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

[Mr Will]

greenarrow said:

To me, it seems the usual case of VAG cars punching well above their weight. All the tests I have seen give a 0-100 figure for the R of between 11.1 and 12.0 secs, which is seriously shifting for 296 BHP.

They punch above their weight on the emissions tests too

[stevesingo]

It surprised me that the FRS was so tardy in a straight line. Not just the 0-60 time which is highly dependant on traction off the line and driver ability, but just look at the 30-70 times Golf 4.3 vs FRS 5.3sec Or the 60-100. Golf 7.2secs vs FRS 8.6secs. OK a couple of gear changes may account for a couple of tenths, but the other 1.4 secs?

I don't buy it that the Cup tyres have too much effect on the standing start on a 4WD car. The golf managed the same 0-30 with launch control, so the Cups can't be so bad.

I also don't buy reduced power until the 1st service. Sounds like RSOC weirdness to me.

What I will say is that the Ford claimed figures will have been delivered by a professional driver having lots of goes at balancing revs and clutch. Skill required, unlike a Golf with DSG. Therefore, dont be surprised if owners can't match the claimed 0-60.

[rb5er]

stevesingo said:

What I will say is that the Ford claimed figures will have been delivered by a professional driver having lots of goes at balancing revs and clutch. Skill required, unlike a Golf with DSG. Therefore, dont be surprised if owners can't match the claimed 0-60.

Nope. Launch control.

[stevesingo]

The FRS has launch control?

[Gibbo205]

stevesingo said:

It surprised me that the FRS was so tardy in a straight line. Not just the 0-60 time which is highly dependant on traction off the line and driver ability, but just look at the 30-70 times Golf 4.3 vs FRS 5.3sec Or the 60-100. Golf 7.2secs vs FRS 8.6secs. OK a couple of gear changes may account for a couple of tenths, but the other 1.4 secs?

I don't buy it that the Cup tyres have too much effect on the standing start on a 4WD car. The golf managed the same 0-30 with launch control, so the Cups can't be so bad.

I also don't buy reduced power until the 1st service. Sounds like RSOC weirdness to me.

What I will say is that the Ford claimed figures will have been delivered by a professional driver having lots of goes at balancing revs and clutch. Skill required, unlike a Golf with DSG. Therefore, dont be surprised if owners can't match the claimed 0-60.

Those 60-100mph times are slow, are they through the gears or just done in 4th as they seem really slow especially for the Golf with DSG.

[stevesingo]

That it through the gears, taken from the Autocar FRS road test.

[rb5er]

stevesingo said:

The FRS has launch control?

Yep as does the Golf R

[Gibbo205]

stevesingo said:

That it through the gears, taken from the Autocar FRS road test.

Wow those cars are losing a heap of performance then throught he transmission losses.

Pretty much timed all my cars 60-100mph on racelogic box my EVO X FQ-360 was 6.6s, M3 CSL was 5.9s and 911 Carrera S was 5.5s. All had 360BHP. My old Mustang S197 Mustang with 575BHP (supercharged) was 3.8s now that was quick.

I'd have thought the Focus RS would of being around 6.5s, certainly sub 7.

[JockySteer]

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

[C7 JFW]

Let's just hope they're better in the flesh. The interior shot really put me off the car.

[rb5er]

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

Questions 1&3 are basically the same thing.

If you asked:

Which is more practical?
Which is sharper to drive?
Which is more economical?
Which is easier to park?
Which will hold its value better?
Which has more tech?
Which is better in the wet?
Which is faster around a track?
Which will be cheaper to run and get parts for?

The chances are that the focus wins on all of those counts. Fun is subjective and I found the focus huge fun to drive. They are different cars for different uses and I'm sure the Mustang is excellent also.

[JockySteer]

rb5er said:

Questions 1&3 are basically the same thing.

If you asked:

Which is more practical?
Which is sharper to drive?
Which is more economical?
Which is easier to park?
Which will hold its value better?
Which has more tech?
Which is better in the wet?
Which is faster around a track?
Which will be cheaper to run and get parts for?

The chances are that the focus wins on all of those counts. Fun is subjective and I found the focus huge fun to drive. They are different cars for different uses and I'm sure the Mustang is excellent also.

Those questions are fair, but not the be all end all. I suppose it is all about what you personally look for. If it were me, I'd have the Mustang all day long. If I wanted a hot hatch it'd be from France.

What happens if you ask those questions for an A45 vs a new C63? What would you go for? Just as another example

Edited by JockySteer on Friday 13th May 16:24

[Gibbo205]

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.

Most fun, I naturally prefer RWD cars with big NA engines, so for me easily Mustang, but I reckon the Focus RS has gotta be a hoot to drive as well.

On track, that has already being done the Mustang GT beats both the Merc A45 AMG and Audi RS3 on a dry track (hockenheim) whilst being outfitted with inferior Pzero tyres. So as the A45 AMG is faster than the Focus RS one can assume the Mustang will be too considering it beats the AMG.

Smile the most, easy, nothing can beat the grin a V8 induces upon startup or just cruising along and when you bury the throttle having instant throttle response and the sound track from gone in 60s and 100's of other movies is unbeatable than a 4 pot going wooshing, pop and bang.

Edited by Gibbo205 on Friday 13th May 16:33

[300bhp/ton]

rb5er said:

They are different cars for different uses.

lol, could you give examples of these different uses?

[JockySteer]

300bhp/ton said:

rb5er said:

They are different cars for different uses.

lol, could you give examples of these different uses?

One for looking good in Tesco car park on a Friday night and one for V8 heaven?

[TheJimi]

300bhp/ton said:

rb5er said:

They are different cars for different uses.

lol, could you give examples of these different uses?

You really are an *unbelievably* argumentative person.

A Focus RS versus a Mustang? Really? You need that spelled out to you?

Two completely different cars. They shouldn't even be compared, imo. RB is right, different cars for different uses.

I didn't condone the creating of a thread with the sole purpose of slagging you off, but I can see why it was created in the first place.

[300bhp/ton]

TheJimi said:

300bhp/ton said:

rb5er said:

They are different cars for different uses.

lol, could you give examples of these different uses?

You really are an *unbelievably* argumentative person.

A Focus RS versus a Mustang? Really? You need that spelled out to you?

Two completely different cars. They shouldn't even be compared, imo. RB is right, different cars for different uses.

I didn't condone the creating of a thread with the sole purpose of slagging you off, but I can see why it was created in the first place.

Have you tried reading your own post, because it would seem as argumentative as anything else on PH.

Personally I thought it would be a FUN comparison. Fast Ford vs Fast Ford. Both available now, not so different money. Obviously I'm wrong and people here just aren't interested in cars maybe..

And I really would love to know what these different uses are? Are people really suggesting you can't go to the shops in a Mustang, or go on a touring holiday in an RS?

Or do people think the RS is a purpose built rally/race car and the Mustang not to be driven outside continental US?


I rather thought both were meant to be fast fun road cars. Somewhat 'blue collar', and usable for pretty much any sane road going motoring tasks?

[s m]

300bhp/ton said:

TheJimi said:

300bhp/ton said:

rb5er said:

They are different cars for different uses.

lol, could you give examples of these different uses?

You really are an *unbelievably* argumentative person.

A Focus RS versus a Mustang? Really? You need that spelled out to you?

Two completely different cars. They shouldn't even be compared, imo. RB is right, different cars for different uses.

I didn't condone the creating of a thread with the sole purpose of slagging you off, but I can see why it was created in the first place.

Have you tried reading your own post, because it would seem as argumentative as anything else on PH.

Personally I thought it would be a FUN comparison. Fast Ford vs Fast Ford. Both available now, not so different money. Obviously I'm wrong and people here just aren't interested in cars maybe..

And I really would love to know what these different uses are? Are people really suggesting you can't go to the shops in a Mustang, or go on a touring holiday in an RS?

Or do people think the RS is a purpose built rally/race car and the Mustang not to be driven outside continental US?


I rather thought both were meant to be fast fun road cars. Somewhat 'blue collar', and usable for pretty much any sane road going motoring tasks?

Just off-arguing for a while, re Mustang vs Focus on track, if you look in EVO mag this month they've done just that ...along with some other cars

[LambShank]

C7 JFW said:

Let's just hope they're better in the flesh. The interior shot really put me off the car.

Had a look at one today - the interior quality puts me off slightly, as it looks very similar to my £13k Transit Connect.
Having said that, the seats look good which can't be said for the awful offerings that come in the M2

[rb5er]

300bhp/ton said:

lol, could you give examples of these different uses?

If you can't see the difference between an awd 5door hatchback that gets 37mpg and a 2door rwd coupe that gets 20mpg then thats down to you to figure out.