RE: Ford Focus RS vs. Honda Civic Type R

[dwol]

My RS will be left in the street at night when I get it so for me the less it stands out the better, I expect the civic will be a lot cheaper to run insurance is less and it will be better on fuel no doubt. And the 0-100 in 11.2 that topgear mag got out of it is impressive for front drive. Both are good cars

[Axionknight]

PapaJohns said:

Had the RS posted an official ring lap time yet?

Yup ring lap time, it's more relevant than 0-62 BS

Can't find anything at all online, maybe Ford aren't bothered as the car is set up differently to the majority of its rivals, being 4WD?

[RocketRS]

vz-r_dave said:

RocketRS said:

PistonHeads ask us to"...ignore the 0-62 mph time..." Really? Ignore the speeds that I spend 90% of my time driving. I have a very fast Mountune Focus ST. I've had enough 5.7 sec. tire spinning to last a lifetime, and if I wanted a track car, I wouldn't be looking at either of these cars.

"Ignore the 1.2 sec difference to 62 kph." And you call yourself PistonHeads.

Yeah because being a petrol head is all about caring about 0-60. Who cares after that, 0-100, 20-100 etc. I mean who really cares about driving dynamics, cornering speed, track times are nuffin init. Your mongtune and its 0-60 are not the definition of piston head! Stop fooling yourself

Who said all I care about is 0-60 times? Oh, that would be you.

What I'm pointing out is that FWD cars have a glaring weakness. A weakness that I care about. The R is slow from 0-62. (And consequently slow from 0 to a lot of other speeds.) One measure of performance. And PH's ask us to "ignore" that fact.

There are many measures of a car's performance. I don't ask anyone to "ignore" any of them. Should I "ignore" the Civic's lack of AWD Winter weather performance as well?

[vz-r_dave]

RocketRS said:

vz-r_dave said:

RocketRS said:

PistonHeads ask us to"...ignore the 0-62 mph time..." Really? Ignore the speeds that I spend 90% of my time driving. I have a very fast Mountune Focus ST. I've had enough 5.7 sec. tire spinning to last a lifetime, and if I wanted a track car, I wouldn't be looking at either of these cars.

"Ignore the 1.2 sec difference to 62 kph." And you call yourself PistonHeads.

Yeah because being a petrol head is all about caring about 0-60. Who cares after that, 0-100, 20-100 etc. I mean who really cares about driving dynamics, cornering speed, track times are nuffin init. Your mongtune and its 0-60 are not the definition of piston head! Stop fooling yourself

Who said all I care about is 0-60 times? Oh, that would be you.

What I'm pointing out is that FWD cars have a glaring weakness. A weakness that I care about. The R is slow from 0-62. (And consequently slow from 0 to a lot of other speeds.) One measure of performance. And PH's ask us to "ignore" that fact.

There are many measures of a car's performance. I don't ask anyone to "ignore" any of them. Should I "ignore" the Civic's lack of AWD Winter weather performance as well?

It's better than the RS on track and more involving. Deal with it, silly comments about winter performance..... Clutching at this straws again.

[RocketRS]

Did I miss the posted lap times?

[MrBarry123]

RocketRS said:

Who said all I care about is 0-60 times? Oh, that would be you.

What I'm pointing out is that FWD cars have a glaring weakness. A weakness that I care about. The R is slow from 0-62. (And consequently slow from 0 to a lot of other speeds.) One measure of performance. And PH's ask us to "ignore" that fact.

There are many measures of a car's performance. I don't ask anyone to "ignore" any of them. Should I "ignore" the Civic's lack of AWD Winter weather performance as well?

It's only a glaring weakness when a) you are starting from an absolute standstill, b) have normal tyres fitted and c) there's no desire to modulate throttle application when exiting corners.

Whilst a powerful FWD car will likely experience wheelspin initially if accelerating hard from a stop, once rolling (5-10mph+) and with a performance orientated set of tyres fitted, a good FWD car can cover ground at a serious pace unless the conditions are particularly bad - in which case you probably shouldn't be driving quickly regardless of how many wheels can be driven!

[DukeDickson]

RocketRS said:

vz-r_dave said:

RocketRS said:

PistonHeads ask us to"...ignore the 0-62 mph time..." Really? Ignore the speeds that I spend 90% of my time driving. I have a very fast Mountune Focus ST. I've had enough 5.7 sec. tire spinning to last a lifetime, and if I wanted a track car, I wouldn't be looking at either of these cars.

"Ignore the 1.2 sec difference to 62 kph." And you call yourself PistonHeads.

Yeah because being a petrol head is all about caring about 0-60. Who cares after that, 0-100, 20-100 etc. I mean who really cares about driving dynamics, cornering speed, track times are nuffin init. Your mongtune and its 0-60 are not the definition of piston head! Stop fooling yourself

Who said all I care about is 0-60 times? Oh, that would be you.

What I'm pointing out is that FWD cars have a glaring weakness. A weakness that I care about. The R is slow from 0-62. (And consequently slow from 0 to a lot of other speeds.) One measure of performance. And PH's ask us to "ignore" that fact.

There are many measures of a car's performance. I don't ask anyone to "ignore" any of them. Should I "ignore" the Civic's lack of AWD Winter weather performance as well?

How often do people really go from 0 - in the real world at 100%?

I'd hazard a guess at almost never, unless about 21WA. Rolling acceleration probably matters so much more & the suggestion is not that much difference at speeds that aren't licence losing or hello chokey.


As for awd winter performance, winter tyres and the lump behind the wheel go a long way to negating any advantage apparently conferred by awd on summer tyres.

[RocketRS]

MrBarry123 said:

RocketRS said:

Who said all I care about is 0-60 times? Oh, that would be you.

What I'm pointing out is that FWD cars have a glaring weakness. A weakness that I care about. The R is slow from 0-62. (And consequently slow from 0 to a lot of other speeds.) One measure of performance. And PH's ask us to "ignore" that fact.

There are many measures of a car's performance. I don't ask anyone to "ignore" any of them. Should I "ignore" the Civic's lack of AWD Winter weather performance as well?

It's only a glaring weakness when a) you are starting from an absolute standstill, b) have normal tyres fitted and c) there's no desire to modulate throttle application when exiting corners.

So, we should "ignore it"?

A word search shows no mention of the word 'understeer'. Not one.

[RocketRS]

DukeDickson said:

RocketRS said:

vz-r_dave said:

RocketRS said:

PistonHeads ask us to"...ignore the 0-62 mph time..." Really? Ignore the speeds that I spend 90% of my time driving. I have a very fast Mountune Focus ST. I've had enough 5.7 sec. tire spinning to last a lifetime, and if I wanted a track car, I wouldn't be looking at either of these cars.

"Ignore the 1.2 sec difference to 62 kph." And you call yourself PistonHeads.

Yeah because being a petrol head is all about caring about 0-60. Who cares after that, 0-100, 20-100 etc. I mean who really cares about driving dynamics, cornering speed, track times are nuffin init. Your mongtune and its 0-60 are not the definition of piston head! Stop fooling yourself

Who said all I care about is 0-60 times? Oh, that would be you.

What I'm pointing out is that FWD cars have a glaring weakness. A weakness that I care about. The R is slow from 0-62. (And consequently slow from 0 to a lot of other speeds.) One measure of performance. And PH's ask us to "ignore" that fact.

There are many measures of a car's performance. I don't ask anyone to "ignore" any of them. Should I "ignore" the Civic's lack of AWD Winter weather performance as well?

How often do people really go from 0 - in the real world at 100%?

I'd hazard a guess at almost never, unless about 21WA. Rolling acceleration probably matters so much more & the suggestion is not that much difference at speeds that aren't licence losing or hello chokey.


As for awd winter performance, winter tyres and the lump behind the wheel go a long way to negating any advantage apparently conferred by awd on summer tyres.

You don't compare two car's Winter driving performance by putting one on Summer tires. Put Winter tires on both cars, and the RS will eat the Civic's lunch.

[RocketRS]

Curious to note that the author preferred to remain anonymous. If I wrote an article comparing the FWD Civic to the Torque Vectoring RS, and never mentioned the word "understeer" one time, I might prefer anonymity as well.

[MrBarry123]

Rocket - I'm going to ignore the "AWD" element of your criticism surrounding the CTR's performance as that's unfair, it's a FWD drivetrain and doesn't pretend to be AWD. I do however strongly doubt the CTR lacks performance in adverse conditions. Sure, you won't be able to get on 100% throttle as quickly as the FRS however, apart from that, the difference would likely be negligible.

I don't really understand your point regarding understeer as AWD doesn't cure that? ETA: actually, I do. You're saying that the CTR should have experienced understeer when compared with the FRS. Well it didn't and I believe a PH journalist's summary over you and your clearly biased assumptions of how cars should perform.

Your tyre comment is also bizarre. If anything, the CTR is on the lower performing tyre in this test and still beats the FRS. If the CTR had a "better" set of tyres, it'd likely have increased the gap even further. Surely if both cars were on winter tyres and tested in adverse conditions, the performance gap you're desperately wanting to see in the FRS' favour would be even smaller?

You're obviously a Ford RS fanboy which is great however I made an ill-informed comment regarding the CTR's performance a few weeks ago and was proved wholly wrong. I strongly expect you're at risk of having the same happening to you.

Edited by MrBarry123 on Monday 23 May 00:47

[RocketRS]

MrBarry123 said:

Rocket - I'm going to ignore the "AWD" element of your criticism surrounding the CTR's performance as that's unfair, it's a FWD drivetrain and doesn't pretend to be AWD. I do however strongly doubt the CTR lacks performance in adverse conditions. Sure, you won't be able to get on 100% throttle as quickly as the FRS however, apart from that, the difference would likely be negligible.

I don't really understand your point regarding understeer as AWD doesn't cure that? ETA: actually, I do. You're saying that the CTR should have experienced understeer when compared with the FRS. Well it didn't and I believe a PH journalist's summary over you and your clearly biased assumptions of how cars should perform.

Your tyre comment is also bizarre. If anything, the CTR is on the lower performing tyre in this test and still beats the FRS. If the CTR had a "better" set of tyres, it'd likely have increased the gap even further. Surely if both cars were on winter tyres and tested in adverse conditions, the performance gap you're desperately wanting to see in the FRS' favour would be even smaller?

You're obviously a Ford RS fanboy which is great however I made an ill-informed comment regarding the CTR's performance a few weeks ago and was proved wholly wrong. I strongly expect you're at risk of having the same happening to you.

Edited by MrBarry123 on Monday 23 May 00:47

Look, when an article appears, and the anonymous author comes to a conclusion that is different from every single other major published comparison, and that same article gives no evidence (e.g., the lap times) to support that conclusion; then excuse me for being somewhat skeptical.

I don't understand why you need to resort to name calling. I never once said that the R wasn't a great FWD hot hatch. It is. And I'm not asking anyone to agree or disagree about which car they might prefer. But, unlike the author(s), I'm not asking anyone to "ignore" some very obvious salient negatives of the car either. The R is a FWD vehicle that is slow from low speeds compared to the RS, wouldn't stand a chance in Hades with inclement track conditions, and lt exhibits the trait that "is the death of any interesting corner"....it understeers.

[Ali_T]

DukeDickson said:

How often do people really go from 0 - in the real world at 100%?

Every time they brag down the pub to their mates, apparently. I always thought hot hatches were meant to be fun and not the realm of Vin "I live my life a quarter mile at a time" Diesel wannabes.

[RocketRS]

0-62 in 5.7 sec

[anonymous-user]

RocketRS said:

The R is a FWD vehicle that is slow from low speeds compared to the RS, wouldn't stand a chance in Hades with inclement track conditions, and lt exhibits the trait that "is the death of any interesting corner"....it understeers.

Which is why I'd take it over the RS. To me a hot hatch shouldn't be a thinly veiled rally car, the current crop are all too heavy and complex as it is! As for under steer and track data it's all pretty irrelevant on the road.

[anonymous-user]

Excellent, this is more like it, my faith in the Internet is restored.

[Axionknight]

RocketRS said:

Who said all I care about is 0-60 times? Oh, that would be you.

What I'm pointing out is that FWD cars have a glaring weakness. A weakness that I care about. The R is slow from 0-62. (And consequently slow from 0 to a lot of other speeds.) One measure of performance. And PH's ask us to "ignore" that fact.

There are many measures of a car's performance. I don't ask anyone to "ignore" any of them. Should I "ignore" the Civic's lack of AWD Winter weather performance as well?

Is 5.7 seconds really that slow? I don't think it is. It might be slower than the Focus but it's still quick.

0-60 didn't bother me when I bought it, or wasn't a major consideration anyway. I punted one down a few country roads and found the in gear oomph, the way it corners and holds the road, the way it stops and the way it seems genuinely planted to the road sufficient to me - it might "only" be FWD but it's an impressive bit of kit when you are pressing on, it's also very involving, although the feedback could be a touch better I admit.

[rb5er]

RocketRS said:

Look, when an article appears, and the anonymous author comes to a conclusion that is different from every single other major published comparison, and that same article gives no evidence (e.g., the lap times) to support that conclusion; then excuse me for being somewhat skeptical.

I agree with this. It does seem to be the one atticle that is contrary to ALL other reviews.

I'm sure there is a lot of good in this new Civic but having only seen poorer performance times posted for it and knowing how playful the rear end of the focus can be I'm just really not seeing it.

[Matt Bird]

rb5er said:

RocketRS said:

Look, when an article appears, and the anonymous author comes to a conclusion that is different from every single other major published comparison, and that same article gives no evidence (e.g., the lap times) to support that conclusion; then excuse me for being somewhat skeptical.

I agree with this. It does seem to be the one atticle that is contrary to ALL other reviews.

I'm sure there is a lot of good in this new Civic but having only seen poorer performance times posted for it and knowing how playful the rear end of the focus can be I'm just really not seeing it.

Hello

I wrote this comparison, my name is there when you click the story so you know where to direct your anger!

I appreciate many have been raving about the Focus RS, and as something of a fast Ford fan I was extremely excited to try it. But the fact is that with the conditions that we had, the Civic was the more enjoyable car. And having spent time with it as a long-termer, I would argue it's nearly as good everyday too. The Type R certainly isn't perfect, and I suspect the Megane may still be the more rewarding driver's car, but in this test everyone who tried the two cars preferred the Civic.

Just to add also - there are no laptimes because it was a public track day and so no timing was allowed. Felt like it would be close though!

Cheers,


Matt

[vz-r_dave]

rb5er said:

RocketRS said:

Look, when an article appears, and the anonymous author comes to a conclusion that is different from every single other major published comparison, and that same article gives no evidence (e.g., the lap times) to support that conclusion; then excuse me for being somewhat skeptical.

I agree with this. It does seem to be the one atticle that is contrary to ALL other reviews.

I'm sure there is a lot of good in this new Civic but having only seen poorer performance times posted for it and knowing how playful the rear end of the focus can be I'm just really not seeing it.

It makes sense to me, the author clearly cares about the driving experience over a 0-60 time (clearly not needing to brag about it either). If there is one thing Honda are good at it's driving experience, chassis dynamics, slick gear boxes, (engines.....even in the Turbo field this one seems to be the most lively) etc.

This point doesn't surprise me at all, I do agree the RS might be more playful due to its RWD bias but that doesn't make it a more focused.... machine. It may also be a quicker car also but that's not what the author was trying to convey.

The points being made about winter and wet performance tho are pathetic imo. Always the same argument, seriously we are getting down to a comparison of these cars with winter tyres?? Only a fool takes a car out for a spirited drive on a winters day (where winter tyres are necessary). When was the last winter tyre hot hatch road test done? Ridiculous.... clutching at small tiny little straw from the fan boys.