April 5th, 2013 marks two months since I purchased my Focus. Since then, I’ve been reflecting on just how the Sable stacks up when compared to the new car. So what’s the verdict?
Exterior: The much maligned third generation Taurus/Sable turned off many buyers, but I still hold steadfast to my view that these cars were attractive, especially in wagon form. That does not mean the design is flawless; the front end was poorly done and could have been improved significantly. A better grill and less circular headlamps would have likely improved the awkwardness you see above. Although the sleekness of modern sedans like the Sonata and Fusion have somewhat validated the designers of these cars, at least in my mind.
So was the Sable just too far ahead of the times? No, it was just too round. The oval theme looks better from the rear, but the rear window and C pillar suggest that two different cars (or designs) were stitched together. There’s a sense that the exterior flows and then stops in an abrupt manner. Definitely some cognitive dissonance going on here.
There’s really no contest here: the Focus is an attractive car. Large, expressive headlamps that flow upwards and run parallel with the hood instead of underneath it are largely to blame. Moving the grill openings south of the license plates also helps to give the Focus a confident look, which is enhanced by lower portion of the front end flaring out a bit. The standard 16″ alloys are an additional plus. The only drawback is the black cut-outs where the fog lights should be. Advantage: Focus
Interior: The Sable had a very interesting interior. Ford clearly invested quite a bit of money in some areas of the cabin, while skimping out on others. The soft touch dash, all buttons, and the steering wheel are of high quality; the door panels and the plastic surrounding the gauges are not. However, the aesthetic pleasantness of interior cannot be dismissed easily. It was always an enjoyable place to be. The seats are perhaps the most comfortable cloth buckets my bottom has ever touched.
The Focus interior is positively Germanic, if the Germans still cared about interior innovation. Everything in the cabin has high quality parts, especially the HVAC knobs. Seat bolstering is sufficient, but it doesn’t replicate the living room couch feeling of the Sable’s seats, which might be a good thing when driving while drowsy. The only downside is the relatively dour sea of gray and black, although this is rectified by the ice blue backlighting of the gauges and buttons at night. Ford also decided to use other shades of blue with white lettering for the MyFord infotainment screens, which also helps liven up the cabin. Advantage: Tie.
Driving Dynamics: I’m obviously comparing two vehicles at very different stages of their life. So the operative question here is if the Focus is superior to the Sable. The answer: sort of. The Ford can move faster, navigate curves with ease, and take bumps with aplomb. But the Sable remained rock solid even in the highest cross winds, while the Focus tends to dart around a bit on drafty days. This is obviously due to the weight differences between the two. Still, I wish the Focus was a bit better in this area. Advantage: Tie.
Refinement: The hardest category of all. Both cars have very smooth engines. The Sable might have the advantage here since it stayed smooth for the entire period I owned it. So let’s talk about shift quality. This transmission responds to throttle inputs with the reliability of a North Korean dictator. I am, of course, talking about Ford’s Powershift dual clutch transmission. In fairness, I am still within the break-in period for the car, and the gear shifting has smoothed out substantially, but sometimes it does things that have me scratching my head. But the hesitant feeling only rears its head at low speeds; when you’re moving, the shift quality is so good that you barely notice any gears changing. On the other hand, the Sable would thunk into downshifting when you needed extra power while driving around 30-45 mph. This wasn’t due to its age either; I remember reading a Motor Trend review of the 1996 Taurus that called out Ford for that bizarre behavior. Advantage: To be determined.
So it looks like the verdict is something of a tie. Which leads us to the question of the purchase of the Focus. Need a newer vehicle for reliability under warranty? Just needed a change? For me, being an OE trained engineer I would have kept the Sable going forever as long as I liked driving it. For me, it is not cost effective to spend money on a newer car unless for very subjective reasons. For others it may be different. The small monthly payments and peace of mind coming from the warranty are priorities. For others who maybe more comfortable, choose just to rotate cars out of personal preference over and above other considerations. My MIL has a previous generation Focus in her retirement. Its too small and cramped for me but it is a gem to service keeping costs low and has been pretty reliable.
I think this article may be a bit deceiving, as I definitely prefer the Focus and find it superior to the Sable. That being said, the Mercury did have its merits, and I do miss it a bit.
My reasons for getting the Focus were numerous: the Sable had some large repair bills looming, and needed two rear tires. The rust was spreading on an almost daily basis, and I was also tired of getting 17mpg every fill-up. My dealer discount and zero percent financing was the icing on the cake.
Sounds good time to change the avatar… 😉
I can understand northern owners face environmental damage unlike those of us in the south. Tires shouldn’t be too expensive on the Sable, the Focus I am sure a lot more. Can’t do too much about fuel economy other than making sure its running right. I have noticed that it seems that most of the more prolific posters seem to drive a lot of mileage.
I have much love for the roundness of the 96-99 Sable. I owned one for a time and thought it was a very smooth and comfortable car. Which is something I love more than driving excitement. It finally took the dirt nap two months ago at 199,612 miles when the condition of the body was the determining factor in not replacing head gaskets.
The only 2 gripes I had from a mechanical standpoint is the radiator replacement procedure and the transmission coasted downhill instead of downshifting to help keep a constant speed. Overall it was a comfy and reliable machine. Plus it didn’t have any infotainment screens to further distract from driving.
All automatic-overdrive transmissions do what you state when in ‘OD’
Turn off the OD or shift into ‘3’ to prevent this.
I do it every day at least twice during my daily commute.
I have no idea what Ford was thinking when they designed this generation of the Sable. The front looks like a vampire wearing glasses. The rear end has the fattest bumper on any production car that I can remember.
The Focus is nice looking. However, it’s not a comfortable car to drive when you are tall. I had one as a loaner when my car was in for service and even with the driver’s seat at it’s lowest point, it was hard to get in and out of. The console is far too wide as well. My right leg was permanently pushed up against the edge of it.
I’m not a fan of Ford’s latest IP designs. IMO they are a bit too “Battlestar Galactica” looking.
There might have been a few different things Ford was thinking:
– They were trying to outdo Chrysler’s LH cars in terms of the “organic” theme, and to some extent, trying to emulate the Infiniti J30.
– They wanted a “corporate” theme, to go with the Mark VIII’s.
– They were influenced by whatever concept cars influenced the Buick Riviera and Oldsmobile Aurora. (They may have been influenced by the cars themselves, but I think the Taurus/Sable design was already locked in by that point.)
– They wanted to be as “revolutionary” as the original Taurus.
Whatever they were thinking at Ford, the Chrysler LH cars, especially the second generation, were much better executed. The Taurus/Sable I simply find…umm, let’s leave it at “thought-provoking”.
I also agree about the form-over-function Focus interior design. The rest of the car seems well-designed, but the room should be better.
Sir, I really think you should take a look at the other Battlestar, err Focus
Why does the interior on just about every modern car need to intrude upon the occupants?
A very good question – I’ve been so much happier in my bench-equipped Olds 88 than I’ve ever been with the elbow-height center console “fencing” around the occupants in newer cars. Nothing beats that sense of openness and space.
See, I’m the opposite. I like the fence line the console presents. Just don’t intrude too far….
Good comment. My only experience with recent Fords has been as rental cars, and I often find the huge centre console really restricts driver’s leg room. The impression is of cars that are always smaller inside than they seem from the outside – not a good market strategy.
I also find Ford’s dash designs visually jarring and overly busy, which is a real shame considering the sleekness of the exterior. I won’t pretend I’m in the market for a new car, but if I were the dash design alone would be a major downside issue for me. I think a more restrained and simplified instrumentation look, emphasizing the width of the cabin and combined with a thinning of that console, would improve the interior hugely.
Agreed (belatedly) re Ford’s current dash designs. I used to really like Euro Ford interiors, but the Fiesta/Focus/Mondeo are indeed jarring and too busy. Their (once) Mazda 2/3/6 stablemates are far superior in terms of design and ergonomics.
Not surprised at all. My Mother in Law has an oval Taurus (with the oval back window so it’s really feeling the oval love) and I rented a dual clutch Focus a few months ago.
I found the dual clutch transmission weird at the time, and then later found out what it was. At least you can still get the Focus with a manual. Advantage: Focus
Of course my MIL’s Taurus cost all of $500, which is probably the monthly payment on the Focus. Advantage: Sable
How’s the back seat passenger room stack up? My 01 Focus is getting a bit tight for DerekD, who is almost 13.
I’ve got a ’13 Focus that’s pretty similar to the author’s (but mine’s a hatchback and I sprung for the extra goodies in the 201A package). I think you’ll find the back seat is tight for a 13 y.o. Plenty of headroom, but once he’s wearing size 7 shoes or larger, he’s going to have trouble finding a place to put his feet and knees.
Works fine for me, since I rarely have rear seat passengers. But I’d recommend moving up to a Fusion if anyone will routinely be riding in the back.
The 97 Taurus/Sable is possibly the Fugliest car Ford ever made other than the 98 AU Falcon which also didnt sell well here. The Focus is a good little dunger though I would not have that acronym on my car.
Interesting comparison. Recently I compared my first car, a 1963 Dodge Dart 170, to my current ride, a 2013 Hyundai Sonata GLS. Here’s the difference that 40 years gets you:
LENGTH
1963 Dodge Dart 170 196 inches
‘03 Hyundai Sonata GLS 190 inches
WHEELBASE
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 111 inches
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 110 inches
WEIGHT
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 2,840 lbs.
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 3,200 lbs.
DRAG COEFFICIENT
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 0.55
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 0.28
TIRES
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 4.5 x 13 inch (bias-ply)
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 205 x 65 x 16 (all season)
FUEL TANK
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 18 gallons
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 18 gallons
HEADROOM FRONT
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 38.1 inches
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 40 inches
AUDIO
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 2-watt AM “transistorized”
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 104-watt AM-FM-XM-CD-MP3
ENGINE SIZE
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 2.8 liters (OHV inline 6)
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 2.4 liters (DOHC inline 4)
ENGINE COMPRESSION
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 8.2 to 1
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 11.3 to 1
TRANSMISSION
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 3-speed auto
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 6-speed auto (electronic)
ENGINE HORSEPOWER
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 101 hp
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 198 hp
ENGINE TORQUE
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 155 ft. lb.
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 186 ft. lb.
REDLINE
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 2,400 rpm
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 6,500 rpm
FRONT SUSPENSION
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 Torsion bar
‘03 Hyundai Sonata Independent MacPherson dual-strut
REAR SUSPENSION
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 4-leaf springs
‘03 Hyundai Sonata Independent multi-link dual-strut
0-60 MPH ACCELERATION
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 17 seconds
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 8.1 seconds
QUARTER-MILE
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 21 seconds (67 mph)
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 16 seconds (91 mph)
BRAKING (60-0 mph)
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 208 ft.
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 123 ft.
TOP SPEED
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 91 mph
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 136 mph
MPG
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 17-23 mpg
‘03 Hyundai Sonata 24-35 mpg
STICKER PRICE NEW
‘63 Dodge Dart 170 $2,157 ($15,550 in inflation-adjusted dollars)
‘03 Hyundai Sonata $21,500
Interesting comparison. One key thing you left out, the Dart looks a whole lot better!
I am quite sure that the redline on the slant six was over 2400 rpm. Misprint? Particularly with a 170, which I understand was kind of a revver.
Very interesting and thorough comparison. For a 25% bump in the real price, you certainly get more than a 25% increase in capability. Durability and service life may be another thing, however.
That does seem low. I know the redline on 225s is something like 4500. The carb and axle usually prevents them from getting to that usually unless you have a long flat road. Torque usually peaks below 2k but HP upper 3s.
In 1963, the 225’s hp rating was @4000 rpm.
Interesting Comparo, it really shows how small modern cars have become. It seems that yesterday’s compacts are today’s midsize cars.
The 2013 F-150, Silverado and Ram fill the market segment owned by the full-size cars in 1963. People who want big vehicles buy trucks or full-size SUVs.
That’s a pretty eye opening comparison.
Might want to think about the price difference this way also…
Sonatas other features: A/C, ABS, Traction Control, Stability Control, 8 Airbags (?), crush zones, emissions that are probably close to the cleanest air we typically breath in a building, required service intervals… I bet most of these items, if available at the time, would close the price gap completely.
All things the 63 Dart is completely missing all of these.
Where did you get the drag coefficent number for the Dart? Or is that an estimate?
The 170 was rated at 101hp @ 4400 rpm. But that’s not necessarily its “redline”; probably about 5000 rpm or more. Its torque peak was at 2400 rpm.
I owned a ’96 Sable wagon and my dad just bought a ’12 Focus, so I have good familiarity with both of these cars. You are so right about the Sable interior — good quality materials in many places, but marred by indifferent fit and finish. Your dash has the same gaps that mine did. Just dreadful. I found that my Sable’s seats were sized for, ahem, the more amply girthed. I’m skinny and I hated taking a corner hard because the bolsters were too far away and were therefore useless. On the other hand, driving Dad’s Focus I feel almost overly strapped in and surrounded, like I’m sitting in a bucket. I’m not crazy about that.
See, I’m about 5′ 6” and 125 pounds, so the Focus feels perfectly fine for me. I can’t even complain about the compartment of the Fiesta all that much!
I liked how the Sable had a “4-door” Mark VIII look to it, more so than the contemporary Continental. I mean no disrespect to your new car purchase, but I think the Sable is better looking, I do think the Focus is obviously better built with better materials though. Personally I don’t care for the cobra/snake head looking front end of most new Fords, and I find the dashboards too techtonic.
Hmmm. When I look at the Sable, I think that with the Taurus they had a vision that almost worked. And then someone said “now, what about the Sable”. It almost hurts to look at it.
Agree about the Focus’s dash, at least the center console – it looks like it belongs in a Cylon battle cruiser or something. I wish carmakers (not just Ford) would stop the dashboard Expressionism, & give us back the front-center floor while they’re at it; you’d think there was a transmission in there, for all the space they take up.
Ed, what kind of MPG are you pulling down with the Focus? I cross shopped a Focus vs my Cruze at purchase time. I just couldn’t walk away from the incentives GM was throwing at me at the time. I am still undecided on what I would have liked more though.
That’s how GM sells cars. A Cruze LT, here in Soviet Canuckistan, stickers within a few pesos of a Civic EX. However, with 0%/84 month financing,the monthly payment is $200 less. A two year old Cruze is a screaming deal, $10k of new list price. A two year old Civic might lose $4k.
Actually the only reason I had rebates was because I have a GM card that they bumped up to 2K off, and I had a GM owner loyalty rebate for buying new Pontiacs. At the time there were no rebates at all for the Cruze and it was still one of the best selling cars in the country. My Cruze is only worth 2K less than I bought it for, and it has 50K miles on it…You comparison might work in Canada, but not in the Northeast USA.
Right now I’m getting about 32 mpg in my mixed city/highway commute. I’ve only got about 1,500 miles on the clock, so that number is very likely to go up. How’s the Cruze gas-wise?
I average between 40 and 44 mpg, but I have a 110 mile round trip commute so I’m all highway, even if it is typically 75+ mph in the morning and closer to 50 mph at night.
Like you said, you mpg will go up as you get some miles on the engine. I’d guess it might take 10K miles or more before you get a real idea of what to expect.
Report back about it after the first 10k miles. I’m interested in how the mileage is and how the DSG performs in the real world. I noticed that the mileage markedly increased from 20 to 30k miles in my Altima. Not sure if it’s break in, or if it’s just that I’m getting more used to driving a CVT more economically. Doing 26-28 MPG in my normal commute which is a mix of city and highway. 30-32 on weeks where I do more highway or get to aviod traffic. Both are more than what I expected out of this car.
I can obviously only speculate on why your Focus is squirmy in crosswinds, but I very much doubt that its weight has anything to do with it. First, while the Focus is lighter than the Sable, the Ford is not a exactly a featherweight — probably around 3,000 lb. Second, contrary to popular belief, mass is not necessarily a recipe for crosswind stability. Some very light cars cope well with crosswinds, while quite heavy cars can be all over the place due to some unfavorable combination of suspension geometry, bushing compliance, and aerodynamics. Assuming there isn’t some minor alignment issue, I’d suspect deflection from the suspension bushings or something of that nature, not “Oh, smaller cars aren’t as stable as big ones.”
It’s possible I might be looking at the past with rose tinted glasses and the Sable performed equally in crosswinds. But I do cross the Hudson River on my way to work, that might have something to do with it.
+1 on the large/small car stability thing.
Another possible factor: the increasingly wide, aggressive-tread tires fitted as standard on new cars tend to tramline and ‘follow the road’ more, in my experience, which feels like crosswind wander.
Thanks for the feedback. The ’63 Dart specifications come from a 1963 Road & Track magazine article.
Very interesting comparison. When the 1996 Sable and Taurus were new, I preferred the Sable precisely because of the square rear window and wide C-pillar.
I test drove a new Focus, and found the driver’s seat to be comfortable, although I’m only 5′ 10″. The rear seat was a bit cramped, which is a big consideration for someone with two pre-schoolers needing car seats. What really stood out was the level of refinement – a huge leap over our Focus (2004) and Accord EX (2003).
Seeing these two cars reminds me why I like the 1970s cars so much.
I just got done with a week in a ’13 Focus SE while my ’95 Buick Roadmaster wagon was getting its transmission rebuilt. It really made me appreciate my Roady more though. I like the look of the Focus a lot and the interior has excellent fit and finish for a compact car. Mine had really neat two tone Black and Wine colored seats with real metal accents in various parts of the interior. Here are the biggest issues with the new car for me: 1.It doesn’t have torque like my old car, you can’t drive it as aggressively. 2. My right leg was always against the center console while my left leg was only a few inches from the door, making it a bit too tight for me. FYI, I am 5’9″ 180lbs. 3. Rearward visibility sucks when trying to turn around when changing lanes due to the large B, C pillars and headrests. However, the car does have large really cool side mirrors with built in convex mirrors in the upper corners. 4. HEADRESTS! Totally ridiculous, intrusive, giant things that make you unable to sit erect. They just cant get adjusted back enough for me. If I bought the car that would be the first thing to go!
I got 25.8mpg per tank in the same conditions as my Roady would get 19, that seemed low to me.
Don’t have a Focus but do have a 2011 Fiesta that was an early build. I had some teething problems with the powershift trans, but after a couple reflashes and some miles I like it, the trans that is. The car overall I liked alot from day one.
As for refinement, I think you’ll find it gets better as you drive it but it’s definately not a traditional automatic. Sometimes at lower speeds or on a hill, it will sound like a novice is on that clutch. Which brings me to reliability which is where I think the jury is still out. Overall, I love the car especially when it’s looked at from a value (only option on my S model is the powershift) to comfort angle. It’s quiet, handles well, and has excellent fit and finish. But I often wonder if that trans was built to withstand that novice on the clutch.
I love the Fiesta. I have driven one a couple of times. Even though its smaller, it was easier to get in and out of than the Focus.
I have a ’12 Focus and had a ’00 (refreshed & squared up) Sable.
Focus is a 5 speed manual; I knew to avoid the auto and am pleased I did. Focus is fun to drive but . . . .
There is not enough power in first gear from 0 to 5 mph. Too slow off the line. And it truly needs a 6th gear for highway work; it revs too high in 5th at 75mph.
Focus steering is twitchy at high speed too; not just crosswinds but I feel due to the electric, non-mechanical nature of it.
Focus is happier around town, and it is, again, fun. On highway it is OK but gets very good mileage, about 36, that could be higher with a 6th gear.
Sable was quite refined, comfortable, roomy and served well on long drives.
– constellation –
Congrats Ed on your new car! Hopefully you’ll be as in love with it in 15 years like you were with the Sable. My car is 12 years old, and due for retirement this summer, but I still admire it’s design lines and familiarity. In my case I can’t get rid of it….it’s becoming our summer vacation car to cut down on rentals.
Except for rear legroom, the Focus is very impressive. But Ford has overdone it on their dash designs for the past 4-5 years…and they are by no means alone in that. Take the Accord and Passat dashes, put in a blender, and squeeze out different sizes. Ouila! Simplicity at it’s best….