VFACTS July 2023

[Adamz Ghia]

Originally Posted by Syndrome

Ford Puma awful car. When my FG X was at the dealer last year having the diff bushes and center bearing replaced, they gave me loan car which was a Puma. As soon as I took off I thought "Wow what a rough engine. Is it a diesel"? I'd almost take the MG ZS I was loaned earlier this year over the Puma.

Having just had time with a ZS, and having driven a Puma, the ZS isn’t in the same league. MG’s are truly budget cars, but with not so budget prices.

[Fordman1]

Originally Posted by Adamz Ghia

Having just had time with a ZS, and having driven a Puma, the ZS isn’t in the same league. MG’s are truly budget cars, but with not so budget prices.

My wife has a Puma ST-Line in that nice bright Blue, it’s a lovely little car. It drives well (it’s good for a squirt down the street with that punchy little engine), it handles really well for a “Fat Fiesta”.

It’s a great little car, it looks really nice, I wish we had the glass roof.

[DFB FGXR6]

Originally Posted by Fordman1

My wife has a Puma ST-Line in that nice bright Blue, it’s a lovely little car. It drives well (it’s good for a squirt down the street with that punchy little engine), it handles really well for a “Fat Fiesta”.

It’s a great little car, it looks really nice, I wish we had the glass roof.

I've driven Puma's a few times now and liked them far more than I was expecting. The drive so nice and the engine has some character to it.

But...........I think those who do manage to get a test drive might be put off by the gruff sounding engine. I like it because it's got some character to it, even if it has no top end power. For a torquey run around, its feels very nippy without having to deal with diesel issues or the expense of a hybrid.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by DFB FGXR6

I've driven Puma's a few times now and liked them far more than I was expecting. The drive so nice and the engine has some character to it.

But...........I think those who do manage to get a test drive might be put off by the gruff sounding engine. I like it because it's got some character to it, even if it has no top end power. For a torquey run around, its feels very nippy without having to deal with diesel issues or the expense of a hybrid.

There's no doubt it's probably the best SUV in it's class, turbo 3 cylinder engine and it's based on the Fiesta.

I'd rather the Fiesta, same thing except it's smaller and lighter, so it'll use less fuel, steer/corner/accelerate better than the Puma.

Puma is objectively worse in every metric compared to the Fiesta it's based on, like all SUVs - they're all compromises just like dual cab Thailand Specials where they do everything but nothing exceptionally.

Just because Thailand Specials and SUVs are popular it doesn't mean they're good - MAFS is popular too but I don't see anyone here advocating it's the best thing on FTA TV

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

Puma is objectively worse in every metric compared to the Fiesta it's based on, like all SUVs - they're all compromises just like dual cab Thailand Specials where they do everything but nothing exceptionally.

The metrics you mentioned only matter on forums. In the real world it's about ease of use.

My daughter has an SA Focus. We have ZH Escape. They aren't much higher off the ground but it makes a lot of difference getting in and out.

My folks traded their falcon on a Tucson. They'll never go back to a non suv.

Being slightly higher off the ground is what the market wanted.

[Franco Cozzo]

Originally Posted by prydey

The metrics you mentioned only matter on forums. In the real world it's about ease of use.

My daughter has an SA Focus. We have ZH Escape. They aren't much higher off the ground but it makes a lot of difference getting in and out.

My folks traded their falcon on a Tucson. They'll never go back to a non suv.

Being slightly higher off the ground is what the market wanted.

Originally Posted by kevino

Ah Franco -you have never driven a Puma.
Wife had a 2012 1.6 na Fiesta.
I ve now got a 1.0 turbo 3 Puma.
Fuel consumption is better on Puma.
handling equal.
braking equal
Seat 100 points more better
Tech 200 points better-acc blind spot assist rev camera

You are wrong in this instance.

However if your comparison is a Fiesta ST it is a draw -you would want acceleration as no 1 -I want economy comfort and easy entry exit higher car.

I don't ever intend on driving one either, I don't need to drive a Puma to know that its going to drive worse than the Fiesta its based on,

You're comparing apples and oranges between the NA Fiesta and the boosted Puma, one uses ye olde Ford Sigma engine with VVTI and the other is a modern turbo 1L 3 cylinder engine - compare it with a WZ Fiesta Sport which has the same engine as the Puma.

We've got both a WZ ST Fiesta and a povvo spec 1.6L WS CL Fiesta - the WZ ST Fiesta uses less fuel than the naturally aspirated variant while making twice the power and torque, both 1.6L 4 cylinder engines but one dates back to the 1990s.

I took said WZ Fiesta ST on a 4000km drive across VIC/NSW/QLD and ACT, and I've used it for Adelaide and return six times, I wouldn't say its 'uncomfortable' or 'difficult' to get in and out of but I suspect my tolerance is higher.

We've got the least amount of choice ever in the new car market we've ever seen, you want something thats not an SUV or a Thailand Special then good luck.

Two options under $60K for someone who wants something thats manual and boosted:

Hyundai i30N
Subaru WRX

I think the problem is I actually enjoy driving, the people who buy SUVs use them to get from A-B and thats why a white goods manufacturer like Toyota dominates the market.

Trying to change my opinion about SUVs and Thailand Specials, you'd have more luck convincing a brick wall

[prydey]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

I think the problem is I actually enjoy driving,

Incorrect. I enjoy driving also however I'll keep my territory over falcon any day.

How tall are you? How old are you? I suspect that might tell a story.

[kevino]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

I don't ever intend on driving one either, I don't need to drive a Puma to know that its going to drive worse than the Fiesta its based on,

You're comparing apples and oranges between the NA Fiesta and the boosted Puma, one uses ye olde Ford Sigma engine with VVTI and the other is a modern turbo 1L 3 cylinder engine - compare it with a WZ Fiesta Sport which has the same engine as the Puma.

We've got both a WZ ST Fiesta and a povvo spec 1.6L WS CL Fiesta - the WZ ST Fiesta uses less fuel than the naturally aspirated variant while making twice the power and torque, both 1.6L 4 cylinder engines but one dates back to the 1990s.

I took said WZ Fiesta ST on a 4000km drive across VIC/NSW/QLD and ACT, and I've used it for Adelaide and return six times, I wouldn't say its 'uncomfortable' or 'difficult' to get in and out of but I suspect my tolerance is higher.

We've got the least amount of choice ever in the new car market we've ever seen, you want something thats not an SUV or a Thailand Special then good luck.

Two options under $60K for someone who wants something thats manual and boosted:

Hyundai i30N
Subaru WRX

I think the problem is I actually enjoy driving, the people who buy SUVs use them to get from A-B and thats why a white goods manufacturer like Toyota dominates the market.

Trying to change my opinion about SUVs and Thailand Specials, you'd have more luck convincing a brick wall

You are damning yourself. You should drive (Puma)one. And only then can you compare.


Umm I have a confession to make. MG ZS $23990.
I got a lift in one yesterday. Quite a tidy interior. Good looking seats but flat and probably unsupportive. I couldnt pick the gear changes.

As basic a-b transport burbs area for a non driver driver I can see why people buy them.

I would not buy one as I like a car to be a driver drivers car even if its only in some areas.

[jpd80]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

There's no doubt it's probably the best SUV in it's class, turbo 3 cylinder engine and it's based on the Fiesta.

I'd rather the Fiesta, same thing except it's smaller and lighter, so it'll use less fuel, steer/corner/accelerate better than the Puma.

Puma is objectively worse in every metric compared to the Fiesta it's based on, like all SUVs - they're all compromises just like dual cab Thailand Specials where they do everything but nothing exceptionally.

Just remember when you’re talking Puma vs Fiesta, the difference can be as little as 150 kg.
The other thing is that Ford stopped building Fiesta last month so that option is now basically gone.

[kevino]

Originally Posted by Franco Cozzo

There's no doubt it's probably the best SUV in it's class, turbo 3 cylinder engine and it's based on the Fiesta.

I'd rather the Fiesta, same thing except it's smaller and lighter, so it'll use less fuel, steer/corner/accelerate better than the Puma.

Puma is objectively worse in every metric compared to the Fiesta it's based on, like all SUVs - they're all compromises just like dual cab Thailand Specials where they do everything but nothing exceptionally.

Just because Thailand Specials and SUVs are popular it doesn't mean they're good - MAFS is popular too but I don't see anyone here advocating it's the best thing on FTA TV

Ah Franco -you have never driven a Puma.
Wife had a 2012 1.6 na Fiesta.
I ve now got a 1.0 turbo 3 Puma.
Fuel consumption is better on Puma.
handling equal.
braking equal
Seat 100 points more better
Tech 200 points better-acc blind spot assist rev camera

You are wrong in this instance.

However if your comparison is a Fiesta ST it is a draw -you would want acceleration as no 1 -I want economy comfort and easy entry exit higher car.