2016 Ford Focus “Triple”

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

I have a three cylinder motorcycle. A “triple.”'16 Focus lead

For a 400 pound bike, it’s plenty. But how about a 2,900 pound car?

A 3,000 pound-plus car, once you add you.

Well, me.

But the Ford Focus manages – probably because its “triple” makes 123 hp – which is a lot of power for a 1 liter engine (the mighty Kawasaki triple – which was considered a terror in its time – only made 72 hp).

Now, it’s not as quick as the Widowmaker was (remember, it weighed 400 pounds) but it’s not slow, either. The three-pot Focus can make it to 60 in about 9.5 seconds, about the same as other small cars with larger (and thirstier) four cylinder engines.

Speaking of which: The EPA says 30 city, 42 highway – the latter figure about as good as it gets unless you get a hybrid or a diesel (good luck with that right now; courtesy of Uncle’s jihad against VW).

Of course, there’s a catch. There always is.'75 S1 250 detail

Well, two of them.

The first is that the Ford’s spunky little three isn’t standard.

The second is that Ford won’t sell it to you unless you first buy the more expensive SE (or to-of-the-line Titanium) trim.

It’s not available in the base (and just over $17k to start) S trim.

So, in order to get some more MPGs, you’ve got to spend some more money. Which takes away some from the value of saving money on gas.

But there are some other upsides that make up for this.

WHAT IT IS'16 Focus composite

The Focus is Ford’s “small car” – a compact sedan (and hatchback sedan) that’s a notch up from the really small (subcompact) Fiesta and one notch down from the mid-sized Fusion.

It uniquely (in its segment) offers a three cylinder engine and (if you buy it) segment-best fuel economy with either of its available transmissions.

Unless you go hybrid – or diesel (if you can find one; at the time of this review – mid-May – VW was still in a holding pattern, forbidden by EPA fatwa from selling any diesel-powered cars and Chevy – the only other brand that offered affordable diesels – currently doesn’t sell any, either).

This review will … er… focus on the three cylinder-powered version of the Focus.

To get this one, you start  with the SE trim – which has a starting price of $18,515 (vs. $17,225 for the base trim S sedan, which isn’t available with the three cylinder engine). Now you can buy the “EcoBoost” 1.0 engine (which replaces the otherwise standard 2.0 liter four cylinder engine). The add-on cost for this upgrade is $495, bringing the car’s sticker to $19,010.

A roomier (for cargo) hatchback version of the Focus is also available. Prices for that one start at $19,015 (for the SE trim) and run to $23,725 for the Titanium trim. Note that the hatch is not offered in base S trim.   '16 Focus interior 1

Possible cross-shop include the just-redesigned (2016) Chevy’s Cruze – which comes standard with a very small four cylinder engine (1.4 liters) that’s also turbocharged.

Its base price – $16,120 – also undercuts the Ford.

By a lot.

There’s also the just-updated Honda Civic – which also offers a small turbo four (1.5 liters) but the emphasis here is performance (it’s one of the quickest cars in this class) as much as economy – reflected in the turbocharged Honda’s $22,200-to-start sticker price.

The Ford’s greatest worry, though, is probably the Mazda3, which isn’t three cylinder-powered (or turbocharged) but is more economically priced ($17,845 to start) than all of them and also very economical to drive (41 MPG on the highway with the manual transmission) as well as very fun to drive.

WHAT’S NEW'16 Focus Sync3

All versions of the Focus get the upgraded (Sync 3) version of Ford’s infotainment system – three (no, four) cheers! – and the EcoBoost three is now available with an automatic transmission.

Previously, this engine was paired only with a manual.    


Available in sedan or hatchback body styles (Cruze and Civic don’t offer the hatchback sedan layout… at the moment).

Available with a manual transmission – in all trims, not just the base trim.

Almost-hybrid/nearly diesel fuel-efficiency for much less than either.'16 Focus front seats

Roomier than rivals up front (43.1 inches of legroom vs. 42 inches in the Cruze, 42.3 in the Civic and 42.2 in the Mazda3).

Accelerates decently even with the automatic (very tiny and usually torque-deficient engines tend to work not-well with automatics; this one does because it’s a turbocharged tiny engine).

Much better mileage than the standard 2.0 four (no turbo) paired with the manual transmission.

It’s actually pretty fun to drive – as well as being economical to drive.


Lowest-cost S trim is only available in the sedan body style.

Cost to get the fuel-efficient and fun-to-drive version of the Focus – whether you go sedan or hatchback wagon – is higher than just-as-fun (and almost as efficient) Mazda3.

Tight back seat (33.2 inches) vs. Civic (37.4 inches) and Chevy Cruze (36.1 inches).

UNDER THE HOOD'16 Focus engine 1

The as-it-comes Focus is powered by a 2.0 liter, 160 hp – available with either a five-speed manual transmission (standard) or a six-speed automatic (optionally).

This is typical for the segment.

Atypical is the Ford’s optional engine, which is half the size (just 1 liter) and has only three cylinders.

Ordinarily, this would be too small for a car – even a compact-sized car like the Focus.

Enter the turbo.

It boosts the output of this micro-engine to 123 hp (and 125 ft.-lbs. of torque at 3,500 RPM). This is more output-per-displacement than the power produced by the much larger (twice its size) 2.0 liter four that’s that standard (and only available) engine in the Mazda3.

It makes 155 hp and 150 ft.-lbs. of torque at 4,000 RPM '16 Focus badge

Ditto the Chevy Cruz’s also-larger (and also-turbocharged) 1.4 liter, 153 hp four cylinder engine.

The Ford edges both of them out – just slightly – on MPGs: 30 city, 42 highway with the standard six-speed manual transmission (an upgrade over the five-speed that comes with the 2.0 engine) vs. 30 city, 41 highway for the Mazda (with the automatic; manual versions notch down to 29 city, 41 highway).

The Chevy Cruze is also right there with Ford: 29 city, 41 highway.'16 Focus automatic

You might also want to have a look at the Honda Civic with its optional 1.5 liter turbo four. It’s the wild card of the bunch because it makes much more power (174 hp) than any of them and delivers best-in-class acceleration (6.6 seconds, about 2-3 seconds quicker than either the Ford or the Chevy) but still manages to deliver an extremely impressive 31 city, 42 highway.

Of course, there’s a catch – and it’s the Honda’s MSRP.

At $22,200 to start (for the EX-T equipped with the 1.5 liter engine) it costs $3,190 more than the EcoBoosted Focus ($19,010) and $4,080 more than the new Chevy Cruze.

As mentioned earlier, Ford now offers the 1.0 engine with an automatic (optionally) in addition to the standard six-speed manual.'16 triple

If you go with the automatic, your mileage will dip slightly to 28 city, 40 highway – which is also slightly less than the automatic-equipped  Mazda3.

But it’s a negligible difference in real-world driving.

I averaged 34.6 MPG during a weeklong test drive in mixed city-highway conditions, including some highway cruising at 80-plus MPH.'16 Focus manual

That is excellent economy.

Especially relative to the four cylinder-powered/manual five-speed transmission-equipped Focus – which carries an EPA rating of just 26 city, 36 highway. This is mediocre for a compact-sized economy car (see the stats posted by rivals like the Cruz and Mazda3 with their standard engines).

The mileage goes up – a lot – if you go for the optional automatic: 27 city, 40 highway. But then acceleration wilts to just over 9 seconds – considerably less quick than the manual-equipped version, which does the run in just over 8 seconds.

If you want a manual and good gas mileage and decent acceleration, too – the EcoBoosted three is the way to go.

ON THE ROAD'16 Focus road 1

I was surprised – pleasantly – by the three cylinder’s ability to work well with an automatic transmission.

About six months ago, I test drove the Mitsubishi Mirage – which is also powered (if you want to use that word) by a triple.

But not a turbocharged one.

Result? 74 hp – about the same as my triple – but saddled with an additional 2,500 pounds to haul.'75 S1 250 detail

The Mirage – though very economical – is a three-legged dog.

On Ambien.

It takes about 12 seconds to get to 60. The Ford is a Ferrari in comparison.

Both cars deliver outstanding fuel economy, but the Ford doesn’t leave you always playing catch up. The Mirage – which I like – is a great choice for a city car or suburban short-haul commuter. But it is on the edge when on the highway. It’ll get to 80 … eventually.

But it won’t go much faster.

Which means you’re running pretty much all out just to keep up with the flow of today’s Interstate traffic.

The Focus –  with almost twice the power –  has power in reserve at 80. No problems keeping up with traffic.

No problems passing traffic, either.'16 Focus road 2

I think the car is more fun with the manual but the automatic doesn’t  gimp its ability to get going. In Sport mode, the thing shifts almost ferociously – holding revs in each gear until (like Paul Masson wines) it’s time to upshift. It makes use of every hp and every foot-pound of torque you’ve got.

Put it back in Drive and things calm down.

You will be surprised – pleasantly – by how well it performs. By how much fun it is to drive. Even with the automatic. That’s rare praise for an economy car – especially one with an automatic.

It’s got game in the curves, too.'16 Focus road 2

I was (again) pleasantly surprised by how hard (and how far) I was able to push the Focus before it began to slide – and pleasantly surprised by the controlled way it slides. Keep in mind that Ford uses this car as the basis for the high-performance Focus RS (reviewed separately) which is a demon seed car that’ll wake you up faster than an IV drip of cuban espresso.

Ford’s main worry here is that the Mazda3 is also Big Fun but doesn’t carry a big MSRP.

Neither does the Ford, to be fair. But it does cost more than the Mazda – and much as I’m a fan of the punchy little EcoBoosted engine, I’m still (personally, if I were buying) a little leery about turbochargers – which the Mazda hasn’t got.

Especially because the engines are now direct-injected, too. The potential issue here is carbon build-up on the intake valves and the possibility of carbon flakes migrating to the turbo’s innards…  with unhappy results.


These cars all look pretty much the same.

None of them are ugly. But they are pretty homogenized. You tell them apart chiefly by the shape of the grille – and the badge on the grille. '16 Focus curb 1

The differences that matter are – chiefly – inside.

And here the Ford has its good – and bad – points.

On the good side of the ledger, it’s got best-in-class driver/front seat passenger legroom: 43.1 inches. That is a lot of legroom. For a frame of reference, the Mercedes S-Class sedan  – which is a full-sized, six-figure luxury sedan that’s several feet longer overall than the Focus –  only has 41.3 inches of front seat legroom.

On the bad side, the Focus is narrower inside than rivals like the Mazda3, which has an incredible (for a car this size) 57.2 inches of front seat shoulder room as opposed to 55.6 for the Ford. Backseat legroom in the Ford is also tight –  33.2 inches – which is much less than in the Cruze (36.1 inches) and less than the Mazda3 (35.8 inches) and – though not by much – the Honda Civic (34 inches).'16 Focus cut-away

The Ford does have a bit more backseat headroom than most of its rivals, though: 38 inches vs. 37.2 in the Honda, 37.3 in the Chevy and 37.6 in the Mazda. It doesn’t sound like a big difference on paper, but if you’re tall-torso’d, it can be a difference that makes all the difference.

You can also get the Focus in the hatchback sedan body – which almost doubles the Ford’s cargo space behind the second row (to 23.8 cubic feet from 13.2 in the sedan) and more than… triples it (to 44.8 cubes) when you fold the second row flat.

The Chevy Cruze and Honda Civic currently come only as sedans. Both of them will be available as hatchbacks – but not until next year (model year 2017).

But the Mazda3 is available as a hatchback right now – and it has about the same cargo capacity (20.2 cubes with the second row in place, 47.1 with the seats folded down).

Once again, it stands out as the Ford’s strongest rival.16 Focus screen

Another example of which is the size of the two cars’ standard infotainment screens. The Ford comes standard with a pretty small (4.2 inch) screen that’s not touch-activated. The Mazda comes standard with a 7 inch LCD screen that’s both knob and touch activated. Even in base trim, the value-priced Mazda does not come across as value priced. The base (and even SE) trim Ford don’t come across as cheap-looking. But neither do they come across as being nicer than their price.

On the other hand, you can upgrade to an 8-inch touchscreen that’s bigger and (arguably) nicer than the best-you-can-get in the Mazda3 (even top-of-the-range Gran Touring trims get the same 7-inch screen as the base trim). Of its immediate rivals, only the Chevy Cruze also offers an 8-inch screen.

Additionally, Titanium trims get Ford’s unique exterior touchpad entry system, which you’ll appreciate if you ever misplace your key fob. You’ll also get exterior puddle lamps and heated seats – and you can order a self-parking system, too. This latter is impressive technology but – c’mon – if you can’t parallel park a compact-sized car without the assistance of technology, maybe you shouldn’t be driving at all.      '16 Focus keypad

I like that the Focus has an old-school emergency brake lever; the kind you pull up to engage the rear brakes manually. To me, this is a genuine emergency brake – as opposed to a parking brake that’s engaged electronically, by depressing a button (which is what many new cars have). The pull-up brake is something you could actually use to slow the car in a controlled manner if the main brakes ever failed (forget this with the electric-activated button brake, which is either on or off and can’t be modulated). More importantly, you can use the pull-up brake lever to have fun with the car – by locking up the rear wheels and simultaneously hard-cranking the steering wheel to perform Secret Service-style 180s.

This is, after all, a young person’s car.

Let the old coots drive Camrys.old coot


The EcoBoost engine comes standard with an auto-stop/start system which – happily – can be turned off so that the engine doesn’t turn off every time you hit a red light. Unfortunately, you have to turn the system off every time you go for drive.

The default setting is on unless you select otherwise.

Do not curse Ford.

Curse Uncle.

Ford – and a growing roster of car companies – are resorting to auto-stop/start to eke out fractional gains in fleet average fuel economy. In order to avoid Uncle’s fines. We pay for this in add-on costs and add-on hassles.

To turn off the traction control, meanwhile, do not look for an old-timey button. Instead, scroll through the digitized menu selections (look at the secondary LCD cluster in between the speedo and the tach) and check “off” … if you’d like to chirp the tires a little.mirror pic

I’m not a fan of Ford’s RV-style outside rearview mirrors – which have two mirrors each. One is the normal style that gives you the normal rearward view; the other (smaller) mirror is supposed to help with blind spots but (and maybe this is just me) looking from one to the other forces your eyes to shift focus from one view to another view. I find it disconcerting and prefer the regular/one-piece mirrors. Even more preferable would be less-thick B and C pillars (necessary to comply with Uncle’s ridiculous roof-crush/rollover standards) which would greatly reduce blind spots… which would greatly reduce the need for RV-style mirrors on compact-sized cars.


The package is very appealing overall – if only the price were just a little lower.'16 Focus last

The triple is definitely worth considering if you really like the Focus – and like the mileage of the base Focus with the 2.0 engine – but can’t abide the sluggishness of the 2.0-equipped Focus with the automatic.

Or its thirst with the manual.

But that snarky little Mazda3 is hard to knock – and Ford’s got some work to do (and some prices to slash) to make the Focus an easier sell against that one.

EPautos.com depends on you to keep the wheels turning! The control freaks (Clovers) hate us. Goo-guhl blackballed us.

Will you help us? 

Our donate button is here.

 If you prefer not to use PayPal, our mailing address is:

721 Hummingbird Lane SE
Copper Hill, VA 24079

PS: EPautos stickers – new design, larger and magnetic! – are free to those who send in $10 or more to support the site. Please be sure to tell us you want one – and also, provide a mailing address, so we can get the thing to you!EPautoslogo


Share Button


  1. As luck would have it, a week or so after reading this article, I took a trip to Ireland, where I had the opportunity to drive a Ford Fiesta with the 1.0, 3 cyl. engine. My Hertz rental was right hand drive (I’m stationed in the UK, so no issues there), 5 spd, with the 1.0 minus the turbo, producing somewhere in the neighborhood of 70bhp.

    In the UK in particular, and by extension, both Irelands, cars are typically under-powered to mitigate taxes that are bracketed by engine size. The Fiesta will no doubt be particularly popular as a result. That said the base 1.0 is a dog.

    Driving at highway speeds was generally possible, but you had to plan way ahead if you were going to try to overtake one of the many trucks (lorries) traveling at 100km/h. Passing on a 2 lane road was near impossible. Simply driving up any of the hills in the backcountry (and Ireland is mostly backcountry) demanded a series of down shifts, typically resulting a 1st gear crawl to simply keep the car moving forward. We joked about having the kids get out to push on multiple occasions.

    The 5 spd transmission was terrible. 1st gear was too short and nested poorly with 2nd. 2nd was also too short, and didn’t nest at all with 3rd. 3rd/4th/5th gears were all fine, and I spent a lot of time in a lower gear to mitigate the lack of power. Shifting was sloppy at best. The transmission wanted to pull your hand to the left, so shifting from 4th to 5th more often than not resulted in a shift to 3rd. Ultimately I tried to keep the car revving in the 3,500 – 4,000 rpm range, which was where the engine seemed to peak, but that said, I red-lined the engine a lot, repeatedly prompting the rev limiter to kick in…not fun.

    The suspension was decent and the car cornered well enough. The lack of power prevented any sense of torque steer. The turning radius was horrible though, prompting several extended 3 (4,5,6) point turns, which initially surprised me because the car is tiny.

    I will offer that in some manual right-hand drive cars, finding a place to put your left foot can be a challenge, but that wasn’t an issue for me in the Fiesta. The clutch provided good positive control, working as you’d hope a clutch would.

    Over the course of our trip we averaged 41 mpg (which we had to convert from liters/kilometers).

  2. If turbo develops problems/fails, does it need to be fixed? Can the car run without it?

    With carbon buildup, wouldn’t using top tier gas and running the car hard occasionally help?

    • Hi C_lover,

      If the turbo goes, the engine will run like ass – if it runs at all. The carbon build up issue is a direct injection (DI) issue, not a fuel (or additive) issue.In carbureted and TBI, PFI systems, the fuel (and additives) cleans/cools the intake valve because it’s sprayed or admitted behind the valve. in DI, the fuel is injected directly into the cylinder, like the spark from the plug. DI/carbon issues could be a major headache in the years ahead…

  3. I’ve owned exactly ONE underpowered vehicle, a Nissan pickup. Most of the time(60/40 maybe?) it was tolerable but in west Tx. where the wind blows 70 mph it sucks. People from the SE won’t understand this. But places we see on the news with collapsed roofs and big overhead awnings blown away because of storms that had winds of “45 mph” in Georgia were always a hoot to us. Oh shit, not 45 mph winds. What will happen next?

    I guess people learn to build differently in the SE and cardboard is a good building material with enough roofing nails. We stick piers 5′ into the ground with a couple yards of concrete around each one……and watch the hay barn blow over the house and barn and come down on the neighbor a mile away.

    Back to underpowered though. There’s nothing like being in a hurry, being sick or simply having to drive a hundred or a couple hundred miles in 4th gear cause the sumbitch won’t pull 60 mph in 5th. That pickup drove me to drink….literally. I’d have a big Igloo water cooler full of beer in the bed and just put it to the floor. I used to leave work and the N wind would be blowing. I’d stop 7 miles down the road, throw my first two into the bed and get another. It would be a 6 pack trip home, 30 miles away. At least it had a good stereo and was invisible to cops if you weren’t going 20 over the limit which you mostly couldn’t do. Since it was an old-man-mobile, getting stopped at night wasn’t even in the cards. The only good part about it was it was the ultimate party vehicle.

    I did see one of the most hilarious things ever in that pickup though. A friend and I were grinding through the shinery sand in my Chevy in 4wd and we saw the “girls” coming in that truck with a flat they were oblivious to, along with everything else(gee honey, why don’t you ruin that tire?). We knew it had to be in 4WD. The transfer case shifter was between the two bucket seats and was fairly much straight up when in 4wheel low, the only way it would have made it through that sand. His wife was sitting in the middle. We looked at each other and had the same thought. I said “Well, whatever gets her off” and we both nearly nearly busted a gut.

    • The slowest car I ever drove was one of the earliest Hondas made, a Honda 500 with a 500cc engine. Top speed, if you put the pedal to the metal for about a minute, was 57 MPH on flat land with no headwind.

  4. Yeah, what about NVH?

    Surely there is at least a little degradation compared to the four banger.

    I once had a 1994, 5 cyl turbo Volvo wagon. Vibration and harshness were minimal. But the sound that engine made when you hit the throttle was…..well….”unappealing.”

    • Hi Mike,

      Actually, it’s quite quiet… the engine,I mean. It growls a little at WOT, that’s all – and the growl is pleasant.

      But there is some wind/road noise at high speed (over 70). I didn’t mention this because I drive at Ludicrous Speed and it’s probably not fair to Ford to denounce the car for the sounds it makes at the speeds I drive!

      • eric, maybe that accounts for people dogging it on the interstate. I went to town to the liquor store for some beer(sounds kinda funny don’t it?). The store’s on the edge of town so I punched it up to 75 when I left. I realized I had a conga line behind me…..mainly big SUV’s that all passed me and disappeared. I know a lot of people dis those biggies but there’s a lot to be said for uber thick glass and triple door seals at 80 and above.

      • Maybe, maybe not. This is not 55 mph America anymore. I want a car to be quiet to 100 mph. That means tall gearing and good sound insulation. All that said, the 4 cylinder version of this car is a pig. I can’t imagine how bad a 3 cylinder model that costs more is. Geez. What the hell do they thing k auto buyers are? Don’t answer.

        • I ran my test car 80-90; hammered the hell out of it. Like I always do! 🙂

          Still never averaged less than low 30s.

          That’s ok, in my book.

          Now, I would (and do) have some concerns about the longevity of the engine… of the turbo, especially. The Ford engineers I have talked with swear these engines have been built to handle it; that the turbos have special cooling systems in particular to prevent the usual premature death from heat stroke… but, time will tell.

  5. I’m not seeing much of a business case for this car versus the non-turbo 2.0 Focus with gas in the $2 to $3 a gallon range. If you order an automatic, which about 90% of the populace does, going to the much smaller Turbo gives you about 10% better fuel economy, which over 100K miles of driving will save you about 300 gallons of gas. Not much of a savings over the $500 extra you pay upfront for the turbo.

    Basically, you’re paying more upfront for a slower car with worse performance, with the hope of maybe saving a few hundred dollars over the lifetime of the car.

    I can see this maybe making sense if you live at high altitudes, where the non-turbo’d car would presumably make LESS hp than the tinier turbo, since it will be breathing thin air and vastly underperforming compared to what it can do at sea level, while the turbo will be (I assume) unaffected by the higher altitude as it just crams more air in to get the same boost as at sea level. Just got back from a long road trip at high altitudes, and the power drop off at 5K to 8K feet was significant.

    • Hi Jim,

      The chief “sell” is that you get better performance without a mileage penalty. The 1.0 Focus is as economical as the 2.0 Focus with either its manual or automatic transmission. The 2.0 is efficient with the automatic but thirsty with the manual.

      And efficient with the automatic, but slow.

      • Hi Eric,

        It wasn’t clear from the article that what you said above was the case. I think it would have been helpful for potential buyers mulling over which engine to get to show a side by side comparison of 0-60 and MPG stats for the auto versus manual versions of the 2.0 and 1.0T engines, instead of that info being scattered around the article or not there at all.

  6. I don’t know how you could find a 125 HP 3 cylinder engine appealing to drive. I drove a 160HP model and foud it lacking in power. The thing sounded like it a potato stuck in the exhaust pipe. The handling was mediocre and the gas mileage was middling. It was not worth driving as a rental.

    I don’t recommend this car.

    • Hi Henry,

      Everything’s relative. This Focus is actually about as quick as a stock 1980 Turbo Trans Am, believe it or not. And it’s quicker than a Prius today. But the thing that makes it fun is that the little turbo three has some eagerness … it doesn’t sound like it’s going to upchuck pistons when you floor it. And the mid-range torque makes it feel stronger than it is. Check out its 0-60 time vs. the 2.0 Focus with the automatic.


Please enter your comment!
Please enter your name here