RE: SOTW: Ford Focus ST170
Discussion
Escort Si-130 said:
Maybe because you are a s
t driver and dont know how to drive. The same things can happen to people wih RWD with the back slipping out also.
Wow, I can see I've really touched a nerve. I had no idea you could lose traction at the back if you hoofed it, I really thought those RWD cars they make would just stick to the road like glue under any circumstances. I think the ones they have on Top Gear are specially tuned for "drifting" or something because they do all these cool stunts and I checked on wikipedia and these are mostly RWD cars that Jeremy and Richard and the other guy are driving. I hate that every time I get in a car my car goes sideways because I really don't know any other way to move forward other than press the throttle all the way down and hope for the best. It's not really an analog process for me. I always end up the wrong way on roundabouts; do you think this could be my problem? Vrrrrrrrooooooooooooommmmmmmmmm.t driver and dont know how to drive. The same things can happen to people wih RWD with the back slipping out also.mr2j said:
Rear-drive shed next week please. Every time I look at a front-drive car with any performance aspirations I just think about that "ch-ch-ch-ch" sound of tyres slipping and slight sideways shimmy the front end does when you pull away with a bit to much right foot, especially uphill.
In all seriousness, s
tty road surfaces had a lot to do with the limited number of times this has happened but I suppose you're one of those good folk that love to find any excuse to put someone down via the remote medium of 'internets'. You feel better about yourself now?Chrisw666 said:
mikeyr said:
BTW did the engine respond well to a remap?
Nope, the engine was already a modified zetec so even the usual exhaust, filter, remap routes are a waste of time and the only way to gain real power is FI or ITBs. Apparently there is a mod using a vernier pulley on one of the cams that will unleash some more power but I don't know how true this is. 
Beefmeister said:
The Obeast said:
I had one for a couple of years, but 3 door, I must have had a good one, kept a clio 172 honest in it. mine did look slighty better than than this weeks SOTW (IMHO of course)
With that awful bodykit, very much IYHO i'm afraid...
405dogvan said:
Why would anyone care about that?
Why do some people have to turn everything into a competition - compare everything with everything else?
Do we have a 21-st century medical name for this bullst - "Epeenitis" or "PostCountarhymia" or something like that?
As car enthusiasts the one thing that should be bloody obvious is that there's not a 'best' at anything - that everything is a highly personal choice.
If we go along the lines of Eliotrw here, once last weeks SOTW was sold we should have stopped caring about cars and got into the Brony scene - or something...!?
p.s. also - in before the first muppet brings up breaking it for more than it costs...
Perhaps not,Why do some people have to turn everything into a competition - compare everything with everything else?
Do we have a 21-st century medical name for this bulls
t - "Epeenitis" or "PostCountarhymia" or something like that?As car enthusiasts the one thing that should be bloody obvious is that there's not a 'best' at anything - that everything is a highly personal choice.
If we go along the lines of Eliotrw here, once last weeks SOTW was sold we should have stopped caring about cars and got into the Brony scene - or something...!?
p.s. also - in before the first muppet brings up breaking it for more than it costs...
Doesnt change that is a pretty meh car.
Its a fair point though, SOTW isnt necessarily about how good the car is all the time.
Chill your beans a bit though jeez
I know they are cheap cars now but it still makes me sad to see the car I drive referred to as a shed 
I'd want to know more about what was done when the clutch was replaced. The dual mass flywheel is a weak link and should be replaced with the clutch. £500 sounds very cheap to include that, unless he did the work himself. It would cost about that in parts alone and is a real ball-ache of a job to do.
Cambelt should have been done at 100K too.
Other common problems on them are leaky thermostat housings and wheel bearings, particularly rear ones. The temp sensor is stupidly easy to replace - it sticks out of the top of the thermostat housing and is held in with an R-Clip.
Economy isn't too bad on them - 35-40mpg is possible on a motorway but it's not a fun way to drive. It does need thrashing to get the performance out of it though. The engine doesn't sound particularly nice when revved to 7K and I'm sure you can see the fuel needle moving when you do it. As for the Cosworth input, I thought it was limited to the exhaust manifold but I'll happily be corrected!
However, I didn't buy it for economy or straight line performance, which I agree it seems to lack. I bought it because I like the way it looks and goes round corners.
I might be a bit biased but they look much nicer in 3dr with Magnum Grey paint
I wouldn't want a basic spec one either. Cars with the xenon headlamps, climate control and heated screen aren't uncommon, don't cost that much more and are a much more appealing prospect. I'd love to have the full leather Recaro seats but they are a bit pricey. I've added the Audiophile sub+speaker set up to mine and it sounds much nicer than the standard sound system.
I'd want to know more about what was done when the clutch was replaced. The dual mass flywheel is a weak link and should be replaced with the clutch. £500 sounds very cheap to include that, unless he did the work himself. It would cost about that in parts alone and is a real ball-ache of a job to do.
Cambelt should have been done at 100K too.
Other common problems on them are leaky thermostat housings and wheel bearings, particularly rear ones. The temp sensor is stupidly easy to replace - it sticks out of the top of the thermostat housing and is held in with an R-Clip.
Economy isn't too bad on them - 35-40mpg is possible on a motorway but it's not a fun way to drive. It does need thrashing to get the performance out of it though. The engine doesn't sound particularly nice when revved to 7K and I'm sure you can see the fuel needle moving when you do it. As for the Cosworth input, I thought it was limited to the exhaust manifold but I'll happily be corrected!
However, I didn't buy it for economy or straight line performance, which I agree it seems to lack. I bought it because I like the way it looks and goes round corners.
I might be a bit biased but they look much nicer in 3dr with Magnum Grey paint
I wouldn't want a basic spec one either. Cars with the xenon headlamps, climate control and heated screen aren't uncommon, don't cost that much more and are a much more appealing prospect. I'd love to have the full leather Recaro seats but they are a bit pricey. I've added the Audiophile sub+speaker set up to mine and it sounds much nicer than the standard sound system.
Back when these were new, having been impressed with a 1.4 and 2.0 Focus, I jumped at the chance of a go in one of these. Having driven for 10 minutes the owner said "Don't say it, its not as fast as you think it should be". He was spot on. Nice handling but slightly underwhelming.
For some reason they still appeal to me, just not this one.
For some reason they still appeal to me, just not this one.
Had two from work (with full leather)
Handling was excellent. (Slightly more front-end feel than a Civic Type-R of the same period)
Seats were really comfortable and the stereo was excellent.
Downsides: You sat too high and couldn't get the drivers seat low enough.
Engine was fairly horrible to be honest. It felt like you were waiting for all hell to break loose at the top end but the end result was a modest increase in power but very rough as a consequence.
Lower drivers seat, Civic Type R engine and it would have been a brilliant car.
Handling was excellent. (Slightly more front-end feel than a Civic Type-R of the same period)
Seats were really comfortable and the stereo was excellent.
Downsides: You sat too high and couldn't get the drivers seat low enough.
Engine was fairly horrible to be honest. It felt like you were waiting for all hell to break loose at the top end but the end result was a modest increase in power but very rough as a consequence.
Lower drivers seat, Civic Type R engine and it would have been a brilliant car.
Beefmeister said:
The Obeast said:
I had one for a couple of years, but 3 door, I must have had a good one, kept a clio 172 honest in it. mine did look slighty better than than this weeks SOTW (IMHO of course)
With that awful bodykit, very much IYHO i'm afraid...big_boz 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.
Good shout 2.0ESP with a blue fin on is probably a better car.A mate has a silver estate ST 170. I 'think' he thought it maybe comparable to my ST225, but they are leagues apart. Its OK, nothing too inspiring to be honest. Getting sheddy with age. has had to do the flap assembly recently and cambelt too, so not been cheap to own. Luckily had a new clutch with 5k miles of buying it, which was about £700 including the DMF. He likes it and has done south of england to Scotland twice this year so far alon. He does say it does drink a lot of juice, but crusing at 90 ish, I am not surprised. Wouldnt think it was 170 bhp , like everyone else has said here, either.
Zoki said:
big_boz 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.
Good shout 2.0ESP with a blue fin on is probably a better car.Out of the bunch the 1.8 was the best to drive. The 2.0 ESP was only marginally quicker but a fair bit more thirsty and the gear box was agricultural compared to the 1.8. Not a fast car by any stretch and no better in the chassis department than the smaller engined car. In fact the 1.8 was one of the most chuckable cars i've ever driven.
The ST170 was a disappointment. Again, not a fast car and the gear box was bloody awful. I hated it.
Big 1.8 TDCI lump up front blunts the handling but at least gives acceptable fuel economy.
In short, the best mk1 Focus is one with one of the smaller petrol engines (Not including the RS in that). There's no point in the bigger engines as all they seem to do is drink more fuel without actually getting you to your destination any quicker.
big_boz said:
I cant comment on anything other than the 1.8 Zetec 3dr that i ran for 30k miles, it was a peach in every respect
A mate has a 1.8 zetec. OK it doesn't look anything special but revs/ drives well and returns excellent mpg on a run. The sensible Man's daily hack I'd say.Brother had a 1.8 tdci and that went very well too. Have heard a few reliability issues with those though.
I recently sold an 02 for £500!
I never ever liked that car (it was the other halfs anyway), it wasn't fast, had some serious blind spots and drank fuel like it was going out of fashion. Everyone talks about the handling but having owned a DC2 it was nothing more than good. The wheezy old Zetec was hopeless. I dont know where the 170HP was but it certainly never made itself felt? OK at the bottom end then faltering in the mid range and weak at the top, it didn't like revs much. Fuel consumption well the best I saw was around 26 but it would easily drop to low 20's which for the performance I couldn't live with. The gearbox was remarkable in being both notchy and rubbery, it's a horrible thing to use. Stereo, average, Seats ok but poor quality...lights were good...yes, keep the lights
In fairness nothing bad went wrong and it covered 60K with us and only cost oil changes and a clutch along with the usual things. 4/10 cheap for a reason.
I never ever liked that car (it was the other halfs anyway), it wasn't fast, had some serious blind spots and drank fuel like it was going out of fashion. Everyone talks about the handling but having owned a DC2 it was nothing more than good. The wheezy old Zetec was hopeless. I dont know where the 170HP was but it certainly never made itself felt? OK at the bottom end then faltering in the mid range and weak at the top, it didn't like revs much. Fuel consumption well the best I saw was around 26 but it would easily drop to low 20's which for the performance I couldn't live with. The gearbox was remarkable in being both notchy and rubbery, it's a horrible thing to use. Stereo, average, Seats ok but poor quality...lights were good...yes, keep the lights
In fairness nothing bad went wrong and it covered 60K with us and only cost oil changes and a clutch along with the usual things. 4/10 cheap for a reason.
Edited by anonymous-user on Friday 23 November 12:28
Owned a 1.6, 2.0 and an ST170, and to a degree I agree with the poster who says the bigger engined cars offer worse fuel economy and little extra performance.
The ST I had was perfectly reliable for the 2 years I owned it, and like most people, my only issue with it was the long gear ratios. I bought it knowing full well it wasn't as quick as a 182 or a Type-R which wasn't a problem, but the long 2nd gear meant that even on a twisty road, you couldn't get to the 5500-7200rpm 'power band' (I hate that phrase). Honda get away with it by having much shorter gear ratios, where as Ford bought an off the shelf Getrag box, just to give the car 6 forward gears. I imagine it would have been a better drive with the MTX75 from the regular 2.0, although that was even notchier, especially when cold.
Equipment wise mine had every option box (bar the sunroof) ticked. The Xenon headlights were great, and the sub-woofer in the boot gave a surprisingly good sound for a Focus. Wheels were an utter pain to clean though.
The ST I had was perfectly reliable for the 2 years I owned it, and like most people, my only issue with it was the long gear ratios. I bought it knowing full well it wasn't as quick as a 182 or a Type-R which wasn't a problem, but the long 2nd gear meant that even on a twisty road, you couldn't get to the 5500-7200rpm 'power band' (I hate that phrase). Honda get away with it by having much shorter gear ratios, where as Ford bought an off the shelf Getrag box, just to give the car 6 forward gears. I imagine it would have been a better drive with the MTX75 from the regular 2.0, although that was even notchier, especially when cold.
Equipment wise mine had every option box (bar the sunroof) ticked. The Xenon headlights were great, and the sub-woofer in the boot gave a surprisingly good sound for a Focus. Wheels were an utter pain to clean though.
Edited by mnkiboy on Friday 23 November 12:34
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff