It also seems Ford cut more corners, the engine still uses a timing belt.
TIMING BELTS are DEAL BREAKERS. Send this car back.
I have never even considered the timing belt versus timing chain issue until I saw it come up repeatedly on this forum, generally with the sentiment that timing belts are ridiculous old technologies like hand-crank ignitions and that any company that uses them should be shamed in the public square.
So I looked around on teh interwebz to see if I could figure out why a company would use what some consider to be a totally inferior, dated timing mechanism. What I found was:
(1) Although Honda and Toyota owners rail against timing belts the most, those companies used them well into this decade, including on the Civic and Tundra. I'm not sure if any current designs from those companies still use them, but it's not exactly a technology they abandoned decades ago.
(2) Although a timing belt does require more long-term maintenance than a timing chain (it requires changing every 100,000 to 150,000 km instead of every 400,000 km or so), it does bring other advantages to the table. It's more energy-efficient, quieter, and lighter (not just the belt itself, but the support structure can be lighter, and it doesn't require lubrication, so there doesn't need to be a mechanism for that).
I'm certainly not saying "a timing belt is superior in every application, full stop," but I'm not sure that the general consensus on this forum that "a timing chain is superior in every application, full stop" is right either. On an agile, sporty B-segment car with class-leading quietness, I can understand why Ford went with the lighter, more efficient, quieter option instead of the longer-lasting option.