Which Ford Focus (North America) Version Should You Buy?
The best Ford Focus (North America) depends on whether you value performance, a manual gearbox, or the newer Coupe body. Among versions with measured acceleration, the quickest is the restyled first-generation 2.3 MT: 145 hp, 200 Nm, and 0–100 km/h in 7.4 seconds.
The best Ford Focus (North America) depends on whether you value performance, a manual gearbox, or the newer Coupe body. Among versions with measured acceleration, the quickest is the restyled first-generation 2.3 MT: 145 hp, 200 Nm, and 0–100 km/h in 7.4 seconds. The second-generation 2.0 MT offers 145 hp and completes the same run in either 9.0 or 9.1 seconds, while its 2.0 AT equivalent takes 10.6 or 10.7 seconds. Buyers choosing an earlier first-generation Sedan can select 2.0-liter or 2.3-liter engines, but many performance and economy figures were not measured.
Ford Focus generations in North America: what changed?
The Ford Focus (North America) catalogue covers three entries across two underlying generations: the first generation, its restyling, and the second generation.
The original first-generation Sedan was produced from 1999 to 2004 and has 14 listed modifications, of which 12 are shown in the supplied data. Its engine choices include 1988 cc 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT versions with either 111 hp or 131 hp, plus 2261 cc 2.3 MT and 2.3 AT versions with 145 hp. All use Gasoline engines, FWD, and a front, transverse engine layout.
The restyled first-generation Sedan was produced from 2004 to 2007. It has 15 listed modifications, with 12 shown. Its 1999 cc 2.0 MT and 2.0 AT versions produce 136 hp, while the 2261 cc 2.3 MT and 2.3 AT versions produce 145 hp or 153 hp. This is the only generation in the supplied data with a 6-speed Manual: the 153 hp 2.3 MT. The remaining Manual versions have 5 speeds, while every Automatic has 4 speeds.
The second-generation Coupe was produced from 2007 to 2010 and has 4 listed modifications. Every one is a 1999 cc, 145 hp Gasoline model with 185 Nm, FWD, and no boost. The practical choice is therefore between the 5-speed Manual 2.0 MT and the 4-speed Automatic 2.0 AT, rather than between different engines.
Engine and transmission specs
Repeated names represent separate database records. Where identical version names have different power outputs, power is included to distinguish them. Exact duplicates are consolidated only when all specifications in this comparison are the same.
| Generation | Version | Power | Torque | Displacement | Fuel | Cylinders/layout | Boost | Gearbox | Drive |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| First generation | 2.0 MT, 111 hp | 111 hp | 169 Nm | 1988 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation | 2.0 AT, 111 hp | 111 hp | 169 Nm | 1988 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| First generation | 2.0 MT, 131 hp | 131 hp | 173 Nm | 1988 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation | 2.0 AT, 131 hp | 131 hp | 173 Nm | 1988 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| First generation | 2.3 MT, 145 hp | 145 hp | 200 Nm | 2261 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation | 2.3 AT, 145 hp | 145 hp | 200 Nm | 2261 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| First generation, restyling | 2.0 MT, 136 hp | 136 hp | 184 Nm | 1999 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation, restyling | 2.0 AT, 136 hp | 136 hp | 184 Nm | 1999 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| First generation, restyling | 2.3 AT, 145 hp | 145 hp | 209 Nm | 2261 cc | Gasoline; grade not measured | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| First generation, restyling | 2.3 MT, 153 hp | 153 hp | 209 Nm | 2261 cc | Gasoline; grade not measured | 4, Inline | No | 6-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation, restyling | 2.3 AT, 153 hp | 153 hp | 209 Nm | 2261 cc | Gasoline; grade not measured | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| First generation, restyling | 2.3 MT, 145 hp | 145 hp | 200 Nm | 2261 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| First generation, restyling | 2.3 AT, 145 hp | 145 hp | 200 Nm | 2261 cc | Gasoline, 92 | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
| Second generation | 2.0 MT, 145 hp | 145 hp | 185 Nm | 1999 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4, Inline | No | 5-speed Manual | FWD |
| Second generation | 2.0 AT, 145 hp | 145 hp | 185 Nm | 1999 cc | Gasoline, 95 | 4, Inline | No | 4-speed Automatic | FWD |
The original 111 hp 1988 cc engine develops about 55.8 hp per liter. The 131 hp version raises that to about 65.9 hp per liter. The restyled 136 hp 1999 cc unit produces about 68.0 hp per liter, while the second-generation 145 hp 1999 cc engine reaches about 72.5 hp per liter. Among the 2261 cc choices, the 145 hp versions produce about 64.1 hp per liter and the 153 hp versions about 67.7 hp per liter.
Performance, top speed, and fuel economy
The fastest measured version is the restyled first-generation 2.3 MT, 145 hp, which accelerates from 0 to 100 km/h in 7.4 seconds and reaches 217 km/h. Its measured kerb weight is 1270 kg, equivalent to about 8.8 kg per horsepower.
In the second-generation Coupe, the 145 hp 2.0 MT reaches 100 km/h in 9.0 or 9.1 seconds. The 145 hp 2.0 AT takes 10.6 or 10.7 seconds. Comparing the quickest records, choosing the Manual saves 1.6 seconds in the 0–100 km/h run. Top speed is not measured for any second-generation version.
First-generation 131 hp 2.0 MT records show 0–100 km/h in 9.3 or 9.6 seconds and a top speed of 201 km/h in two records, with another record listing 180 km/h. The 131 hp 2.0 AT has one complete performance record: 10.6 seconds to 100 km/h and 200 km/h. Its fuel consumption is 9.4 l/100 km in the city, 7.6 l/100 km on the highway, and 8.4 l/100 km combined. These are the only measured consumption figures in the supplied data; economy for every other version is not measured.
The 111 hp first-generation 2.0 MT takes 11.0 seconds to reach 100 km/h and has a top speed of 180 km/h. Acceleration and top speed for the corresponding 2.0 AT are not measured. For the first-generation 145 hp 2.3 MT and 2.3 AT, both figures are not measured in most records.
Within the restyled first generation, one 136 hp 2.0 MT reaches 100 km/h in 9.5 seconds and has a top speed of 170 km/h. Other 136 hp 2.0 MT records have acceleration not measured, while one lists 170 km/h and another has top speed not measured. Performance for the restyled 136 hp 2.0 AT, 145 hp 2.3 AT, 153 hp 2.3 MT, and 153 hp 2.3 AT is not measured.
Dimensions, weight, clearance, and tank capacity
The original first-generation Sedan has 170 mm of ground clearance and a 50-liter tank. Recorded kerb weights range from 1146 kg for a 131 hp 2.0 MT to 1260 kg for a 145 hp 2.3 MT. Other measured 2.0 MT kerb weights are 1190 kg, 1195 kg, and 1250 kg; the measured 131 hp 2.0 AT weighs 1182 kg. Gross weight is 1640 kg or 1670 kg for the records where it is available; otherwise it is not measured. Wheel sizes are not measured for every first-generation version.
The restyled first-generation Sedan also has 170 mm of ground clearance. Tank capacity is either 53 or 55 liters, depending on the record. Measured kerb weights include 1190 kg, 1215 kg, and 1260 kg for the 136 hp 2.0 MT, plus 1260 kg and 1270 kg for the 145 hp 2.3 MT. Kerb weight for the listed Automatic versions and the 153 hp versions is not measured. Gross weight and wheel sizes are not measured.
The second-generation Coupe has 157 mm of ground clearance, which is 13 mm less than the first-generation and restyled Sedans. The 2.0 MT weighs 1173 kg, giving about 8.1 kg per horsepower. The two 2.0 AT records weigh 1187 kg and 1198 kg, or 14 kg and 25 kg more than the Manual. Gross weight, tank capacity, and wheel sizes are not measured.
All listed versions use Independent, spring front and rear suspension. The first-generation and restyled Sedans have Ventilated disc front brakes and Disc rear brakes. The second-generation Coupe has Disc front brakes, while its rear brake type is not measured.
Which Ford Focus version should you buy?
Choose the restyled first-generation 2.3 MT, 145 hp, if measured performance is the priority. Its 7.4-second acceleration time is 1.6 seconds quicker than the quickest second-generation 2.0 MT, and its 217 km/h measured top speed is 16 km/h above the 201 km/h figure recorded for some first-generation 131 hp 2.0 MT versions. Its 200 Nm output is also 16 Nm above the restyled 136 hp 2.0 MT and 15 Nm above the second-generation 2.0 MT.
Choose the second-generation 2.0 MT, 145 hp, if you want the 2007–2010 Coupe and the stronger measured performance of its two transmissions. It weighs 1173 kg, accelerates to 100 km/h in 9.0 or 9.1 seconds, and has a power-to-weight figure of about 8.1 kg per horsepower. The second-generation 2.0 AT has the same 145 hp and 185 Nm but is heavier and at least 1.5 seconds slower in the measured 0–100 km/h records.
Choose the first-generation 131 hp 2.0 AT if documented fuel-consumption figures matter most. It is the only version here with measured city, highway, and combined consumption: 9.4, 7.6, and 8.4 l/100 km respectively. Its measured 10.6-second acceleration and 200 km/h top speed also provide a fuller performance record than most Automatic alternatives.
Choose a 153 hp restyled 2.3 MT if maximum listed power and a 6-speed Manual are your priorities. It has 8 hp more than the 145 hp 2.3 MT, while torque remains 209 Nm in those 153 hp and related 145 hp 2.3-liter records. However, acceleration, top speed, consumption, kerb weight, gross weight, and wheel sizes are not measured, so the data cannot demonstrate that its extra power produces better real-world performance.
The final decision is therefore clearest where measurements exist: the restyled 2.3 MT, 145 hp, is the performance choice; the second-generation 2.0 MT, 145 hp, is the quicker Coupe choice; and the first-generation 2.0 AT, 131 hp, is the economy-data choice. Versions without measured performance or consumption may still fit a gearbox or body preference, but the missing figures should not be treated as evidence of equal results.