2002 Ford Puma from UK and Ireland - Comments

Parcel shelf kept falling off - dealer fit new shaped one for free.

Rear Windscreen wiper failed to work - switched engine off and a restart sorted it out.

Ford logo badge on steering wheel fell off - got new one from dealer fitted for free.

CD Player broke - fixed.

Right. Firstly, I want you to realise that all my comments come relative to MY experience of driving cars. I.E. A few test drives, a bit behind a Nissan Micra, and from what I have heard. My scores are compared to what I consider to be a standard car: Micra.

Performance is a good place to start. It gets a 9 because this should really be two separate categories. Performance and Handling. Performance (i.e. acceleration and top speed) and handling (i.e. cornering).

It is listed as hitting 60 in 8.5 seconds. I can dispute this, as my extensive (and obviously highly scientific!) testing came out at 7.5-8 seconds, with a full car. 1st and 2nd have a strong surge, sending you back into the seat. 3rd has a good surge, and 4th and 5th are a little light on power. The only downside of all of these gears (except 1st), is that there is a little delay in reaching the power surge. It hits at about 4000rpm, but doesn't let up until around 5500rpm. In practical terms; this can beat most average cars off the lights. An MX-5 will be no problem for example. Neither will a Fiesta Zetec S. A BMW 330 is about the most comparable. (That was a very close race!) Performance on this side of things gets a 7.

Handling more than makes up for it. The handling is awe inspiring. It took me a while to find the handling, as I was fairly restraint at first. However, take it down the back roads or forest lanes and let loose! The handling is crisp and direct, with the back of the car lending a slight hand in taking corners when needed. Fantastic. I have never been beaten on the twisties, and I think that only a new mini, or something much more expensive, would come close for ease of handling. Handling and steering gets a 10.

I have had a few little problems. Nothing serious. I do however have doubts abouts the long-term durability of this car. Just a gut-feeling.

The car is highly comfortable. The seats are large enough, but small enough. They hold you nicely in place through corners and support my back and shoulders. My neck aches after a long drive, but that is the way I sit. Back passengers? Don't bother. However, I am not a cabbie, and thus do not care about back seats. Front seats have lots of room and are more than comfortable: thus an 8.

Dealer: 5. Rubbish. Made a nice deal to clinch the sale, but after sales was crap. CD player multichange was not checked (they said it was). It took one and a half months to repair it as the garage then coded it wrong twice! In short, they care not, once they have sold it to you.

Running costs are nothing outlandish for something of this nature. It drinks petrol fairly quickly, so lots of short and fast journeys will see no more than 180-200 miles on a £25 tank of fuel. Insurance is OK, but not for me (being 18).

For anyone that wants something fast, and that handles well: get this. It is not much slower than the Racing Puma (which at £6000 more is ridiculous)or a Honda Civic Type R, or mini cooper. Only thing is, it is a little bit more classy. It is a better all round package, and it handles better than the Type-R (which I have test driven).

Yes it has quality problems. But I guarantee that there are very few cars where the chassis and the engine complement each other so well.

One and only problem. It's a Ford. Nt badge prejudice. They just cannot look after their customers.

Are you seriously comparing a 123 BHP Ford Puma with a 231BHP BMW 330i?

Even a fully loaded estate diesel version of the BMW with flat tyres would leave your Ford for dead!

And you say that it out handles a Civic Type R? If you ever read a car magazine group test, you will see that while some hatches can outsprint the Honda, no front wheel drive models can out corner it!

I drive a Ford Fiesta Zetec S (same chassis, 20 BHP less) myself and would love to agree with you, but your exaggerations are so bad that I feel the need to leave this comment!

Are you the guy who wrote the 1988 Vauxhall Carlton review?

Another Zetec-S owner here.

I have to agree with the comment above - there is no way a Puma 1.7 will get close to a 330i. Even a Racing Puma would struggle, bearing in mind an automatic 330i will do 0-60 in under 7 seconds, and nearer 6 if it's a manual. They're seriously quick cars, as they should be with well over 200 bhp.

If you came up against one in the twisties, you could probably pull something out if you were prepared to drive your Puma like you stole it, but on anything remotely open or straight, forget it.

I own a Puma 1.7i VCT, and I reckon it is the finest sports car ever made!

The straight line speed is somewhere between a BMW 330i and an M3 evo, whilst the cornering is in a higher league!

Perhaps a Nissan Skyline or an Evo 8 might keep up on the bends, but the Puma's chassis is so pure that it manages these speeds without the complex electronics of the Jap cars.

I bought mine for £14,000 new in 1997 and I reckon I could sell it tomorrow for the same money or maybe even more!

As author of this review, I just felt that I may as well respond to the above comments.

Firstly, these claims are not exaggerated. I assume that the cocky tone of the comment dated 8th June 2003, means that the guy knows everything, but when you compare the curbside weights of the cars and bhp/pound the figures are not that dissimilar. Furthermore, I didn't say it was a race down a straight. I am talking in real world conditions down roads where sneaky lane changes that a small car can pull of (and not a BMW 3-Series) and the shorter distance of the throttle to the floor, all combine to give that much needed edge.

Of course a 3-series 330 is faster. With a listed time of 0-60 being somewhere around 6secs (I don't have the figure to hand), on a two lane open race (i.e. without any other cars) of course it would leave my Ford for dead. However, as I have said, using my experience, I have had no trouble seeing off a BMW330 both of the times I have come up against them down (funnily enough) the same 4 mile stretch of twisty (pretty much the local race track).

And just to underline your cockiness, I read EVO, Car, WhatCar? and Max Power. You will see that your previous comment is absolute rubbish (sorry to sound rude). There are several mid-engined and front wheel drive cars that are more than capable of humbling the Honda Civic Type R. You only have to look at the Max Power table of scores in any issue, for only one example.

Plus, that wasn't the point. I cannot out sprint a Type R. However, again, using my experience, on the straight I wouldn't try (as I wouldembarrass myself) but, on anything else, the Honda cannot deal with quick changes of direction in anything, but smooth, dry tarmac. To quote from Evo Magazine issue a couple of months ago (if you want the issue number let me know):

"The Type-R, whilst being more than capable of humbling cars several times its price in dry conditions, it still manages to handle like a dog on ice skates in the wet..."

The Puma can take both ice and wet. The Honda is an amazing car, and it really moved the hot hatch game onto another league and spurred on the responses from other car manufacturers. However, this is missing the point. The point is that the Honda engine is amazing, whilst the chassis 'lacks fizz' ('Car' magazine). There are few cars where engine complements chassis, as in the Puma.

The Zetec-S is a good car, and for the money it was my close second choice. I just felt that the engine, whilst being willing, didn't surge as much as the 1.7 Puma unit. Whilst the 1.6 Puma shares the Zetec-S engine, the 1.7 unit was co-developed with Yamaha, and it feels all the more keen for it.

I thank you for your comment though, perhaps I should have explained myself better previously, but I did point out that the review was written using my experience. Whilst I was aware of the bhp figures, etc, this is not the full story, as any driver should know, otherwise everyone would go around driving 7 litre, horribly inefficient cars that America seems to have a monopoly on producing!

Comment, as of 24th June. You are of course correct, as you can see from what I have written above.

17th July. I would doubt that you would still make £14,000 as I bought one from the last production batch and thus secured a hefty discount, and supply still far outsrips demand. I do sort of agree with your comments about the evo and skyline being overly electronic, but I plan on owning an Evo-8 in the future. They would leave a Puma without a leg to stand on.

Thanks for your comments, guys.

Did you write the review of the 1988 Vauxhall Carlton 1.8i?

OK, I concede that a BMW 330i can be beaten by a Puma when ii is stuck in traffic, like the 2 you claimed to have raced were! Why not buy a VW Lupo TDi, you could still win these races and get over 70 mpg at the same time!

Please tell me which car is mid engined and front wheel drive, Id love to drive it, it must have loads of traction, NOT!

The comments from magazine tests involving Civic Type Rs are relative to the latest 200BHP hot hatches, not a 7 year old coupe aimed at ladies, which just happened to handle quite well due to its Mk4 Fiesta chassis. Trust me on this, you are very very misleading, if you mention a Civic type R in a Puma write up, its like comparing the York City reserve side with Real Madrid!

Every engine with a Zetec badge on it has been jointly developed by Ford and Yamaha, not just the 1.7i VCT. Their partnership has now ended and the engines are still built by Ford, but are labelled Duratec instead!

There is a new Puma available now, it's a bit of a boxy shape, but does the same job! It's a Fiesta underneath with a few changes, like jacked up suspension and price tag, with a silver painted dashboard, it called the Fusion, why not buy one, it too can pass an Enzo while it is parked in traffic!

I'm going off topic a bit. I'm 22 and have done the racer bit and recently have been trusted with having my 2 month old nephew in my car, when you have cargo with such importance you tend to notice f**king ar**holes who think roads are for racing rather than travelling.

York City reserve side with Real Madrid...funny!

New commentator here :)

The puma is torque limited in first gear so its 0-60 time is not indicative of its true capabilities. I have no idea what the BMW does or does not do in the 30-70 or 50-90 drag race, but I know that these values are what matters in everyday driving. Incidentally it is in these places that the puma performs extremely well.

The 0-60 time is often quoted and often useless as it is in this case.

The reason the puma is limited in first gear by the way is because if it wasnt then the torque of the engine would knacker the cheap fiesta gear box before long.

Just to reply to the comment that the Honda civic type is being compared to cars now and not 7 years old ('for ladies' or something like that!) I just thought that I would share a couple of things with you.

Firstly, Autotrader, last month, as they always do, cast a spot light on some cars that (as they call them) are 'car heroes' amidst the sales pages in the back. Whilst I do not have it to hand, the Puma was described as being 'the only car that can make a journey you know and have done countless times before that much more enjoyable'. Shame. They just described the Honda Civic Type R as 'lacking fizz'.

Also, there was an article in Car magazine a while ago that I have and can dig up if you are that pedantic that has the spotlight on gems in the car world. Guess which one turned up. Oh. Oh. Its coming. Yes. A puma. It says (among other things) that calling it a souped up zetec s is rubbish. Oooh. What else? Oh yeah, that it out performs cars several times its value. Any more? Yes. It is huge fun. How did they describe the Civic Type R? Who can remember.

Oh, and also, that thing about a Civic Type R being only compared to modern cars. Thats pap. It was roadtested alongside a Pug 205 and lost (as I have no doubt that the Puma probably would do too).

The Ford Puma was a good little car in its day, it was top of the class when compared to the Tigra and 100NX, but was well beaten in all departments by all hot hatches then and now.

Ford are capable of producing world beating cars such as the Focus RS however the aim for the Puma was to build a nice little cute coupe and it was generally aimed at girls, not to take on the Pug 306 GTi6 for the 1997 hot hatch crown.

The Puma was not designed to be a great drivers car, it handles well because of the Richard Parry Jones designed chassis which is shared with the Fiesta and Ka, they also handle well!!!

The reason the Puma is regarded as a gem and a hero in magazines is that it is out of production and fondly remembered, I imagine that in 5 years the Civic R will too be a gem and a hero.

The Integra Type R was recently voted one of the ten best cars ever by Autocar, now that is an accolade to look up to, because it was put alongide italian exotica, the 911 and other legends!

Anyway, back to our original debate, the Puma does 0-60 in 8.7 seconds, 0-100 in 26 seconds and 122mph, the Civic R will do 0-60 in 6.7, 0-100 in 16.1 seconds and 147mph. The Civic also handles and stops better and has really good seats and is more refined, cooler and holds its value better. It just is a better car than a Puma and I cannot really believe that any person would doubt that.

Why don't you bring your Puma to Santa Pod and try and race a Civic R on one of their open days. Or take it to Traxx at Silverstone and try not to get lapped by everyone.

My 192bhp Gti6 wrecks the Puma sport! Can't understand how anyone is rude/ stupid enough to openly say that their PUMA of all cars is able to keep up with cars such as a Type-R, never mind bringing an M3, or a Skyline into the debate for god sake. it's a 1.7 Ford (v-slow). Grow up! I think there are some people who post their opinions with the sole intention of p**sing people off.

A puma would struggle to keep up with a MG, ZR 1.9TDi.

Would happily put my Gti6 against a Puma sport, in fact I really believe that I would come out on top if I were to set off in second gear!

Anyway, thought id just let all you puma lovers know the facts, happy racing girls!!!

Good Bye.

I worked with an engineer from Ford who worked on the development team for the Puma (the prototype had an RS Turbo engine). To contradict the previous comment, it WAS designed for driving enjoyment on a budget - they went to great lengths to get the 'feel' & sound just right, much like the original Golf GTi before it got lardy. That is the joy of a Puma - it's low sprung weight, giving it @ 120BHP/Ton which isn't bad. From personal experience, it CAN cut it with the big boys - sure it's not the fastest Ford ever, but it's probably the best... (can the ghost of Steve McQueen be wrong??).

So, "MX-5's are no problem". Really?

My 1.8iS MX-5 has 24 bhp more, a close ratio six-speed gearbox, and at under 1100kg, weighs pretty much the same as your Puma. It also has rear wheel drive, a limited slip differential and a "designed from the ground up" sports car chassis, as opposed to the Puma's (admittedly very capable) budget hatchback floorpan. I cannot think of a single road situation, straight or twisty, where the Puma would get near it.

I think you've been lucky so far and picked on 1.6 MX-5's on straight roads or with drivers who don't know what they are doing. When you come up against a well driven 1.8, you won't see it for dust.

I am the author of this review and just thought that I would point some things out:

Firstly, nowhere do I compare the Puma to the skyline or an M3 so for god sake, read a review before you spout on rubbish.

Secondly, nowhere do I refer to the Puma as a hot hatch, because it is not. It is a sports tourer, of the mould of a celica, just cheaper and smaller. Look at any of the review of the Puma for whilst it was still being made (2002) and you will see that it is not compared to hot hatches, it is compared to the celica and Audi tt. NO I AM NOT COMPARING IT TO THEM, but in the Autocar buyers guide from 2002, it sits alongside those cars and scores better than all of them.

Thirdly, the puma was not aimed at girls, it was aimed at the same market as the new mini; people wanting a cheap go kart.

Fourthly, as I have said at the beginning of the review "I want you to realise that all my comments come relative to MY experience of driving cars" therefore what the bloody hell is the point of comparing the cars on a track? Everyone who had ever driven the civic type r, including the motoring press, know that the type r skids over manhole covers, let alone real-world bumpy roads.

For god sake people, you really take this too personally. It is a car review for people that are looking to decide between cars to buy, not to sit at home with specs in magazines, trying to compete over who is the bigger geek for cars. I did not write the review to piss people off, but it seems that your comments were because they are, for the most part, (Except the last mazda mx5 comment: fair point, and it could be true) unsubstantiated rubbish.

Evo magazine gave the Puma 1.7lt 5/5 stars and only gave the Honda Civic Type R 4 stars.

Comments for the puma were: '+everything -nothing'

Honda Civic Type R: '+cracking engine -dull steering'

Not my words!

I would just like to say that the person who said that all zetec/zetec-s/zetec-se engines were co developed with yamaha is wrong, it was only the 1.7VCT engine that was co-developed with yamaha. Because yamaha built the nikasil lined head, only found on the 1.7VCT. It doesn't say anywhere that yamaha did anything to the normal zetec engines.