RE: Ford Focus RS vs. Honda Civic Type R

[Justin-40y0e]

Plastic Sith said:

Autoexpress 'versus' lap times round Llandow in dry, optimum conditions:

Civic Type R (FK2) - 46.50
BMW M2 - 46.70
BMW M3 (F80) - 46.80
Focus RS (Mk III) - 46.80
Seat Leon Cupra 280 DSG- 46.90
Audi RS3 Sportback (8V) - 47.00
Renault Megane RS275 Trophy - 47.60

Anyone have golf r and new amg 45 times to add at least we got full track figures then for all the contenders in same conditions

[Boring_Chris]

yonex said:

Steven_RW said:

Thanks. Do you think it needed some negative camber for hard track driving?

The thing is, this proves that any/most road cars whilst great for a 'ring time' and some track tomfoolery are going to cost an absolute fortune (tyres, brakes) for a day of hard use? Then, to get even more from them you have to start turning them into even more biased cars, which will probably be hateful on our rutted and cambered roads?

You cannot escape the weight and centre of gravity that these new breadvans are carrying. Surely a part share in a toy and 'normal' road car is the way to go? I just don't get it.

I agree.

If you're that into hatches then buy an ST (5k) and Clio 172 (1/2k) and save yourself nearly twenty five grand!

[AMGJocky]

Justin-40y0e said:

Plastic Sith said:

Autoexpress 'versus' lap times round Llandow in dry, optimum conditions:

Civic Type R (FK2) - 46.50
BMW M2 - 46.70
BMW M3 (F80) - 46.80
Focus RS (Mk III) - 46.80
Seat Leon Cupra 280 DSG- 46.90
Audi RS3 Sportback (8V) - 47.00
Renault Megane RS275 Trophy - 47.60

Anyone have golf r and new amg 45 times to add at least we got full track figures then for all the contenders in same conditions

Golf R - 49.00 - tested by Drive
A45 AMG (360bhp version) - 47.50 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOA5YN6ryz4

Both driven by Chris Harris

Edited by AMGJocky on Tuesday 24th May 11:38

[IanJ9375]

AMGJocky said:

Golf R - 49.00 - tested by Drive
A45 AMG (360bhp version) - 47.50 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOA5YN6ryz4

Both driven by Chris Harris

Edited by AMGJocky on Tuesday 24th May 11:38

Interesting to note that ignoring the Golf R time everyone else is within a second of each other, the newer AMG would have moved further in by all accounts with the improvements made as well

Civic Type R (FK2) - 46.50
BMW M2 - 46.70
BMW M3 (F80) - 46.80
Focus RS (Mk III) - 46.80
Seat Leon Cupra 280 DSG- 46.90
Audi RS3 Sportback (8V) - 47.00
A45 AMG (360bhp version) - 47.50
Renault Megane RS275 Trophy - 47.60
Golf R - 49.00

[Gandahar]

It's endearing that the humble hot hatch still has a place in everyone's hearts, enough to gather so many posts. RWD is better but hot hatches are so much fun.

As my ex pat friend now in the US once said whilst driving a Mk6 RS2000 in the late 90's

" I just chuck it in and then sort it out"

We then went around a roundabout 3 or 4 times whilst the view from the passenger seat got more and more smokey.

Which sums up why they are such good fun. Long may it continue, they bring out the kid in you.

Edited by Gandahar on Tuesday 24th May 12:03

[Steven_RW]

yonex said:

The thing is, this proves that any/most road cars whilst great for a 'ring time' and some track tomfoolery are going to cost an absolute fortune (tyres, brakes) for a day of hard use? Then, to get even more from them you have to start turning them into even more biased cars, which will probably be hateful on our rutted and cambered roads?

You cannot escape the weight and centre of gravity that these new breadvans are carrying. Surely a part share in a toy and 'normal' road car is the way to go? I just don't get it.

I hear you. Road cars are road cars. A track encourages you towards the limit of grip and thus tyre slip. At that point (which you rarely get to on the road) you have taken the road car out of the natural and intended setting. People need to decide what it is they want. If it is a great fun road car, then so be it. If it is a focussed track action orientated piece kit, then that is a different offering.

I remember with my Tommi Mak Evo 6. It was insanely competent on twisty country roads. It was rather competent on track too but you knew at the end of a few sessions you would have chewed your tyres, wasted your brake pads and discs and eaten up your tyres. It encouraged you very quickly to get to the limit of the adhesion of the tyres and as such you pushed into that area over and over.

What is quite good, when achievable is a car that has geometry for the road, that with a couple of simple tweaks becomes more track focussed. My E46 M3 was similar. You had road tyres (PS2) so you had some sort of grip limit. You moved the dampers inwards at the top to increase camber to 2.5 degrees and off you went. Forgot to mention you came in after each lap of the ring to reduce tyre pressures to 30psi when hot over and over, till they stabilised.

Conclusion has to be that any car that encourages you right to the edge of the tyre grip means you will start scrubbing up tyres. The more accessible the performance is, the more you will punish the tyres. Yes of course, you could say the more st the front end is, the more you will just scrub round but that goes without saying.

Cheers

RW

[jonm01]

The Civic is obviously an excellent car but most people can't live with the looks, which is why they haven't sold many.

[Axionknight]

jonm01 said:

The Civic is obviously an excellent car but most people can't live with the looks, which is why they haven't sold many.

How many have they sold, out of interest?

[Ali_T]

RocketRS said:

That makes perfect sense. If you aren't interested in maximum performance in inclement weather, you may not need the extra capabilities of the RS. But, there are times that the added safety of AWD can be a big plus.

See, this is the thing I don't get. People seem to think that by being AWD, it makes the Focus (and Golf, RS3, A45 etc) somehow have more grip. They don't. All they have is more traction when you're using the acceleration. Under braking and neutral cornering they are at a disadvantage as they're carrying an extra 200kg that needs to be slowed down and gotten round the same corner. This is even more extreme in winter. The nasty winter of 2009, I spent on normal summer tyres initially and, believe me, the Subaru was at no advantage. If anything, it was a liability with the weight making itself all too apparent.

I've been there and done that with both an Evo and an STI. I have to say that neither endeared themselves at all to me. The Scoob had a phenomenal engine but very average chassis. The Evo only ever showed an advantage over 2WD cars on minuscule number of occasions and, as cliched as it might be, felt like it did it all for you. I'm glad I experienced them over 7 years, but I wouldn't go back to either, or the RS for the matter. They're far too much about ultimate pace and not involvement.

[Gibbo205]

IanJ9375 said:

Interesting to note that ignoring the Golf R time everyone else is within a second of each other, the newer AMG would have moved further in by all accounts with the improvements made as well

Civic Type R (FK2) - 46.50
BMW M2 - 46.70
BMW M3 (F80) - 46.80
Focus RS (Mk III) - 46.80
Seat Leon Cupra 280 DSG- 46.90
Audi RS3 Sportback (8V) - 47.00
A45 AMG (360bhp version) - 47.50
Renault Megane RS275 Trophy - 47.60
Golf R - 49.00

I love all the cars above, because I like cars.

But I have to say if my budget was 40k I'd simply take the AMG every time, with the aero kit it looks aggressive but not like it crashed into Halfords like the CTR does. It has the superb twin clutch gear box, it hits 60 in 4s and 100 in 10 dead its the fastest in a straight line bar the F80 M3.

Also note the lap times above the AMG was on Michelin Pilot Sport 3, which is a road tyre, whereas all the cars ahead were either on MPSS or cup 2's, I think its fair to say plonk the AMG on MPSS and it will go 1s faster and even quicker again on cup 2's.

They are all great cars, but though the Merc is expensive at 40k, you are getting superb performance, a real good AWD setup, twin clutch gear box and a great interior, plus of course for those who care the AMG badge. You can go fast in comfort all year round, for me its the closest out of all the new hot hatches to the EVO X FQ-360/400.

[Axionknight]

Fourty grand before you add the sixteen hundred quid spoiler, and let's face it - it's mandatory,

[AMGJocky]

Gibbo205 said:

I love all the cars above, because I like cars.

But I have to say if my budget was 40k I'd simply take the AMG every time, with the aero kit it looks aggressive but not like it crashed into Halfords like the CTR does. It has the superb twin clutch gear box, it hits 60 in 4s and 100 in 10 dead its the fastest in a straight line bar the F80 M3.

Also note the lap times above the AMG was on Michelin Pilot Sport 3, which is a road tyre, whereas all the cars ahead were either on MPSS or cup 2's, I think its fair to say plonk the AMG on MPSS and it will go 1s faster and even quicker again on cup 2's.

They are all great cars, but though the Merc is expensive at 40k, you are getting superb performance, a real good AWD setup, twin clutch gear box and a great interior, plus of course for those who care the AMG badge. You can go fast in comfort all year round, for me its the closest out of all the new hot hatches to the EVO X FQ-360/400.

If I could pick any, I'd have to take the Renault. I still don't think anything can touch them for an ultimate driving experience in the segment.

Failing that, I'd choose an RS3. That noise.

[Ali_T]

Gibbo205 said:

It has the superb twin clutch gear box

Have you tried one? It's the sttest of all the twin clutch boxes I've driven and I've driven most of the usual suspects.

Gibbo205 said:

They are all great cars, but though the Merc is expensive at 40k, you are getting superb performance, a real good AWD setup, twin clutch gear box and a great interior, plus of course for those who care the AMG badge. You can go fast in comfort all year round, for me its the closest out of all the new hot hatches to the EVO X FQ-360/400.

It really isn't. I test drove an A45 twice when I was looking for my FQ330's replacement and found the handling and ride far worse. In corners, especially, it really can't hold a candle to the Evo X. And the dashboard seemed to be made out of the same plastic Airfix made HMS Victory from. Same dodgy textured moulding and same hollow, tinny sound when you tapped it! Anyone bigging up the A class's interior needs to actually sit in one and poke around. I found it remarkably prosaic and certainly didn't feel £40k.

[Ali_T]

AMGJocky said:

Failing that, I'd choose an RS3. That noise.

Haven't owned one but I get the suspicion an enthusiast would get frustrated wit hit quickly. Sounds much like my old STI 330S. Great sounding and powerful engine attached to an overly numb, rubbery and understeering chassis. You do get over the noise and then realise you're getting no joy out of your car.

[Axionknight]

Does the A45 have the screen stuck to the dash with an inch thick bezel around it? I'd be out for that alone, it looks horrific, it's 2016, at least make it look modern.

[Justin-40y0e]

AMGJocky said:

Golf R - 49.00 - tested by Drive
A45 AMG (360bhp version) - 47.50 - https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bOA5YN6ryz4

Both driven by Chris Harris

Edited by AMGJocky on Tuesday 24th May 11:38

Surely the new amg 45 with its extra power and far superior chassis will take 1-2 seconds off that then? Which puts that right in the mix,shame about golf r figures though as it makes it look a bad car when imho it's not ?

[Ali_T]

Axionknight said:

Does the A45 have the screen stuck to the dash with an inch thick bezel around it? I'd be out for that alone, it looks horrific, it's 2016, at least make it look modern.

Yup. Think almost all regular Mercs have that eyesore now.

[Ali_T]

Justin-40y0e said:

Surely the new amg 45 with its extra power and far superior chassis will take 1-2 seconds off that then? Which puts that right in the mix,shame about golf r figures though as it makes it look a bad car when imho it's not ?

Thing is, none of them are supposed to be track cars and judging them purely on track times is crazy.

[Justin-40y0e]

Ali_T said:

It really isn't. I test drove an A45 twice when I was looking for my FQ330's replacement and found the handling and ride far worse. In corners, especially, it really can't hold a candle to the Evo X. And the dashboard seemed to be made out of the same plastic Airfix made HMS Victory from. Same dodgy textured moulding and same hollow, tinny sound when you tapped it! Anyone bigging up the A class's interior needs to actually sit in one and poke around. I found it remarkably prosaic and certainly didn't feel £40k.

Mk1 amg or mk2 as there's quite a difference when it comes to chassis and feel?

[Justin-40y0e]

Ali_T said:

Thing is, none of them are supposed to be track cars and judging them purely on track times is crazy.

Agreed but it is part of the reason we buy them👍