RE: Focus RS Mk2 vs. Focus RS Mk3: PH video
Sunday 11th December 2016
Throughout 2016, the Ford Focus RS has dominated PH headlines - debate around the first drive, the twin tests and the Fleet updates have been animated to say the least. So when the opportunity arose to compare the new RS with five-cylinder predecessor, there was not a moment's hesitation in accepting.
Focus RS Mk2 vs. Focus RS Mk3: PH video
To Essex with a pair of fast Ford icons - which is best?
Here Matt compares the two blue Fords on road, attempting to discover where and how the new RS has improved on the old car. Crucially too, there are a few areas the Mk2 shows up the Mk3. And just in case his gurning face doesn't give the game away, it turns out both fast Focuses are quite entertaining...
But which is most fun? That's the question to answer here. Which would be your choice? Are there any other heritage comparison you would like to see? All comments and feedback are welcomed!
Watch the video here
Discussion
Interesting to hear that peoples expectations around weight have changed. Maybe for some, but for me, I still think what is essentially a small car, shouldn't weigh 1600kg.
Also, to hear that the new car feels more solid isnt a surprise. It feels like a relative bank vault, because it weighs like a relative bank vault.
I would like to know some comparative track times, too, if only to understand what, if any, performance benefit the chassis stiffening has wrought. I do wonder if they had to give it so much extra power just to make up for all the extra lard.
I tend to agree that the older one is the pick. You prefaced the discussion by saying that its not the old adage of "new cars are crap and old cars are great", but in the end, you STILL went with the old one.
Also, to hear that the new car feels more solid isnt a surprise. It feels like a relative bank vault, because it weighs like a relative bank vault.
I would like to know some comparative track times, too, if only to understand what, if any, performance benefit the chassis stiffening has wrought. I do wonder if they had to give it so much extra power just to make up for all the extra lard.
I tend to agree that the older one is the pick. You prefaced the discussion by saying that its not the old adage of "new cars are crap and old cars are great", but in the end, you STILL went with the old one.
Based purely on a couple of YouTube videos that I have seen, the Mk3 does indeed come alive in the wet. The reduced adhesion on semi-slicks sounds like a recipe for a high speed visit to a hedge, but it seems to add just enough interest to roundabouts and fast curves, and a chassis that comes alive without trying to kill you. I understand that suspension settings, exhaust noise, diff etc can be set up separately from the pre-set modes, so you can mix and match to an extent (tl:dr; the best mode for wagging the tail isn't drift mode) so you don't need to stay in jiggly ride mode just to hear the exhaust.
Ford do seem to have been too conservative with the current RS, and I think their "world car" policy may well come back to bite them. They are starting to have a range of cars that is not quite hitting the mark everywhere. Witness the new Fiesta, which has lost the crisp styling and has gone for something that seems to be what the other manufacturers were doing a couple of years ago. Too many stylists and focus groups.
At one point there were lots of rumours about an evolution of the RS, with a bit more power, but a lot less weight. I really hope they continue with this, maybe with lower unpowered seats. That would save 50kg alone. If they removed a few kg of sound insulation they wouldn't need the fake noise too, which reminds me, a different exhaust header might help the sound, at the moment the unequal lengths make it sound a bit Subaru-ish, but not quite. I'm sure most of this could be done in a retro-fit pack anyway.
Ford do seem to have been too conservative with the current RS, and I think their "world car" policy may well come back to bite them. They are starting to have a range of cars that is not quite hitting the mark everywhere. Witness the new Fiesta, which has lost the crisp styling and has gone for something that seems to be what the other manufacturers were doing a couple of years ago. Too many stylists and focus groups.
At one point there were lots of rumours about an evolution of the RS, with a bit more power, but a lot less weight. I really hope they continue with this, maybe with lower unpowered seats. That would save 50kg alone. If they removed a few kg of sound insulation they wouldn't need the fake noise too, which reminds me, a different exhaust header might help the sound, at the moment the unequal lengths make it sound a bit Subaru-ish, but not quite. I'm sure most of this could be done in a retro-fit pack anyway.
big_rob_sydney said:
Interesting to hear that peoples expectations around weight have changed. Maybe for some, but for me, I still think what is essentially a small car, shouldn't weigh 1600kg.
Also, to hear that the new car feels more solid isnt a surprise. It feels like a relative bank vault, because it weighs like a relative bank vault.
It's 2016, almost all of its rivals will be within 100kg or so Also, to hear that the new car feels more solid isnt a surprise. It feels like a relative bank vault, because it weighs like a relative bank vault.
Echoing the above, would not the proof of the figgy-pudding be to set a lap time in the old RS, and then set 3 lap times in the new RS, on each in 'Normal', 'Sport' and 'Drift'.
I'm guessing that might throw up some interesting figures, and perhaps ask more questions about kerb weight and power.
Where I live , I've seen quite a few of the mk2 RS, and perhaps 2 or 3 of the latest version.
Can't quite put my finger on it, but the mk3 just looks anodyne and anonymous, not helped, per chance, by the poor palette of paints the alliteration-free Ford team has chosen to throw at it. I feel sure there's a paint choice called 'Meh Metallic'..
Without resorting to the sort of motoring tome I consult whilst ensconced on the porcelain phone, the mk2 also seems...well, bigger. And to this poor fella, has more street presence (am I back to the more lurid paint choices of the mk2 again?)
Personally, the tech of the latest version appeals, but my money would go on a low-miles, non-modified.mk2 RS
I'm guessing that might throw up some interesting figures, and perhaps ask more questions about kerb weight and power.
Where I live , I've seen quite a few of the mk2 RS, and perhaps 2 or 3 of the latest version.
Can't quite put my finger on it, but the mk3 just looks anodyne and anonymous, not helped, per chance, by the poor palette of paints the alliteration-free Ford team has chosen to throw at it. I feel sure there's a paint choice called 'Meh Metallic'..
Without resorting to the sort of motoring tome I consult whilst ensconced on the porcelain phone, the mk2 also seems...well, bigger. And to this poor fella, has more street presence (am I back to the more lurid paint choices of the mk2 again?)
Personally, the tech of the latest version appeals, but my money would go on a low-miles, non-modified.mk2 RS
big_rob_sydney said:
Interesting to hear that peoples expectations around weight have changed. Maybe for some, but for me, I still think what is essentially a small car, shouldn't weigh 1600kg.
Also, to hear that the new car feels more solid isnt a surprise. It feels like a relative bank vault, because it weighs like a relative bank vault.
I would like to know some comparative track times, too, if only to understand what, if any, performance benefit the chassis stiffening has wrought. I do wonder if they had to give it so much extra power just to make up for all the extra lard.
I tend to agree that the older one is the pick. You prefaced the discussion by saying that its not the old adage of "new cars are crap and old cars are great", but in the end, you STILL went with the old one.
1599kg includes a 75k driver - not all the other cars quote including driver from what I've seenAlso, to hear that the new car feels more solid isnt a surprise. It feels like a relative bank vault, because it weighs like a relative bank vault.
I would like to know some comparative track times, too, if only to understand what, if any, performance benefit the chassis stiffening has wrought. I do wonder if they had to give it so much extra power just to make up for all the extra lard.
I tend to agree that the older one is the pick. You prefaced the discussion by saying that its not the old adage of "new cars are crap and old cars are great", but in the end, you STILL went with the old one.
main article said:
Which would be your choice?
Based on the way he is bobbing up and down in his seat like driving a BL mini, in both cars, neither.Put 10 years on those cars and suspension that stiff will have shaken the interior to pieces and it'll feel, and sound 20 years old.
But based on looks, the MK2.
rtz62 said:
Echoing the above, would not the proof of the figgy-pudding be to set a lap time in the old RS, and then set 3 lap times in the new RS, on each in 'Normal', 'Sport' and 'Drift'.
I'm guessing that might throw up some interesting figures, and perhaps ask more questions about kerb weight and power.
Where I live , I've seen quite a few of the mk2 RS, and perhaps 2 or 3 of the latest version.
Can't quite put my finger on it, but the mk3 just looks anodyne and anonymous, not helped, per chance, by the poor palette of paints the alliteration-free Ford team has chosen to throw at it. I feel sure there's a paint choice called 'Meh Metallic'..
Without resorting to the sort of motoring tome I consult whilst ensconced on the porcelain phone, the mk2 also seems...well, bigger. And to this poor fella, has more street presence (am I back to the more lurid paint choices of the mk2 again?)
Personally, the tech of the latest version appeals, but my money would go on a low-miles, non-modified.mk2 RS
I don't think the Mk2 would see which way a Mk3 went on track. The Mk3 is a very quick car on circuit (comparable to a Caterham.I'm guessing that might throw up some interesting figures, and perhaps ask more questions about kerb weight and power.
Where I live , I've seen quite a few of the mk2 RS, and perhaps 2 or 3 of the latest version.
Can't quite put my finger on it, but the mk3 just looks anodyne and anonymous, not helped, per chance, by the poor palette of paints the alliteration-free Ford team has chosen to throw at it. I feel sure there's a paint choice called 'Meh Metallic'..
Without resorting to the sort of motoring tome I consult whilst ensconced on the porcelain phone, the mk2 also seems...well, bigger. And to this poor fella, has more street presence (am I back to the more lurid paint choices of the mk2 again?)
Personally, the tech of the latest version appeals, but my money would go on a low-miles, non-modified.mk2 RS
Focus RS vs Civic Type R
And I'm not sure I get the 'not feeling alive' on the road. In my experience it moves around a lot on its tyres! It's actually more alive than my Cayman S was, and certainly better than any FWD car can hope to be...
Had a £40k budget to go and specifically buy a hot hatch and voted with my wallet for a Mk II RS, admittedly with the full Mountune MR375 clubsport package, suspension, brakes, exhaust, induction etc....
Was almost Mk III money for a mint low mileage 2010 full spec Lux 1 & 2 car with Dynamica Recaro's.
What a car and with the mountune upgrade a real beast performance wise leaving a Mk III in its wake.
Sadly whilst very capable and more modern the bland looking 5 Dr
Mk III did not float my boat at all.
No wonder Mk II prices are so strong its destined to become a future classic IMHO
Was almost Mk III money for a mint low mileage 2010 full spec Lux 1 & 2 car with Dynamica Recaro's.
What a car and with the mountune upgrade a real beast performance wise leaving a Mk III in its wake.
Sadly whilst very capable and more modern the bland looking 5 Dr
Mk III did not float my boat at all.No wonder Mk II prices are so strong its destined to become a future classic IMHO
I would be biased and say mk2. But still like the mk3, as much as the mk1. I think the Jost Capito touch made the mk2 just that bit more special in some ways.
How about a BMW M3 E46 vs E90 and the new 6 turbo one.
Also interested in a 1M vs M2 comparison
New Civic Type R vs Old Type R
How about a BMW M3 E46 vs E90 and the new 6 turbo one.
Also interested in a 1M vs M2 comparison
New Civic Type R vs Old Type R
RamboLambo said:
Had a £40k budget to go and specifically buy a hot hatch and voted with my wallet for a Mk II RS, admittedly with the full Mountune MR375 clubsport package, suspension, brakes, exhaust, induction etc....
Was almost Mk III money for a mint low mileage 2010 full spec Lux 1 & 2 car with Dynamica Recaro's.
What a car and with the mountune upgrade a real beast performance wise leaving a Mk III in its wake.
Sadly whilst very capable and more modern the bland looking 5 Dr Mk III did not float my boat at all.
No wonder Mk II prices are so strong its destined to become a future classic IMHO
Was almost Mk III money for a mint low mileage 2010 full spec Lux 1 & 2 car with Dynamica Recaro's.
What a car and with the mountune upgrade a real beast performance wise leaving a Mk III in its wake.
Sadly whilst very capable and more modern the bland looking 5 Dr
Mk III did not float my boat at all.No wonder Mk II prices are so strong its destined to become a future classic IMHO
There aren't many RSs that aren't classics and rock solid investments. The only one I can think of is the later model RS2000 (and 4x4). Maybe it is an age thing, but I'd prefer a 3-door Sierra. Anything later than the Sierra are commodity shopping cars to me (cat, pidgeons, can, worms etc).
I wish there were more in black! The blue one reminds me of the 3 door Escort estate my dad had, or of mobility tricycles. Ford metallic racing blue (or whatever they are calling it this week) wouldn't be bad.
I wish there were more in black! The blue one reminds me of the 3 door Escort estate my dad had, or of mobility tricycles. Ford metallic racing blue (or whatever they are calling it this week) wouldn't be bad.
IanJ9375 said:
1599kg includes a 75k driver - not all the other cars quote including driver from what I've seen
I bet it doesn't.. I don't see why Ford would claim this, it seems odd. I know they do claim it, but I smell bulls
t. Nobody quotes weights including the driver - hell, for a little bit more weight saving throughout the car they could've wheeled out a "launch edition" under 1500kgs, which we'd all have been very impressed about (and would've skewed our judgements (positively) forever more). I'd put money on it actually just weighing 1600kgs. Mk2 every day for me - it's not my favourite hatch as I think it always looked very heavy, but it's hands down more desirable and genuine than the new car.
When the Mk2 came out it was pretty much in a league of it's own. I think the Mk6 golf R was about the closest on power but nowhere near the drive. The trouble is that the mk3 was really the late comer to a crowded market where there's now a vast choice of c300bhp hatchbacks with rwd, fwd, 4wd, fancy diffs, manuals, slick autos, double clutch jobs etc. It's party trick seems to be having a better 4wd system than the others and having a (rather pointless in my opinion) drift mode. There is little that is stand out about the car and some of the compromises over the others i.e. driving while sitting in a childs high chair, no choice of door count, dated interior styling etc make it a bit of an unattractive prospect to some.
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff