RE: SOTW: Ford Focus ST170
Discussion
I like my ST, it does nearly everything i wanted it to do, it's an 05 so one of the last of the line. I can get an easy 30+mpg over a tank on my commute, 40+ on a long run and sub 25mpg when tanking it. It handles very well, can be playful if you lift off or stay nailed when on a charge and has kept a few more interesting cars honest on hoons.
It is less reliable than my scooby was but generally costs less to fix and to run, insurance is pittence and if i really need to, and i drive like a saint, i can stretch the tank to 400mile between fill ups on my commute. The gear box takes some getting used to and doesn't really come into it's own unless you are close to the redline on shifts but the shift in mine is noticably better than the other older STs i drove before buying.
The economy does let the ST down badly but at the entry price for one now is forgiveable.My best mate has a 2.0, we drive each others cars fairly often. Both of us tend to get better economy in the 2.0 than the ST but not by much and on the Motorway at the same speeds the ST is miles better, it's clearly faster in all conditions, has nicer seats and in comparison with it the 2.0 rolls like a boat.
hotwarm hatches are heavily compromised in some way. After trying the Type-R i found that the short gearing and need to really rev to have fun left it as a worse daily than the Focus, the Clio was just a little to small even though it was a better drive and i couldn't find a decent Rallye and all the GTI-6s i found were modded or ragged to f
k.
Having said all this i am still palnning on selling the ST and getting another car, not because the Focus is bad but because there are other cars that are much better. I want either another Jap-Turbo or another RWD next (or a combination of the two) and sadly the Focus doesn't fulfill those roles. It will be missed though not least because unlike every other car i've owned it has a heated front screen and working air-con.
It is less reliable than my scooby was but generally costs less to fix and to run, insurance is pittence and if i really need to, and i drive like a saint, i can stretch the tank to 400mile between fill ups on my commute. The gear box takes some getting used to and doesn't really come into it's own unless you are close to the redline on shifts but the shift in mine is noticably better than the other older STs i drove before buying.
Chrisw666 said:
TameRacingDriver said:
Think I'd rather just go for the 2.0-litre version, sounds like there's very little difference in performance, so you may as well have the slightly better fuel economy, insurance costs and probably slightly cheaper purchase price IMO.
The performance is noticeably better in the 170 and the novelty of how long the gears were didn't wear thin (70 in 2nd, 90+ in 3rd, well into ban teritory in 4th) yes they could have fitted a closer box which would have made the car feel quicker but they would have lost the ability of the car to cover distances unstressed. The handling is also a huge step up from a standard Zetec. The chassis mods extended beyond lowered springs to new dampers and revised geometry and much better brakes. The economy does let the ST down badly but at the entry price for one now is forgiveable.
MrFrodo said:
I'm a big fan of the cooking Focii, but I'd find it hard to justify an ST170. For me, it's sort of in no man's land; too expensive to run as a sensible warm hatch, but lacking the drama of the 306 Rallye, Clio 182 or Civic Type R.
I feel that way about all of those cars, most k. Justin S said:
A mate has a silver estate ST 170. I 'think' he thought it maybe comparable to my ST225, but they are leagues apart.
I looked at ST225's when buying my ST170, fantastic cars but just not as good on the roads i like to have fun on, if i had more fast A-roads or did more motorway treks i would agree but on B-roads i found the Mondeo was left lacking a bit in comparison to the Focus.Having said all this i am still palnning on selling the ST and getting another car, not because the Focus is bad but because there are other cars that are much better. I want either another Jap-Turbo or another RWD next (or a combination of the two) and sadly the Focus doesn't fulfill those roles. It will be missed though not least because unlike every other car i've owned it has a heated front screen and working air-con.
Edited by omgus on Friday 23 November 14:25
hora said:
I don't think the ST170 was ever a bad car. Why do people put it down? I'm no fan of the Clio because it was badly built/buzzy etc - whereas the ST170 has all the basics there. The Clio was always based on a girls first car jazzed up. The mk1 Focus was a better basic car...
In terms of interior quality it was better than the Clio, and it was nice to drive in terms of ride and handling. However the lack of rust protection is making itself known these days compared to the Clio, and reliability is perhaps not as good as you'd hope (e.g. the electronically controlled inlet manifold is a common and expensive failure point).As a hot hatch it was mediocre IMO. Too heavy and not enough power meant the French tin can would disappear into the distance (whilst returning very good mileage for a performance car). What's the point of buying the performance model in the range and suffering the higher insurance, maintenance and fuel bills if it doesn't actually provide the performance to back it up?
Mr2Mike said:
In terms of interior quality it was better than the Clio, and it was nice to drive in terms of ride and handling. However the lack of rust protection is making itself known these days compared to the Clio, and reliability is perhaps not as good as you'd hope (e.g. the electronically controlled inlet manifold is a common and expensive failure point).
As a hot hatch it was mediocre IMO. Too heavy and not enough power meant the French tin can would disappear into the distance. What's the point of buying the performance model in the range and suffering the higher insurance, maintenance and fuel bills if it doesn't actually provide the performance to back it up?
Clio's are hardly known for their strength!As a hot hatch it was mediocre IMO. Too heavy and not enough power meant the French tin can would disappear into the distance. What's the point of buying the performance model in the range and suffering the higher insurance, maintenance and fuel bills if it doesn't actually provide the performance to back it up?
Blackpuddin said:
Many consider the 1.6 to be the sweetest Focus of all.
Funny you should say that - I was once up for a company car and the choice was 'Focus or nothing else'. I had a choice of a 1.6/1.8 or I could throw money in and get the (then new and racey) 2.0 Zetec tho and so test-drives were arranged.I wrote-off the 1.6 entirely as I'd just handed-back a 1.8 Mondeo Estate and I expected the Focus 1.8 would be a BIT peppier, but it was, if anything, a bit flatter (possibly because the demo was fairly new) - it left me feeling like throwing money in was the way forward tho and I wrangled my way into 2.0 Zetec and, whilst the engine was clearly stronger, the gearbox appeared to have been taken from a tractor and the car was lumpy in traffic.
So I took the cash and bought my own car...
Years later I had a 1.6 Focus as a loan for a while and it was lovely - it pulled with brio and felt honest for what it was doing. I probably should have tried that one in the first place!!
Perhaps it's like the KA - the original 1.3 is a lovely thing but every 'improvement' was a step backwards. It didn't need PAS, it didn't need the newer but less 'bolt action' gearbox and the Sport/Street models with the 1.6 are just a let down from soup to nuts.
the stigs dad said:
I have a golf too but the handling, chassis and suspension setup of my previous st170 was far superior. My golfs engine and 4wd traction are alot better though.
I've yet to drive a Golf Mk3 or later which handled as well as a Focus.I think some people feel the padded wheel and flashy interior are part of the driving experience but aside from the 'go forever in miles and time' diesels there's nothing to recommend Golfs of that era, whatsoever...
Devil2575 said:
Rammy76 said:
Changedmyname said:
After driving my wife focus ,I'm glad I have a golf.
You prefer driving a mk4 Golf to a Focus?!Each to their own I suppose.
Despite the many detractors above, I reckon this is a really great SOTW. It's inconspicuous, fast and fun to drive. Best of all the running costs and insurance won't break the bank. My only concern (in the UK) is whether they're rather too easily stolen or not.
Given equivalents at the same money I'd choose this almost every time. Although many people seem to like the Megane there's something about Renaults that I just don't like.
Given equivalents at the same money I'd choose this almost every time. Although many people seem to like the Megane there's something about Renaults that I just don't like.
MadDog1962 said:
Despite the many detractors above, I reckon this is a really great SOTW. It's inconspicuous, fast and fun to drive. Best of all the running costs and insurance won't break the bank. My only concern (in the UK) is whether they're rather too easily stolen or not.
Given equivalents at the same money I'd choose this almost every time. Although many people seem to like the Megane there's something about Renaults that I just don't like.
The borkage of a similar vintage Renault makes the ford a clear winner IMO. My st170 was faultless over 20k miles and was driven very hard! The engines must have the right oil though. Given equivalents at the same money I'd choose this almost every time. Although many people seem to like the Megane there's something about Renaults that I just don't like.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff