Ford Focus RS Road Test-does it live up to the hype?

[rehab71]

JockySteer said:

300bhp/ton said:

I want to see a head2head of the new RS vs a V8 UK Mustang.

Which is the most fun.
Which is the fastest (straight line and track).
Which makes you smile the most.

Mustang
Mustang/Focus
Mustang

I imagine - bet I'm right

Edited by JockySteer on Friday 13th May 09:54

I've driven both at length (I'm a Ford dealer). I'd say and it's my opinion only, the RS is the most fun, really chuckleable, noisy, fast, good throttle response and the peddles are in a nice place. The Mustang is a bit of a handful and means you become a bit more cautious so therefore less fun.

In terms of out right speed I'd say pretty closely matched but once the Mustang gets into its stride it'll pull away I think.

I think the Mustang is where I'd put my own money, it's more of an event/special feeling when you drive it and nothing turns head like it.

Having said all that I think long term the RS might be a better buy due to better/European build and long term properly stronger residual.

[Gibbo205]

[s m]

rehab71 said:

JockySteer said:

300bhp/ton said:

I want to see a head2head of the new RS vs a V8 UK Mustang.

Which is the most fun.
Which is the fastest (straight line and track).
Which makes you smile the most.

Mustang
Mustang/Focus
Mustang

I imagine - bet I'm right

Edited by JockySteer on Friday 13th May 09:54

I've driven both at length (I'm a Ford dealer). I'd say and it's my opinion only, the RS is the most fun, really chuckleable, noisy, fast, good throttle response and the peddles are in a nice place. The Mustang is a bit of a handful and means you become a bit more cautious so therefore less fun.

In terms of out right speed I'd say pretty closely matched but once the Mustang gets into its stride it'll pull away I think.

I think the Mustang is where I'd put my own money, it's more of an event/special feeling when you drive it and nothing turns head like it.

Having said all that I think long term the RS might be a better buy due to better/European build and long term properly stronger residual.

Pretty much as per the EVO figures, RS and Mustang tied up to 60... then the Mustang nearly a second quicker by a ton.

The RS just a bit quicker on the track layout

[cheddar]

100mph in 12 seconds is quick enough, that was junior supercar territory a couple of decades ago.

Having owned a few cars that would hit 100 in around 15 seconds I'd be more than happy shaving 3 seconds off that, just how fast do you need to go?

[s m]

cheddar said:

100mph in 12 seconds is quick enough, that was junior supercar territory a couple of decades ago.

Having owned a few cars that would hit 100 in around 15 seconds I'd be more than happy shaving 3 seconds off that, just how fast do you need to go?

This must have seemed ballistic a quarter of a century ago



The improvements are there though, the driveability, economy and the new car comes as standard ...warranty et al

[greenarrow]

Gibbo205 said:

Is the 11.1s 0-100mph for the Golf the DSG version?

I am sure it must be and that a manual Golf R would be around 12s 0-100 like the Focus RS.

DSG/Auto are always quicker as they shift perfectly and faster each gear change.

Yes indeed it is the DSG. As was the 3 door which did 11.5 in 2014 and the Autocar Road test car from the same year.

The impact of these DSG gearboxes is clear when you analyse the acceleration in the Golf over 100 MPH. It hit 100 in the wet in 12.0 secs but then took 19.8 secs to go from 100 to 140 MPH. Obviously academic in the UK, but fascinating to compare with, say a boggo 271 BHP Cayman 2.7, which took 13.6 secs to hit 100, but then hit 140 1.8 secs sooner than the Golf R. The Autocar Focus RS couldn't even reach 140 within the MIRA straight.
I think the poor Drag coefficient of 0.35, vs the Golf 0.28 is what costs it as the speed ramps up....

I also agree that 12 secs 0-100 is very fast compared with a few years ago. Staggeringly fast for a hatchback. I am just surprised that having given it 345 BHP, Ford didn't ensure that it was AMG45 fast and not Golf R fast....

[300bhp/ton]

I wonder if it makes all is 345hp in the lower gears? Might explain why it's maybe not a little quicker to the ton. I know many car makers use ECU torque limiting measures in lower gears. Usually to preserve the transmission. Ford where doing this back with the Puma. Don't think they made full power until 3rd gear or something. Despite them not being very powerful.

[JockySteer]

s m said:

greenarrow said:

s m said:

JockySteer said:

That's not the first time I've seen the Focus RS being quoted with a 'not that impressive' 0-100 time.

Car and Driver quote 12.2 seconds on their test. Guessing it was dry.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-ford-focu...
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2016-ford-focu...

EVO got pretty much the same times to 60 and 100 as Car & Driver did in their test

Their car was on the Supersports rather than the Cup 2 and tested in the dry.
Similar time to the Mustang V8 on the track bit, both a bit quicker than the M235i and all three behind the M2


On a tangent, great pic of the Mk1 Astra GTE as well

Re your post, amongst all the mud-slinging.....Is that the current issue of EVO In the shops which has the Boxster S road test, or the subscriber edition one of the next months which I am guessing is just out?

So, 0-100 in 12.2 in the dry? That's better, but still slower than the 11.1 secs quoted in last summer's Top gear for a 5 door Golf R.

It seems the Focus R just isn't as quick as a Golf R and that surprises me. I would have expected Ford to have pulled out the stops to beat the VW in straight line pace as well as 4wd lairyness...

Hi there, yes it's the very recent one - should be out in the shops next week

Yes it does seem consistently a bit slower as you say - does make me wonder if the Golf horses are quite hefty ones as well

They've got some head to heads in the same article, M235i vs M2 and a look back at the Mk1 Astra GTE - quite a bit of stuff in this month that seems affordable ( to me at least . )

Guessing it's all in the gearboxes. Can't really think of another reason why a car quoted at having 50 or so more bhp and torque can't match the Golf. It's not even like that extra power seems to claw anything back the faster they go. The Golf just keeps on pulling.

At least I won't have to worry about Focus RS' on drag strips then! Until they all get remapped

[JockySteer]

rehab71 said:

I think the Mustang is where I'd put my own money, it's more of an event/special feeling when you drive it and nothing turns head like it.

And there it is, in a nutshell

[300bhp/ton]

JockySteer said:

s m said:

greenarrow said:

s m said:

JockySteer said:

That's not the first time I've seen the Focus RS being quoted with a 'not that impressive' 0-100 time.

Car and Driver quote 12.2 seconds on their test. Guessing it was dry.

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2016-ford-focu...
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/2016-ford-focu...

EVO got pretty much the same times to 60 and 100 as Car & Driver did in their test

Their car was on the Supersports rather than the Cup 2 and tested in the dry.
Similar time to the Mustang V8 on the track bit, both a bit quicker than the M235i and all three behind the M2


On a tangent, great pic of the Mk1 Astra GTE as well

Re your post, amongst all the mud-slinging.....Is that the current issue of EVO In the shops which has the Boxster S road test, or the subscriber edition one of the next months which I am guessing is just out?

So, 0-100 in 12.2 in the dry? That's better, but still slower than the 11.1 secs quoted in last summer's Top gear for a 5 door Golf R.

It seems the Focus R just isn't as quick as a Golf R and that surprises me. I would have expected Ford to have pulled out the stops to beat the VW in straight line pace as well as 4wd lairyness...

Hi there, yes it's the very recent one - should be out in the shops next week

Yes it does seem consistently a bit slower as you say - does make me wonder if the Golf horses are quite hefty ones as well

They've got some head to heads in the same article, M235i vs M2 and a look back at the Mk1 Astra GTE - quite a bit of stuff in this month that seems affordable ( to me at least . )

Guessing it's all in the gearboxes. Can't really think of another reason why a car quoted at having 50 or so more bhp and torque can't match the Golf. It's not even like that extra power seems to claw anything back the faster they go. The Golf just keeps on pulling.

At least I won't have to worry about Focus RS' on drag strips then! Until they all get remapped

I wonder if production Golf R's as as quick as the test cars given to mags? With turbo cars it's very easy to get a sneaky performance hike, without looking like it's not a production car.

I'm sure more than one car makers has done this. But I do recall quite vividly when Autocar first tested the 1.8T Ocatavia and marvelled at how quick it was, something crazy like middish 6's to 60mph. Despite the fact it's power to weight ratio should have made it impossible.

It was so quick, that car then got included in loads of group tests. But for latter tests they didn't have a VW supplied test car, and all of these where 1.5-2.0 sec slower to 60 than the original. The assumption being the original test car was running more of an Audi TT 225hp spec motor than the claimed output (150 or 180hp or something).

I'm not saying this is true with the Golf R, but if all the mags are getting seeming impossible performance stats from the test car, beating other cars that have more power and should be faster, then it just suggests that maybe those stats aren't really all that reliable.

[anonymous-user]

JockySteer said:

And there it is, in a nutshell

Depends. No four door Mustang means as a daily car (for me) it doesn't work. No hatch, therefore not as practical getting bikes in the back. Not 'enough' to be a Sunday car, too much for an everyday vehicle. The RS for me all day long in a subtle (as possible) colour...can the spoiler be deleted?

[JockySteer]

300bhp/ton said:

I'm not saying this is true with the Golf R, but if all the mags are getting seeming impossible performance stats from the test car, beating other cars that have more power and should be faster, then it just suggests that maybe those stats aren't really all that reliable.

That may be the case, but the Golf's performance figures are totally separate from the Focus, which is still seemingly 'slow' regardless. As has been said previously, you'd expect it to be near A45 quick, not slower than a Type-R.

[rb5er]

JockySteer said:

At least I won't have to worry about Focus RS' on drag strips then! Until they all get remapped

https://youtu.be/jSUsnoFUeCc

It looks to me that different tests have different results, there are a few with each one coming first. Only seen the Focus RS posting the better times on track so far though.

Edited by rb5er on Monday 16th May 16:12

[rb5er]

JockySteer said:

the Focus, which is still seemingly 'slow' regardless. As has been said previously, you'd expect it to be near A45 quick, not slower than a Type-R.

Where have you heard ANY road tests saying it was slow?

And when has it been beaten by the civic?

You seem to be getting a bit defensive of your Golf / offensive of the RS despite the fact that there are road tests pointing that either car could be the faster on on a drag race but only one car is being suggested to be more fun to drive and faster around a track.

[JockySteer]

rb5er said:

JockySteer said:

the Focus, which is still seemingly 'slow' regardless. As has been said previously, you'd expect it to be near A45 quick, not slower than a Type-R.

Where have you heard ANY road tests saying it was slow?

And when has it been beaten by the civic?

You seem to be getting a bit defensive of your Golf / offensive of the RS despite the fact that there are road tests pointing that either car could be the faster on on a drag race but only one car is being suggested to be more fun to drive and faster around a track.

I'm not claiming it as a slow car, because clearly it isn't. What I'm saying is with that drivetrain and c.350bhp, you'd expect it to be a bit quicker to the ton, that's all. The fact supposedly slower cars (on paper) are posting faster acceleration times, such as the Golf, may upset some would-be RS owners.

Not defensive at all, I wouldn't have either car so not biased in any way. I know you however have a deposit down on a RS, so I'll take what you say as semi-loaded.

Top Gear timed the Type-R at 11.2 to 100mph, google it.

[rb5er]

Oh ok so the type-r is also quicker than the Golf R. Thats fine, awd drivetrain losses for you.

It seems that the RS's best stats are not at 0-100mph but then the Golfs are not at 0-110mph.

Likely differences due to gearing and when a car is on boost etc.

You like the car and driver stats so have a look at the rest, RS on the left, STi in the middle and Golf R on the right.



So different cars are different over different increments. Either way its pretty negligable at a couple of tenths of a second here and there. Whats most important to most people is which is most fun to drive as its obvious a different set of drivers will achieve different results.

[300bhp/ton]

Purely from a petrol head point of view, and accepting these are different classes of vehicles. But it pleases me none the less, that my 'old bus' is still right up there or exceeding these new breeds of ultimate hot hatch and attainable performance cars.

[anonymous-user]

Has the Focus really been reduced to the 'American standard' of 1/8 and 1/4 mile times, Ford will be delighted that they spent the development money so wisely.

[Mr Will]

300bhp/ton said:

Purely from a petrol head point of view, and accepting these are different classes of vehicles. But it pleases me none the less, that my 'old bus' is still right up there or exceeding these new breeds of ultimate hot hatch and attainable performance cars.

Are you aware of these things called "corners"? I know there aren't many of them in America, but they are fairly common in the UK.

[300bhp/ton]

Mr Will said:

Are you aware of these things called "corners"? I know there aren't many of them in America, but they are fairly common in the UK.

Rather common in the US too