RE: SOTW: Ford Focus ST170

[KM666]

I always liked the styling of the mk1's. But as an insurance group 15 offering its underwhelming. The non ST 2.0 is group 9 IIRC, and some have leather too.

[omgus]

Justin S said:

omgus said:

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.

St225 is the ST Focus St220 is a Mondeo. I have uprated the suspension and ARB's on my ST and handles pretty well, but as a point and squirt car my mates St170 is a long way back. You can have lots of agility but sheer grunt ( albeit 300bhp in the ST Focus) is not in the same league at as 'possibly never made' 170 bhp , especially at 100k miles like my mates st170.

I meant the ST220 Mondeo.

I do think that if you are looking for a car with grunt you shouldn't really be looking at warm hatches though.

My old Scooby wagon could decimate a Mondeo ST220 in a straight line but if i wanted to sit on the motorway at 95mph i know which one would make more sense.
Horses for corses, the ST170 is a nippy, sweet handling hatch that can put a smile on your face, and it is also a mk1 Focus. It's easy to forget what a good car the mk1 is now it's over a decade old but it really did move things one for ford and give us a cheap FWD car that could be hustled in it's most basic guise let alone with slightly better set-up and better brakes.



Although, i must admit the ST170 does have about the worst hatchback turning circle of all time, it is as bad as the Scooby and trying to do a 3point turn in a tight road is just embarrasing.

[58warren]

You could also have this one with errr... a lovely low key and tasteful bodykit on for the same money and a sporty 1.4 motor

http://classifieds.pistonheads.com/classifieds/use...

Advert says 'THIS CAR HAS BEEN MODIFIED, WITH 18" ALLOYS AND ANGEL LIGHTS. THIS CAR IS WORTH MUCH MORE...' I think they got IS and WAS mixed up...

Edited by 58warren on Saturday 24th November 09:24

[Scantily]

80085 said:

Good shout indeed, I have a 2.0 esp, chipped, manifold, exhaust,filter bilstiens, 18"s and minus 100kg, goes very nicely, likes revs and returns decent mpg's and with shocks and wheels handles even better. I am a big fan of the mk1, the handling is amazing.

18s on a mk1 focus? Bloody hell.

[RacingBlue]

omgus said:

Although, i must admit the ST170 does have about the worst hatchback turning circle of all time, it is as bad as the Scooby and trying to do a 3point turn in a tight road is just embarrasing.

I raise you the Clio 182. It's one of the least maneuverable cars I've ever driven.

[sc4589]

hora said:

Even though its slow you think a type S is a better drive and worse its steering-my 2yr old sons car has more feel..

I dont get the dislike. I drive 65bhp and you learn to be smooth and carry speed very quickly

Edited by hora on Saturday 24th November 06:35

The pre-facelift cars had terrible steering, the post-2004 ones had revised steering that actually had weight & feel. Admittedly not as much as the Focus.

Personal preference did in fact dictate that I preferred the Civic. Nicer cabin, incredibly well-built, a lovely engine, beautiful balance and a superb gearbox made it a winner. I liked the ST170, but the one I smiled most from was the Civic. If you don't understand that, then I suppose that's the beauty of this site... if we all thought the same, it would get dull very quickly.

[omgus]

RacingBlue said:

I raise you the Clio 182. It's one of the least maneuverable cars I've ever driven.

Fair point, but the clio is shorter so i reckon it evens out in the end.

[C.A.R.]

I bought a 1.8 TDCi on the basis that my mates 1.6 'Ink' was a good car.

I hated it and flogged it after just 3 months. I'm surprised that only one other person has mentioned the seating position on the mk1, as it is absolutely terrible.

My boss likened it to that of a Transit. If you're not comfortable then its set a bad impression before you even turn the key.

[the stigs dad]

C.A.R. said:

I bought a 1.8 TDCi on the basis that my mates 1.6 'Ink' was a good car.

I hated it and flogged it after just 3 months. I'm surprised that only one other person has mentioned the seating position on the mk1, as it is absolutely terrible.

My boss likened it to that of a Transit. If you're not comfortable then its set a bad impression before you even turn the key.

The seating position was fine for me. A 1.8 diesel is hardly a drivers car though is it?

[checkmate91]

I had a 2.0 zetec for 5 years and 110,00 miles, loved every minute of it. Chopped it for a 2 year old ST170 which was only really slightly better. Firmer, lower suspension was very nice for handling. I actually loved the 6-speed gearbox. Fair to say that 1st was pretty long but the next 5 ratios were very closely stacked. The trick, as others have said, was to keep the revs up, it was a good fun car to drive. Shame about the inlet manifold actuator problem though.

I'd have thought it a worthy shed and a good fun track car, suitably stripped out.

[DStanley1809]

Changedmyname said:

It was yours then?

Not my car for sale, I merely meant that I drive an ST170.

Mine is 3dr and Magnum Grey - Mine

[MC Bodge]

58warren said:

You could also have this one with errr... a lovely low key and tasteful bodykit on for the same money and a sporty 1.4 motor

At the time I had my 2.0 Zetec ESP, I use to drive a Focus 1.4 rental car when I working over in Ireland. The differences between the cars were significant, but the 1.4 was fun for razzing around the (very bumpy in places) Wicklow mountains.

[MC Bodge]

sc4589 said:

They're weird, the quasi-hatches. Not fast enough to be hot hatches, too thirsty to be viable family cars

That's about the level of it.

I'm all in favour of a daily-driving road car that drives well and can stay in good contact with the road -power is a lower priority- but knowing that I was using as much (or more) fuel as a massively more powerful turbo-nutter petrol car in the process might spoil the experience somewhat.

It sounds as if fitting a 5 speed box from a 2.0 would help an ST170, although the 2.0's 5th gear was still quite long from what I remember. Incidentally, My earlier Mk1 Mondeo had a close ratio box that red-lined at top speed and was doing 4000rpm at 80mph, IIRC.

[Fire99]

C.A.R. said:

My boss likened it to that of a Transit. If you're not comfortable then its set a bad impression before you even turn the key.

The focus is way too high in the driving position stakes.

[mnkiboy]

MC Bodge said:

It sounds as if fitting a 5 speed box from a 2.0 would help an ST170, although the 2.0's 5th gear was still quite long from what I remember. Incidentally, My earlier Mk1 Mondeo had a close ratio box that red-lined at top speed and was doing 4000rpm at 80mph, IIRC.

It wasn't so much the length of the final ratio that was the problem (although top speed was achieved in 5th, rather than 6th), but the length of 1st and 2nd. 45mph and 70mph respective max speeds were just too high, and showed up the lack of torque from the engine.
On a spirited drive over the Cat and Fiddle road in the Peak district, a number of times I found myself changing down to 1st gear out of tight hairpins, as 2nd gear was flat below 30mph.

[treetops]

There have been too many wrecks of the week recently. That horrid e39 in particular.

We don't want mega mile, crashed and thrashed junk.

[Mavican]

I've got a Sport TDCi and you can tell the handling is really good, but that 1.8 lump of iron in the nose just blunts it. It'll grip and then just plow on once you hit a certain speed. But otherwise its a great car when you want to push on in economical comfort. I'd like to drive a normal 2 litre focus and really see how good it is.

[Mouse1903]

I've always liked these. Not the quickest or most economical but still a great car to drive no doubt. My friend had a magnum grey one and it seemed quite nippy. The interior is nice too, even though that dash is very dated. Mk3 Focus looks like a mini-MPV. The Mk1 Focus was revolutionary, with the Mk2 and Mk3 being evolutionary, shame.

[markcoznottz]

405dogvan said:

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 original ka was one of the best drivers cars ever, the mk1 focus, puma , ka were all parry jones cars I believe. If every trip to the shops is like a kart race you know someone who REALLY understands how to make a drive fun developed these cars.

[80085]

MC Bodge said:

80085 said:

Good shout indeed, I have a 2.0 esp, chipped, manifold, exhaust,filter bilstiens, 18"s and minus 100kg, goes very nicely, likes revs and returns decent mpg's and with shocks and wheels handles even better. I am a big fan of the mk1, the handling is amazing.

Good stuff. Why not stick with 15/16" wheels though?

The rs has 18" and they look good, i think it needs the bigger wheels to fill the arches, purely aesthetics.