared-off Volvo-like designs.

Case in point: my 2013 Mazda 6's boot is 451 litres (2015 version 501) - the Honda HRV is 470 litres. This is the reason I've ended up buying a roof box for holiday crud!

Also, one doesn't need to be looking for 'large' luggage space to find the boots of cars like the CX3 unacceptable. Seriously not much better than a Swift or a Mazda 2; I doubt the CX3 could take a baby stroller, which manages to fit fine in my wife's Jazz. The reality is there are always exceptions to generalisations, and I'd suggest that the Jazz/HRV platform provides one in terms of offering great space for the size of the vehicle, a point that is critical to many people, especially those with kids.

Batman

Mad Scientist
29760 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1435891 27-Nov-2015 10:55

MikeB4:
jonathan18: Oh, but surely that really is a mouth that only its mother can love?

What is it with Ford and their open-mouthed grill on so many of their models? Guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder as many people buy them, but personally I think that grill is even uglier than that on the new Mondeo. I think it's partially a result of this "suving" of small cars means the designers needs to stretch the height, sometimes with some 'interesting' aesthetic results.

As for the Juke? If I was it's mother I'd be tempted to expose it at birth.

OP - have you had a look at the Honda HRV? I saw one in the flesh recently and thought it was pretty good looking. Given it's based on the Jazz one can be sure it'll have a good-sized boot as well as a roomy and efficient interior (including the magic seat set-up). Personally, I'd not consider the CX3 (despite being a Mazda owner myself) and a number of those other small SUVs due to the tiny boots.

Never buy an SUV if you are looking for large luggage space, the exceptions are Mitsubishi Challenger and like. If you want lots of boot look to a station wagon, if you want space and off road then the Subaru Outback is very good but at a premium price.

The top selling cars in Australia are mostly SUVs. In fact the sole reason for the death of the falcon Commodore and camry are three letters. S. U. V.

But having owned a badly designed suv i completely agree with the statement.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1435892 27-Nov-2015 10:56

jonathan18:
MikeB4: Never buy an SUV if you are looking for large luggage space, the exceptions are Mitsubishi Challenger and like. If you want lots of boot look to a station wagon, if you want space and off road then the Subaru Outback is very good but at a premium price.

I would say that this really depends on the model, and is also influenced by the contemporary design trends for wagons - given the preference for a lower curved rear, boot capacity in many wagons is nothing like that of the old squared-off Volvo-like designs.

Case in point: my 2013 Mazda 6's boot is 451 litres (2015 version 501) - the Honda HRV is 470 litres. This is the reason I've ended up buying a roof box for holiday crud!

Also, one doesn't need to be looking for 'large' luggage space to find the boots of cars like the CX3 unacceptable. Seriously not much better than a Swift or a Mazda 2; I doubt the CX3 could take a baby stroller, which manages to fit fine in my wife's Jazz. The reality is there are always exceptions to generalisations, and I'd suggest that the Jazz/HRV platform provides one in terms of offering great space for the size of the vehicle, a point that is critical to many people, especially those with kids.

I have owned a few..

Mitsubishi Challenger
Toyota Land Cruiser
Toyota Prado
Suzuki Grand Vitara
Subaru Outback

All but the Challenger and Outback had poor space in the back. The Challenger was huge especially when all the seats were laid flat, and thats dead flat.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1435896 27-Nov-2015 11:01

joker97:

The top selling cars in Australia are mostly SUVs. In fact the sole reason for the death of the falcon Commodore and camry are three letters. S. U. V.

But having owned a badly designed suv i completely agree with the statement.

Most of the so called SUV's are just jacked up hatch backs. Which is fine, and they are easy to get into and out, offer great visibility but they generally compromise on ride quality, handling and economy. The later has been address by adding CVT's and dropping 4WD or AWD,
but adding CVT and going 2WD seams to defeat the purpose of a SUV.

jonathan18

7413 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1435901 27-Nov-2015 11:13

MikeB4: Most of the so called SUV's are just jacked up hatch backs. Which is fine, and they are easy to get into and out, offer great visibility but they generally compromise on ride quality, handling and economy. The later has been address by adding CVT's and dropping 4WD or AWD,
but adding CVT and going 2WD seams to defeat the purpose of a SUV.

I guess the "purpose" for an SUV is changing, or more significantly there are two completely different markets: using the term 'SUV' to cover everything from a 2WD CVT-fitted Ecothingy to a Landcruiser seems somewhat crazy, given they have little in common. People buying into the newer, larger and fastest-growing market of these jacked-up small cars don't generally care about 4WD or a decent gearbox. They purchase an "SUV" for the earlier reasons you mentioned (entry/egress, visibility) and - importantly - because it's trendy.

Totally agree about the compromises in handling etc; personally, I'll be sticking to a 'standard' car as I prefer the way my 6 sticks to the road and corners so well compared to the CX5, which is otherwise very similar. My biggest problem is trying to see over an increasing numbers of cars at intersections! (and scraping on curbs...)

MikeB4

18435 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#1435944 27-Nov-2015 11:43

jonathan18:
MikeB4: Most of the so called SUV's are just jacked up hatch backs. Which is fine, and they are easy to get into and out, offer great visibility but they generally compromise on ride quality, handling and economy. The later has been address by adding CVT's and dropping 4WD or AWD,
but adding CVT and going 2WD seams to defeat the purpose of a SUV.

I guess the "purpose" for an SUV is changing, or more significantly there are two completely different markets: using the term 'SUV' to cover everything from a 2WD CVT-fitted Ecothingy to a Landcruiser seems somewhat crazy, given they have little in common. People buying into the newer, larger and fastest-growing market of these jacked-up small cars don't generally care about 4WD or a decent gearbox. They purchase an "SUV" for the earlier reasons you mentioned (entry/egress, visibility) and - importantly - because it's trendy.

Totally agree about the compromises in handling etc; personally, I'll be sticking to a 'standard' car as I prefer the way my 6 sticks to the road and corners so well compared to the CX5, which is otherwise very similar. My biggest problem is trying to see over an increasing numbers of cars at intersections! (and scraping on curbs...)

A category name change would seem appropriate to say...

SUV for the Urban and xtra Urban vehicles eg CX5 Eco thingies , Vitara
RRV for things like Landcruiser etc RRV meaning 'Rough Road Vehicle'

alasta

6701 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Subscriber

#1435965 27-Nov-2015 12:23

MikeB4: A category name change would seem appropriate to say...

SUV for the Urban and xtra Urban vehicles eg CX5 Eco thingies , Vitara
RRV for things like Landcruiser etc RRV meaning 'Rough Road Vehicle'

In my view the terminology is currently misused.

I always understood the term 'SUV' to refer to a proper rugged vehicle - e.g. Land Rover. The watered down versions that most people are buying these days - e.g. CX5, Sportage, etc. - should be referred to as 'crossovers'. They are not SUVs even though many of the manufacturers use that term.

nakedmolerat

4629 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#1436002 27-Nov-2015 13:18

MikeB4:
jonathan18:
MikeB4: Most of the so called SUV's are just jacked up hatch backs. Which is fine, and they are easy to get into and out, offer great visibility but they generally compromise on ride quality, handling and economy. The later has been address by adding CVT's and dropping 4WD or AWD,
but adding CVT and going 2WD seams to defeat the purpose of a SUV.

I guess the "purpose" for an SUV is changing, or more significantly there are two completely different markets: using the term 'SUV' to cover everything from a 2WD CVT-fitted Ecothingy to a Landcruiser seems somewhat crazy, given they have little in common. People buying into the newer, larger and fastest-growing market of these jacked-up small cars don't generally care about 4WD or a decent gearbox. They purchase an "SUV" for the earlier reasons you mentioned (entry/egress, visibility) and - importantly - because it's trendy.

Totally agree about the compromises in handling etc; personally, I'll be sticking to a 'standard' car as I prefer the way my 6 sticks to the road and corners so well compared to the CX5, which is otherwise very similar. My biggest problem is trying to see over an increasing numbers of cars at intersections! (and scraping on curbs...)

A category name change would seem appropriate to say...

SUV for the Urban and xtra Urban vehicles eg CX5 Eco thingies , Vitara
RRV for things like Landcruiser etc RRV meaning 'Rough Road Vehicle'

No it has'nt.

The correct term is CUV and SUV.

Ecosport is crossover utility vehicle. It means car for soccer/rugby mum.

On a serious note, it is too small for fat guys like me. It is the Fiesta on steroid but same seating space.

Fred99

13684 posts

Uber Geek

#1436070 27-Nov-2015 14:36

alasta:
MikeB4: A category name change would seem appropriate to say...

SUV for the Urban and xtra Urban vehicles eg CX5 Eco thingies , Vitara
RRV for things like Landcruiser etc RRV meaning 'Rough Road Vehicle'

In my view the terminology is currently misused.

I always understood the term 'SUV' to refer to a proper rugged vehicle - e.g. Land Rover. The watered down versions that most people are buying these days - e.g. CX5, Sportage, etc. - should be referred to as 'crossovers'. They are not SUVs even though many of the manufacturers use that term.

I'd hardly consider an old-style Landrover a "Sport" Utility Vehicle. Neither are most "Utes" from an Australasian perspective.
In fact I'd probably just delete "Sport" from the designation of all cars, except those made and used specifically for motorsport. Oh wait, off-roading is a "motorsport" apparently.
But wait, there's "RV", "Crossover". Silliest name/designation of all is Mercedes' "Shooting Brake". What-oh - the Germans shoot pheasants on their English estates?
However, I do want a car that's luxurious but easy to clean, aggressive but refined, small but spacious, rugged but nimble, frugal but powerful, and makes just the right statement about "me" without being ostentatious. Then the madmen will have sold happiness.

Dingbatt

6754 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#1436084 27-Nov-2015 14:55

Fred99: ............However, I do want a car that's luxurious but easy to clean, aggressive but refined, small but spacious, rugged but nimble, frugal but powerful, and makes just the right statement about "me" without being ostentatious. Then the madmen will have sold happiness.

I'll take two thanks! But only if I can choose the colour.

Of interest, I looked at a couple of 'demonstrator' vehicles. The (Ford) dealer had them on for only $1000 less than brand new, couldn't take possession until January and god knows who would be driving them in the interim. With targets to be met by year's end, I think I'll wait a bit.

It would appear that the Ecosport and Kuga (and Territory) are sticking with the current grill and not going to the Aston Martin inspired grill on the Fiesta, Focus, Mondeo and Falcon (and Mustang - kind of).

“We’ve arranged a society based on science and technology, in which nobody understands anything about science technology. Carl Sagan 1996

scuwp

3885 posts

Uber Geek

#1436157 27-Nov-2015 16:05

It's a Ford. That's enough for me to say nope. Had a few, still have one, never again no matter how nice they look.

Lazy is such an ugly word, I prefer to call it selective participation

1 | 2 | 3