RE: SOTW: Ford Focus ST170
Discussion
yonex said:
Prolly the same as us, got a good deal then stuck with it. I am amazed that people like them! As for handling 'amazingly' I can only say that a DC2 must be other-worldly as they are way, way better.
Show me a Dc2 for a grand? Do they have a LSD? Foci handle well and are nice cars to drive, you would have to compare a dc2 with an RS to be fair and I doubt the honda is way, way better or faster, no?yonex said:
Prolly the same as us, got a good deal then stuck with it. I am amazed that people like them! As for handling 'amazingly' I can only say that a DC2 must be other-worldly as they are way, way better.
The DC2 is a stripped, lightweight car built with the singular focus of going fast. The ST170 is a hatchback designed to be comfortable for four people and their stuff while providing a bit more fun than the normal focus on which it is based.
In that context the ST170 is as good as or probably better than the DC2, imagine how good it could have been if Ford didn't fit it with creature comforts? In a straight line or on a smooth road where the LSD does its best work the DC2 is easily the faster car, but on a more typical B road with undulations and worn tarmac the ST170 can more than hold its own.
In fact on one such road (The B1257) I could pedal my ST170 a bit quicker than I could my mates MK1 FRS.
yonex said:
Prolly the same as us, got a good deal then stuck with it. I am amazed that people like them! As for handling 'amazingly' I can only say that a DC2 must be other-worldly as they are way, way better.
I agree, I always found the handling nothing more than 'acceptable'. I found the handling neutral and predictable, but not something I could gleen any 'enjoyment' from when going on a 'hoon'. I went back to a humble 306 at half the value and feel that the better seating position and it's ability to corner well are far superior to that of the Focus, with which I was disappointed.C.A.R. said:
I found the handling neutral and predictable, but not something I could gleen any 'enjoyment' from when going on a 'hoon'
I have lead PH organised Hoons in my ST and it didn't hold anyone up and provided me with a right giggle, it might not have the I have always liked how the handling had a slight understeer to nuetral 4 wheel drift set up, when pushing on there is a lot to be said for nuetral. If you want to lift off it will come round fairly easily but on UK roads i would say the less snap in the back of the car the better.
As said before
80085 said:
Show me a Dc2 for a grand? Do they have a LSD? Foci handle well and are nice cars to drive, you would have to compare a dc2 with an RS to be fair and I doubt the honda is way, way better or faster, no?
Yes the DC2 has an LSD. I can comapre it as that is what I have owned. Fact is the DC2 was purchased for about 9K and sold 5 years later for 6K, the ST was a disastor in comparison. It was worse on fuel, didn't handle anywhere near as well and the engine and box where very average. It felt like what it was i.e. a lightly modified Focus, not a surprise but it did seem like just a stop gap for a car that was never made (4WD rep). As for an RS I personally think that they are a bit naff. Interior is on the borderline of anyones tastes and every report seems to rate them differently. They will hold their value though as they have a certain kudos. Price wise I think they were what, 2-3K more than the Honda at the time?Anyway back OT the reason that the ST is in shed territory is that its cheap and cheap for a reason.
yonex said:
80085 said:
Show me a Dc2 for a grand? Do they have a LSD? Foci handle well and are nice cars to drive, you would have to compare a dc2 with an RS to be fair and I doubt the honda is way, way better or faster, no?
Yes the DC2 has an LSD. I can comapre it as that is what I have owned. Fact is the DC2 was purchased for about 9K and sold 5 years later for 6K, the ST was a disastor in comparison. It was worse on fuel, didn't handle anywhere near as well and the engine and box where very average. It felt like what it was i.e. a lightly modified Focus, not a surprise but it did seem like just a stop gap for a car that was never made (4WD rep). As for an RS I personally think that they are a bit naff. Interior is on the borderline of anyones tastes and every report seems to rate them differently. They will hold their value though as they have a certain kudos. Price wise I think they were what, 2-3K more than the Honda at the time?Anyway back OT the reason that the ST is in shed territory is that its cheap and cheap for a reason.
80085 said:
If you drove an astra/golf/ civic etc of the same era back to back with the focus you would quickly realise how wrong you are. And to compare it to a dc2 is daft even if you have ownned both. well looked after low milage st's still make decent money.
I did, and I ended up with the equivalent Civic!Again, it's all about personal taste. Agreed that the DC2 comparison is ridiculous though.
jezhumphrey75 said:
anyways still got mine, not selling it as its not worth it, great car doesnt go wrong, quick enough for the road, comfortable, handles awesomely
That's probably an important point. Some people get a bit obsessed with the numbers and magazine figures (You only need enough performance) although, as said before, guzzling fuel isn't popular these days.80085 said:
The focus was and still is the best drive in its class FACT. Foci are cheap to run/look after, a dc2 is not. I have a 2.0 zetec and my friend who is way more talented behind the wheel than me and has owned and driven many fast cars thought the focus was brilliant, nice steering feel-grip-balance, you my friend are wrong!
BS.My DC2 over 50K was cheaper than the Focus to run. As I have said better on fuel, didn't drink much oil was faster, handling in a different league...a genuinely special car. The ST with its wheezy old Zetec is just a warmer Focus. In fairness the standard 2 litre is probably the better car, and there is nothing wrong with it but it is not a hot hatch. As you dont seem to have driven an ST or DC2, let alone spent a decent amount of time in either I would suggest that you dont know what you are talking about. You should have purchased our old one for £550, you too could have lived the dream.
I am sure your friend Sebastian is a great wheelman, perhaps he can join in and comment with something sensible?
Had one of these for a couple of years. Bought it as an urgent replacement after my previous car decided to throw it's cambelt. The handling was really good with tons of grip when chucking it round B-roads and quite decent for every day driving. Surprisingly cheap to run for a 2.0 petrol.
But... it never felt like it was a 170 brake car. Wasn't "slow" slow but never felt quick. My 12 year old Golf GTI has less power on paper but feels quicker when applying the right foot. Also had problems with rust on the boot, exhaust sensors kept going and the brakes were a bit of a headache/drain on the wallet.
Doubt I'd have another 170. I do miss the chassis and the amount of grip but not much else.
But... it never felt like it was a 170 brake car. Wasn't "slow" slow but never felt quick. My 12 year old Golf GTI has less power on paper but feels quicker when applying the right foot. Also had problems with rust on the boot, exhaust sensors kept going and the brakes were a bit of a headache/drain on the wallet.
Doubt I'd have another 170. I do miss the chassis and the amount of grip but not much else.
jezhumphrey75 said:
if it was so bad why the f
k did you buy it?
...bacause it was a company car with Ford only policy, so that meant a fiesta, focus, or mundano, so within my budget it was a simple choice for an enthusiast given the list. 3 year 50k mile scheme - glad to hand it back.k did you buy it?Purely MO
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff