Cars you hate the most

"looks like the old one"

I barely see any similarities. For the new gen, there is no Aston Martin grille, more rounded headlights, and less Focus-like shapes.

 

Trapezoid grille? Check.

"Kinetic design" styling? Check.

 

The only similarities is the side windows, and the grille shape. If anyone calls them both "similar", then I'm gonna call them out. The 2013 and Ypsilion look more similar than the 2014 and 2017 Fiesta.

 

Also, the sloping front, slightly bulbous rear curve, sharply-styled lights, hadles in doors, etc.

 

Umm... first of all, the body is almost the same as the last gen. Second, the 2017 headlights aren't even sharp. I only see rounded bubbly headlights. Third, the door handles are more thinner and more straight.

 

These are all very minute differences.

 

Well, how come did you make an mistake with minor and minute? It's laughably stupid to make an mistake like that, especially when most of your sentences are mostly grammatically correct.
Second, how is an rounded headlight any "minor"?
Here's an real sharp headlight also from Ford:

Makes an big difference in the end.

 

As per Oxford Dictionary:

1. 
   minute
   adjective
   BrE /maɪˈnjuːt/
   ; NAmE /maɪˈnjuːt/
   , also /maɪˈnuːt/(minuter, minutest)
   

extremely small
synonym tiny

minute amounts of chemicals in the water
The kitchen on the boat is minute.

 

Okay, do I need to get you glasses? Even an 92-year-old can tell these differences with the design.

 

I never said there weren't differences.

I said there were minute differences.

 

The overall design is very similar (and you don't need you to get ME glasses, I've got some already.)

 

Well, can you even tell if an headlight looks sharp?

 

I can tell it barely even matters.

 

You were saying?

 

But I'm guessing you still get lower taxes and street-parking perks for driving them?

Ending that would be step one in my mind, but then this is Japan.

Of course, the other thing I'd do is strike the displacement restrictions from the kei and compact classes, or at least index them for forced induction (right now a compact car can have a 2.0L NA or a 2.0L turbo, why not a 2.8L NA or 2.0L turbo? Make NA great again!)

 

The issue is that naturally aspirated engines sacrifice thermal efficiency compared to a turbo engine. The turbocharger is driven by waste heat (energy) from the exhaust, allowing for greatly improved thermal efficiency. For instance, a naturally aspirated I4 may be around 32% efficient, a turbocharged engine can be upward of 40% efficient. While I also love naturally aspirated powerplants, turbochargers are the future, like it or not.

Turbocharged engines also have much higher specific power output. For instance, Ford makes both a naturally aspirated and a turbocharged (Ecoboost) version of their 3.5 L V6. The naturally aspirated version makes 265 horsepower and 250 lb-ft of torque, whereas the Ecoboost version is capable of 375 horsepower and 470 lb-ft of torque in its lowest spec version, or up to 650 horsepower and 550 lb-ft of torque in its highest output form. Scaling this down, it means that a 1.5 turbo can easily make the same, if not more, power than a 2.0 L NA engine.

 

If you have to play a game of "spot the differences" between 2 car generations, they are quite similar.

 

...
This tells me that you're blind.

 

no u

 

2.0 is too big for a compact car (unless it is a sports/luxury model), let alone for one in Japan. 2.8 will even have trouble fitting into that car.
The question is more like turbo 0.8 vs n/a 1.3.
--- Post updated ---

Economy from super tiny turbo engines is a myth. Doesn't mean you should go into overkill like 2.8 V6 in a compact, but less than 1.4 won't be good.