RE: Ford Focus RS: Review
Discussion
kambites said:
leglessAlex said:
I know it's a 300bhp, 4WD car that has to conform to all the safety regs, but still, 1600kg! That's a fair amount.
To be fair that's including a driver. It's just over 1500kg wet with no driver which is still an awful lot, but not quite so bad. But it's also over 200kg heavier than the CTR and the Megane 265...which seems a lot for the addition of a little swept capacity and another set of driveshafts...
TameRacingDriver said:
bulldong said:
Because when it boils down to it, it's just a blown four cylinder so in all likelihood sounds like a Henry hoover without. I laughed when I saw that the new Clio RS comes with a "sound generator". That is so so sad. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=XpZ42A-R_34 Probably the lamest thing I have ever seen. It reminded me of one of those wolf bikes people used to have as kids with a siren and motorbike noises on them.
That is hilarious(ly bad) 
anonymous said:
[redacted]
Yes a lot of people have been holding out for this car to arrive. This review at least gives the feeling that it has somewhat missed the mark. Up until now it was looking like it would trump all of the likely competition such as Golf R, WRX STi etc. But now it doesn't seem so convincing. Max_Torque said:
Baryonyx said:
MajorMantra said:
This might be a very silly question, but with so much trickery required to produce oversteer, wouldn't it have been easier (and not necessarily heavier) just to make this pure RWD? Or does the market just not want that?
I expect the need to make a new longitudinal engine, or find one somewhere else in the GM range and get it to Focus RS spec, would have been an issue. At least by keeping it in the current format, they can keep everything cheap and transverse, and modify the car lightly to drive the back wheels when needed.Baryonyx said:
MajorMantra said:
This might be a very silly question, but with so much trickery required to produce oversteer, wouldn't it have been easier (and not necessarily heavier) just to make this pure RWD? Or does the market just not want that?
I expect the need to make a new longitudinal engine, or find one somewhere else in the GM range and get it to Focus RS spec, would have been an issue. At least by keeping it in the current format, they can keep everything cheap and transverse, and modify the car lightly to drive the back wheels when needed.If Ford wanted a "performance" longitudinal engine there was always the V6 3.5 Ecoboost (320-380hp and 600hp in the new Ford GT).
Basically a lard arsed computer console with piped 'muzak' then 
Why do you need to drift on a public road ? Watch any race from BTCC to F1 and you won't see a single drift. 'Drifting for show, neat n tidy for dough'.
What insurance group is it in, seeing that a lamp post or farmers hedge are it's natural habitat ?
Why do you need to drift on a public road ? Watch any race from BTCC to F1 and you won't see a single drift. 'Drifting for show, neat n tidy for dough'.
What insurance group is it in, seeing that a lamp post or farmers hedge are it's natural habitat ?
Max_Torque said:
I was wondering when the 1.8% figure would be released. Now technically, a 1.8% increase in rear wheel speed over front wheel speed IS "overspeeding" but it's also only just the sort of difference between a worn tyre and a new one.
Take a look at a typical "slip vs grip" graph for a modern tyre, then move just 1.8% sideways on the slip axis. Er, we are not talking Tokyo Drift here chaps!
If you've got a rwd car, try drifting that with just 1.8% overspeed and see how you get on.......... ;-)
Not having opportunity to research further on the spot I've just been driving home from the launch pondering exactly how significant a figure this is. Without context a number is just a number after all. But as I was bimbling up the A1 I thought, having deployed the figure in the story, 'I bet Max_Torque will be along to set it straight soon enough' and there you are! Thanks, as ever, for the insight. Kind of confirms what I'd suspected!Take a look at a typical "slip vs grip" graph for a modern tyre, then move just 1.8% sideways on the slip axis. Er, we are not talking Tokyo Drift here chaps!
If you've got a rwd car, try drifting that with just 1.8% overspeed and see how you get on.......... ;-)
Cheers,
Dan
kambites said:
leglessAlex said:
I know it's a 300bhp, 4WD car that has to conform to all the safety regs, but still, 1600kg! That's a fair amount.
To be fair that's including a driver. It's just over 1500kg wet with no driver which is still an awful lot, but not quite so bad. kambites said:
s m said:
Who weighed it? Was it an independent mag test?
I think it's Ford's figure. So yes, how accurate it is is always open to question. Ford said:
Kerb weight (kg) 1599*
So, as far as I can tell, not an official EU figure. But as near as. All the other weights in the comparison story we did were EU with 75kg driver/luggage, other than the Honda for which the measurement wasn't qualified. - Represents the lightest kerbweight assuming driver at 75 kg, full fluid levels and 90% fuel levels, subject to manufacturing tolerances and options, etc., fitted.
Hope this helps!
Cheers,
Dan
"The most important thing to understand about the Focus RS is why it handles differently. The Haldex-derived all-wheel drive systems used by rivals can only manage torque split front to back, and even then reactively."
That's the impression I always had of the Haldex set ups I have tried up to the A45 and the Golf R (an otherwise great car) - great to see Ford have resolved that really annoying shortcoming, although on the open road it's obviously not a big issue.
That's the impression I always had of the Haldex set ups I have tried up to the A45 and the Golf R (an otherwise great car) - great to see Ford have resolved that really annoying shortcoming, although on the open road it's obviously not a big issue.
Brummie Lad said:
Why do you need to drift on a public road ?
That's what I thought. Surely the drift mode is pretty much a gimmick, particularly as far as road use is concerned ? Its right up there with the line lock on the Mustang. Sounds cool, but actually pointless ? With modern electronics I guess its relatively cheap and easy to add in features such as these. [quote=MuscleSaloon]
Yes a lot of people have been holding out for this car to arrive. This review at least gives the feeling that it has somewhat missed the mark. Up until now it was looking like it would trump all of the likely competition such as Golf R, WRX STi etc. But now it doesn't seem so convincing.
It does trump its rivals, read all the other reviews , more fun to drive than A45 , RS3 etc etc. And cheaper!
Yes a lot of people have been holding out for this car to arrive. This review at least gives the feeling that it has somewhat missed the mark. Up until now it was looking like it would trump all of the likely competition such as Golf R, WRX STi etc. But now it doesn't seem so convincing.
It does trump its rivals, read all the other reviews , more fun to drive than A45 , RS3 etc etc. And cheaper!
nickfrog said:
"The most important thing to understand about the Focus RS is why it handles differently. The Haldex-derived all-wheel drive systems used by rivals can only manage torque split front to back, and even then reactively."
That's the impression I always had of the Haldex set ups I have tried up to the A45 and the Golf R (an otherwise great car) - great to see Ford have resolved that really annoying shortcoming, although on the open road it's obviously not a big issue.
The funny thing is that, with the obvious exception of the Evo lineage, MOST 4wd cars are set up for initial understeer, and notably more-so than a performance fwd car. Thinking of most Scoobies (excluding a few specials), Escort Cosworth, almost all Audi RS, Golf-R, A45...and then compare to MK1 Focus RS, most recent Renaultsport offerings, most Type-R's, the better/smaller VXRs...hell, even at staid VAG most reviewers are suggesting the GTi Clubsport is more 'fun' than the Golf-R big-brother!That's the impression I always had of the Haldex set ups I have tried up to the A45 and the Golf R (an otherwise great car) - great to see Ford have resolved that really annoying shortcoming, although on the open road it's obviously not a big issue.
So the difference between performance fwd and performance 'affordable' 4wd is only in traction-limited situations, notably cornering and inclement weather.
- FWD cornering issues can be largely overcome by the application of a "clever diff"* as well...but cheaper and with less weight penalty. You then still preserve the handling characteristics (and electric turn-in) of a good hot-hatch, but give the driver throttle-on and throttle-off options. Granted it will never be as effective as 4wd...but a cheaper and lighter package brings its' own benefits...
- In inclement weather should a driver REALLY be trying to put 350bhp onto the road???
- ...and if we start talking about on-track behaviour, I'll wager that >90% of serious track-day attendees would pick a lighter and more agile car over one with better traction.
So, without prejudice to what seems like a pretty good achievement, the only reason we're seeing a large resurgence in 'affordable' 4wd performance machinery is the difficulty in deploying 300+bhp to the road through the front wheels, and the consequent impact on the bragging-rights stats that seem to sell new cars nowadays.
* Plenty of examples of them working well - Integras, JDM Civics, hotter Meganes, Alfa's Q2 diff, the aforementioned Mk1 Focus RS, Corsa VXR...
Lets not get too heated up about the weight of this new RS. The Golf R and all other 4wd hatches are all fairly blunt handling cars on track. With that said of course this RS can and will be lightened considerably in the after market. Doors, hood, hatch, brakes, exhaust and, suspension pieces and wheels can all be lightened. This car has a great chassis and a very rigid body to work from. j
Gassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff