RE: Ford Focus RS at the 'ring: Time For Coffee
Discussion
ChrisBuer said:
I picked up my RS a month ago and I'm enjoying it way more than my previous two cars - Lotus Exige V6 and BMW 1M.
Having had a run of Lotus Exiges and Elises, with a Caterham thrown in as well, it's fair to say I like good handing cars that are involving to drive. However with an increasing family, I needed something practical to use throughout the year and the RS ticked all of the boxes (4 seats, AWD, manual gearbox, etc).
The RS is a lot of fun! The steering is very sharp, the grip incredible and it just puts a massive smile on my face. Ring times are not something that ever factored in my decision making process, but rather smiles per miles and the RS has it in spades.
Very well put, couldn't agree more. After a run of quick Audis and BMWs, this car felt a revelation when I took one out for a test drive. Within 5mins I knew I wanted one. Having had a run of Lotus Exiges and Elises, with a Caterham thrown in as well, it's fair to say I like good handing cars that are involving to drive. However with an increasing family, I needed something practical to use throughout the year and the RS ticked all of the boxes (4 seats, AWD, manual gearbox, etc).
The RS is a lot of fun! The steering is very sharp, the grip incredible and it just puts a massive smile on my face. Ring times are not something that ever factored in my decision making process, but rather smiles per miles and the RS has it in spades.
The fun factor is why I bought one too, I don't think you can beat it at this price point. I did briefly consider a manual M2, very nice car, but couldn't really justify spending an extra £15K.
I suppose this debate is similar to the 0-60 comparison with an auto Golf R (there are a few videos on YouTube). So what if the Golf changes gear quicker, so what if the RS weighs more, I know what I would rather be driving.
Edited by v8griff on Friday 21st July 08:55
Escort Si-130 said:
Why did the ring become the holy grail over all these years. Is it down to the German manufacturers starting to use it as a test track. There are so many other tracks out there I think personally are better than the ring.
So many ? Please let me know ! I have driven most tracks in northern Europe and I am still to find one that gets anywhere near it. I like Spa as much but for vastly different reasons (safety and third party liability compliance).Or this could be massively subjective, you never know!
I am struggling to believe you have driven the Ring.
Edited by nickfrog on Friday 21st July 09:44
nickfrog said:
Escort Si-130 said:
Why did the ring become the holy grail over all these years. Is it down to the German manufacturers starting to use it as a test track. There are so many other tracks out there I think personally are better than the ring.
So many ? Please let me know ! I have driven most tracks in northern Europe and I am still to find one that gets anywhere near it. I like Spa as much but for vastly different reasons (safety and third party liability compliance).Or this could be massively subjective, you never know!
I am struggling to believe you have driven the Ring.
Unfortunately, James May's tongue in cheek provocations that the 'Ring 'ruins cars' isn't really very true, but everyone just laps it up 'because he's that clever bloke from Top Gear'. Customer expectations ruin cars (and arguably Audi's success in making the general public believe that rock solid compression damping means a car is 'sporty'). The majority of modern cars are actually too stiffly sprung and damped to be properly quick at the 'Ring, and many would be quicker if they were a bit more compliant. The majority of the reason 911s are so good there is because they have very good wheel control, and they have decent geometry suited to enthusiastic driving rather than optimising tyre wear for people who drive around at 45mph on an A Road and 20mph round any corner....
hondansx said:
Me too. The reality is the 'Ring is not like any other track. I can see exactly why it's been used as a proving ground.
Which is not that surprising as it was conceived as a test track for the German motor indusrtry!http://nurburgring.org.uk/history.php
Rawwr said:
Yes it is.
Another day, another Yipper horsesh*t moment.
To be fair to Yipper compared to other modern hot hatches it isn't quick on the straights. Using proven drag times and acceleration tests it's a long way off the quickest hot hatches. Another day, another Yipper horsesh*t moment.
I'm yet to be convinced about track times. The only times the Ford comes close is when it has Cup 2 track tyres on. That isn't fair.
Kawasicki said:
If you are right we should now have a long list of performance cars that can't cope with bumpy/poorly surfaced B roads. I don't know about you, but I am utterly blown away by how insanely fast modern cars are on s
t roads. Either I am deluded or you are wrong. I drove a Golf R and a Nissan GT-R Nismo last year on some poorly surfaced back roads. Holy crap, ballistic.
But why are they fast (tyre tech advances is a biggie, bhp/tonne also on the up perpetually...), and is the car still in good contact with the road? And is it still FUN?!?!?t roads. Either I am deluded or you are wrong. I drove a Golf R and a Nissan GT-R Nismo last year on some poorly surfaced back roads. Holy crap, ballistic.Moreover, I think that, even with mid-range hot-hatches, we've got to the point where the limiting factor in point-to-point performance is the road itself (and the driver, I guess) - even ignoring speed limits, the 'common-sense' safety limits are often lower than the capability of the cars. So you take something like a Golf-R, negotiate a B-road at >80mph in reasonable comfort, perfect stability, come to the end of it and go "oh, OK then...feels like I could have gone 20mph quicker".
For an engineer that may be a very GOOD outcome - statistically the car is a lot quicker than the old one - but for an owner IS IT?!?
At the top-end I'll agree we're now seeing supercars with brilliant ride quality again (not just Mclaren, either).
But lower down it's a lot worse than 20 years ago. Take 1997's shining stars - the 306GTi and the Integra Type R:-
- BOTH ride more compliantly than a 2017 Golf GTi, which is hardly a hardcore yardstick, and itself is one of the more compliant hot-hatches.
- Both of those cars could dissect a B-road in a manner that would still be class-leading today, and (if given modern rubber) would probably still make a good go of keeping up with all the mainstream crop of hot-hatches today.
To your two cars:-
- The Golf-R isn't overly-stiff - it was never designed as a hardcore ring-meister, it was designed as a 'luxury flagship hot hatch' (in essence), with a very different profile to the Megane RS / CTR / FRS. My wife owned one for 2 years and it IS stunningly capable...just not very communicative or expressive vs the competition.
So that one doesn't REALLY count.
- The NISMO GT-R I'll grant you, but that car (even in non-NISMO flavours) has always been engineered for ballistic point-to-point pace with a very sophisticated 4wd system sorting traction our for you, and I suspect the NISMO premium pays for some rather special dampers...so it's perhaps not representative of the performance cars that most people buy. It's also so far beyond the requirements of most roads (parts of Scotland excluded) that you can only really see what it'll do on-track.
Let's look instead at:-
- FK2 CTR - stiff-enough as standard (notably more so than the Golf-R and FAR more so than the DC2 ITR, which was derided by many mainstream commentators in 1997/98 as "too hardcore"), and absolutely ridiculous in +R mode - clearly stiffer-riding than my FD2, which was engineered for billiard-table-smooth Japanese roads (and for track).
- Audi's RS entries from the last 5-10 years (anything post-B7 really). Current S1 qualifies too...
- The Mk3 FRS itself - the suggestion that re-fitting ST springs improves both road-driving and lap-times is rather telling...
My gut-feel on this is that we're seeing a mix of factors:-
- Ever-stiffer chassis' are permitting suspension to work better than before, which SHOULD be paying both ride and handling dividends;
- But ever-heavier cars, plus the now-ubiquitous Macpherson struts (which are less effective than double-wishbones), are now making greater requirements of suspension;
- Wheels have got bigger and bigger - the incoming CTR has 20"s, FFS. Which substantially increases unsprung weight (DC2 Enkeis, ex-tyre, were ~5.4kg each from memory, or ~50% of the weight of the wheels on a Golf-R or similar) - the effect of this cannot be understated - it's the biggest single silliness (when combined with insufficient sidewall height) in modern car design
- Sidewalls have got smaller, at the expense of low-speed and secondary ride quality. This again puts a greater workload on the springs and dampers.
- Damper technology has improved quite a bit, but this only seems to appear at the upper end of the market, and a lot of that is focused on adaptive damping rather than getting one very good all-round passive set-up (notable exception being the top-end Renaultsport products);
- The market seems to have moved towards 'Germanic ride' away from the wafting of Citroens / Jaguars of old - led by who, though?!? Cynically, marketing seems to have equated stiff with sporty...
- Finally, with increasing power, we're seeing increasing top-speeds, and "safety" is now requiring cars to be stable at their top-speeds...so you're seeing suspension settings which have to maintain stability at >150mph, which leads to compromise in lower-speed performance.
So let me put it another way - I think that all of these fast-cars could be softened-off for the road without sacrificing ANY real-world point-to-point pace (possibly even improving it on gnarly roads), and while giving genuine improvements in ride comfort. What would suffer is on-track (and on-'ring) performance. Which would hamper the marketing of the cars...
Driver101 said:
To be fair to Yipper compared to other modern hot hatches it isn't quick on the straights. Using proven drag times and acceleration tests it's a long way off the quickest hot hatches.
I'm yet to be convinced about track times. The only times the Ford comes close is when it has Cup 2 track tyres on. That isn't fair.
Sorry, what hot hatch is it a long way off on straights? I can show you plenty of figures that show that is just untrue. The A45 with 40bhp more or RS3 might be a second or so quicker to 100mph but other than those which have more power and auto gearboxes what is there? (Those 2 cars are also considerably more expensive).I'm yet to be convinced about track times. The only times the Ford comes close is when it has Cup 2 track tyres on. That isn't fair.
Cup 2 tyres are not track tyres, they are road legal and most cars including the CTR etc are wearing the same or similar tyres from different brands when they have their lap times recorded, so yes, it is fair.
Seems odd to just talk blatant nonsense but then I guess plenty just do without thinking about it.
Edited by Ahbefive on Friday 21st July 14:55
v8griff said:
I suppose this debate is similar to the 0-60 comparison with an auto Golf R (there are a few videos on YouTube). So what if the Golf changes gear quicker, so what if the RS weighs more, I know what I would rather be driving.
I was a Ford RS owner for 20+ years, so when the 4wd RS Focus was announced I thought I'd have to have one, but put it beside the mk2 and it just looks dull to my eyes, so I'd sacrifice some traction for the engine, sound and looks of the mk2 if I wanted a Focus RS today. I think I'd even have a Golf R before the new Focus RS too.I don't understand, ford didn't design the car for lap times. They didn't set a time at the ring. They didn't market the car on lap times unlike other manufacturers.
They set out with a clear objective of making a car with zero understeer. One which is fun and involving. One which can make you look like youre in a Ken Block video.
And they succeeded.
Hell they even fitted a manual box cos guess what, even though it's slower it's more fun.
If they wanted to to be fast in a straight line then it would have haldex and dsg.
As it turns out, on track it is plenty fast enough. My most recent outing saw it setting times quicker than an a45 AMG mapped with 400hp. He had understeer, I had a grin from ear to ear.
As for post above, if you want to buy cars based on looks only that's fine. For me the MK2 is too boy racer, I was glad the looks are more toned down on the mk3. I'd never ever consider a MK2. Have to laugh because a golf R is even more toned down than a mk3 RS. Don't get your logic.
They set out with a clear objective of making a car with zero understeer. One which is fun and involving. One which can make you look like youre in a Ken Block video.
And they succeeded.
Hell they even fitted a manual box cos guess what, even though it's slower it's more fun.
If they wanted to to be fast in a straight line then it would have haldex and dsg.
As it turns out, on track it is plenty fast enough. My most recent outing saw it setting times quicker than an a45 AMG mapped with 400hp. He had understeer, I had a grin from ear to ear.
As for post above, if you want to buy cars based on looks only that's fine. For me the MK2 is too boy racer, I was glad the looks are more toned down on the mk3. I'd never ever consider a MK2. Have to laugh because a golf R is even more toned down than a mk3 RS. Don't get your logic.
Ahbefive said:
Sorry, what hot hatch is it a ling way off on straights? I can show you plenty of figures that show that is just untrue. The A45 with 40bhp more or RS3 might be a second or so quicker to 100mph but other than those which have more power and auto gearboxes what is there? (Those 2 cars re also considerably more expensive).
Cup 2 tyres are not track tyres, they are road legal and most cars including the CTR etc are wearing the same or similar tyres from didferent brands when they have their lap times recorded, so yes, it is fair.
Seems odd to just talk blatant nonsense but then I guess plenty just do without thinking about it.
A second? Cup 2 tyres are not track tyres, they are road legal and most cars including the CTR etc are wearing the same or similar tyres from didferent brands when they have their lap times recorded, so yes, it is fair.
Seems odd to just talk blatant nonsense but then I guess plenty just do without thinking about it.
I don't even want to go into a long debate on this as it really is clear cut. I know as a Focus owner you will defend your car to the hilt, but just look at proven times.
The A45 and the old model RS3 are 9 seconds for 100mph. The new RS3 might even get into the high 7s. The M140i makes 100mph in around 10 seconds with RWD. Even the Golf R with a manual box is setting better times.
All of the above cars will be doing 112-113mph at the end of the quarter mile other than the Golf at 105mph.
The Focus is nowhere near that. 12-13 seconds for 100mph and very few get 104mph on the quarter mile. There's a number of cars flapping around at under 100mph. Even cars with significant modifications are only managing the times and speeds of the standard hyper hatches.
Very pedantic on the tyre front. Michelin's first line on the sales spiel is the tyres are designed for track use. They are road legal, but designed for track performance. I'm sure most people would refer to them as track tyres. The performance gains they claim are huge.
It's fine comparing the times to other cars using the similar tyres. That wasn't the comparison earlier in the thread. Compairing the Focus doing a 8.06 and the Civic doing a 7.43 on the same tyres is fine. I don't think it's so fair to compare Cup 2 tyres v standard road tyres.
havoc said:
But why are they fast (tyre tech advances is a biggie, bhp/tonne also on the up perpetually...), and is the car still in good contact with the road? And is it still FUN?!?!?
Advances in tyres are wasted if the damping controlling tyre contact to the road is not good enough. So yes the tyre is still in good contact with the road. I would say the tyre contact patch forces are more consistent now than ever. The ride can suffer as a result. havoc said:
Moreover, I think that, even with mid-range hot-hatches, we've got to the point where the limiting factor in point-to-point performance is the road itself (and the driver, I guess) - even ignoring speed limits, the 'common-sense' safety limits are often lower than the capability of the cars. So you take something like a Golf-R, negotiate a B-road at >80mph in reasonable comfort, perfect stability, come to the end of it and go "oh, OK then...feels like I could have gone 20mph quicker".
For an engineer that may be a very GOOD outcome - statistically the car is a lot quicker than the old one - but for an owner IS IT?!?
Most customers want a capable, safe and stable car. Forget the Golf R, drive a basic spec Golf, it is capable of cross country speeds that make a complete mockery of the speed limits. Where you (and I) like a car to move around and have low limits, most people want unshakeable, rock solid stability.For an engineer that may be a very GOOD outcome - statistically the car is a lot quicker than the old one - but for an owner IS IT?!?
havoc said:
At the top-end I'll agree we're now seeing supercars with brilliant ride quality again (not just Mclaren, either).
But lower down it's a lot worse than 20 years ago. Take 1997's shining stars - the 306GTi and the Integra Type R:-
- BOTH ride more compliantly than a 2017 Golf GTi, which is hardly a hardcore yardstick, and itself is one of the more compliant hot-hatches.
- Both of those cars could dissect a B-road in a manner that would still be class-leading today, and (if given modern rubber) would probably still make a good go of keeping up with all the mainstream crop of hot-hatches today.
You seem to think compliant ride quality helps grip...are you sure? Tuning a super compliant suspension is easy, but it will lack wheel damping over sharp inputs. Tuning a suspension to have amazing control of the tyre contact patch is also fairly easy, but then the ride loses compliance, the tyre follows surface imperfections too closely, transmitting the surface of the road into the cabin. Maximum comfort does not equal maximum grip.But lower down it's a lot worse than 20 years ago. Take 1997's shining stars - the 306GTi and the Integra Type R:-
- BOTH ride more compliantly than a 2017 Golf GTi, which is hardly a hardcore yardstick, and itself is one of the more compliant hot-hatches.
- Both of those cars could dissect a B-road in a manner that would still be class-leading today, and (if given modern rubber) would probably still make a good go of keeping up with all the mainstream crop of hot-hatches today.
havoc said:
To your two cars:-
- The Golf-R isn't overly-stiff - it was never designed as a hardcore ring-meister, it was designed as a 'luxury flagship hot hatch' (in essence), with a very different profile to the Megane RS / CTR / FRS. My wife owned one for 2 years and it IS stunningly capable...just not very communicative or expressive vs the competition.
So that one doesn't REALLY count.
But it was tuned on the Nurburgring. So it does REALLY count.- The Golf-R isn't overly-stiff - it was never designed as a hardcore ring-meister, it was designed as a 'luxury flagship hot hatch' (in essence), with a very different profile to the Megane RS / CTR / FRS. My wife owned one for 2 years and it IS stunningly capable...just not very communicative or expressive vs the competition.
So that one doesn't REALLY count.
havoc said:
- The NISMO GT-R I'll grant you, but that car (even in non-NISMO flavours) has always been engineered for ballistic point-to-point pace with a very sophisticated 4wd system sorting traction our for you, and I suspect the NISMO premium pays for some rather special dampers...so it's perhaps not representative of the performance cars that most people buy. It's also so far beyond the requirements of most roads (parts of Scotland excluded) that you can only really see what it'll do on-track.
So it works great on the road, though I think it may have had more Nurburgring tuning/optimisation than any other road car in history.havoc said:
Let's look instead at:-
- FK2 CTR - stiff-enough as standard (notably more so than the Golf-R and FAR more so than the DC2 ITR, which was derided by many mainstream commentators in 1997/98 as "too hardcore"), and absolutely ridiculous in +R mode - clearly stiffer-riding than my FD2, which was engineered for billiard-table-smooth Japanese roads (and for track).
- Audi's RS entries from the last 5-10 years (anything post-B7 really). Current S1 qualifies too...
- The Mk3 FRS itself - the suggestion that re-fitting ST springs improves both road-driving and lap-times is rather telling...
FK2 CTR - never driven one. If it is too stiff for normal roads then maybe they should have tuned it on the Nurburgring?- FK2 CTR - stiff-enough as standard (notably more so than the Golf-R and FAR more so than the DC2 ITR, which was derided by many mainstream commentators in 1997/98 as "too hardcore"), and absolutely ridiculous in +R mode - clearly stiffer-riding than my FD2, which was engineered for billiard-table-smooth Japanese roads (and for track).
- Audi's RS entries from the last 5-10 years (anything post-B7 really). Current S1 qualifies too...
- The Mk3 FRS itself - the suggestion that re-fitting ST springs improves both road-driving and lap-times is rather telling...
Audis- I haven't driven many RS models, I drove the R8(old V8 and V10 plus and the new one)...and thought it was brilliant, comfortable and fast as hell. Drove the S1 too, seemed quite comfortable, fun and composed...not sure what that the S1 is doing on your list of "bad" cars.
Mk3 FRS - haven't driven it, though drove the old one, which had a harsh ride, massive agility and gripped like poo to a blanket.
havoc said:
My gut-feel on this is that we're seeing a mix of factors:-
- Ever-stiffer chassis' are permitting suspension to work better than before, which SHOULD be paying both ride and handling dividends;
- But ever-heavier cars, plus the now-ubiquitous Macpherson struts (which are less effective than double-wishbones), are now making greater requirements of suspension;
- Wheels have got bigger and bigger - the incoming CTR has 20"s, FFS. Which substantially increases unsprung weight (DC2 Enkeis, ex-tyre, were ~5.4kg each from memory, or ~50% of the weight of the wheels on a Golf-R or similar) - the effect of this cannot be understated - it's the biggest single silliness (when combined with insufficient sidewall height) in modern car design
- Sidewalls have got smaller, at the expense of low-speed and secondary ride quality. This again puts a greater workload on the springs and dampers.
- Damper technology has improved quite a bit, but this only seems to appear at the upper end of the market, and a lot of that is focused on adaptive damping rather than getting one very good all-round passive set-up (notable exception being the top-end Renaultsport products);
- The market seems to have moved towards 'Germanic ride' away from the wafting of Citroens / Jaguars of old - led by who, though?!? Cynically, marketing seems to have equated stiff with sporty...
- Finally, with increasing power, we're seeing increasing top-speeds, and "safety" is now requiring cars to be stable at their top-speeds...so you're seeing suspension settings which have to maintain stability at >150mph, which leads to compromise in lower-speed performance.
Unsprung weight has increased, but so has sprung weight. The important of unsprung mass was clearly overstated, or it has been worked around, as cars grip better than ever before, with more, not less, wheel damping.- Ever-stiffer chassis' are permitting suspension to work better than before, which SHOULD be paying both ride and handling dividends;
- But ever-heavier cars, plus the now-ubiquitous Macpherson struts (which are less effective than double-wishbones), are now making greater requirements of suspension;
- Wheels have got bigger and bigger - the incoming CTR has 20"s, FFS. Which substantially increases unsprung weight (DC2 Enkeis, ex-tyre, were ~5.4kg each from memory, or ~50% of the weight of the wheels on a Golf-R or similar) - the effect of this cannot be understated - it's the biggest single silliness (when combined with insufficient sidewall height) in modern car design
- Sidewalls have got smaller, at the expense of low-speed and secondary ride quality. This again puts a greater workload on the springs and dampers.
- Damper technology has improved quite a bit, but this only seems to appear at the upper end of the market, and a lot of that is focused on adaptive damping rather than getting one very good all-round passive set-up (notable exception being the top-end Renaultsport products);
- The market seems to have moved towards 'Germanic ride' away from the wafting of Citroens / Jaguars of old - led by who, though?!? Cynically, marketing seems to have equated stiff with sporty...
- Finally, with increasing power, we're seeing increasing top-speeds, and "safety" is now requiring cars to be stable at their top-speeds...so you're seeing suspension settings which have to maintain stability at >150mph, which leads to compromise in lower-speed performance.
This may be due to....
Damper tech has moved on massively. More precise tolerances of more developed components, which are sized to work more consistently.
And...
Sidewalls are smaller, allowing dampers to work better.
havoc said:
So let me put it another way - I think that all of these fast-cars could be softened-off for the road without sacrificing ANY real-world point-to-point pace (possibly even improving it on gnarly roads), and while giving genuine improvements in ride comfort. What would suffer is on-track (and on-'ring) performance. Which would hamper the marketing of the cars...
This real world point-to-point discussion always makes me laugh. What is it exactly? How does it differ from a tarmac rally stage?Robert-lhcbq said:
As for post above, if you want to buy cars based on looks only that's fine. For me the MK2 is too boy racer, I was glad the looks are more toned down on the mk3. I'd never ever consider a MK2. Have to laugh because a golf R is even more toned down than a mk3 RS. Don't get your logic.
I said the mk2 looks better, has a nicer engine and it sounds better. The mk3 looks too long and high to me. And I'd have a Golf R because it has better proportions.Edited by blade7 on Friday 21st July 14:52
Driver101 said:
A second?
I don't even want to go into a long debate on this as it really is clear cut. I know as a Focus owner you will defend your car to the hilt, but just look at proven times.
The A45 and the old model RS3 are 9 seconds for 100mph. The new RS3 might even get into the high 7s. The M140i makes 100mph in around 10 seconds with RWD. Even the Golf R with a manual box is setting better times.
All of the above cars will be doing 112-113mph at the end of the quarter mile other than the Golf at 105mph.
The Focus is nowhere near that. 12-13 seconds for 100mph and very few get 104mph on the quarter mile. There's a number of cars flapping around at under 100mph. Even cars with significant modifications are only managing the times and speeds of the standard hyper hatches.
Very pedantic on the tyre front. Michelin's first line on the sales spiel is the tyres are designed for track use. They are road legal, but designed for track performance. I'm sure most people would refer to them as track tyres. The performance gains they claim are huge.
It's fine comparing the times to other cars using the similar tyres. That wasn't the comparison earlier in the thread. Compairing the Focus doing a 8.06 and the Civic doing a 7.43 on the same tyres is fine. I don't think it's so fair to compare Cup 2 tyres v standard road tyres.
No idea where you're getting your data from.I don't even want to go into a long debate on this as it really is clear cut. I know as a Focus owner you will defend your car to the hilt, but just look at proven times.
The A45 and the old model RS3 are 9 seconds for 100mph. The new RS3 might even get into the high 7s. The M140i makes 100mph in around 10 seconds with RWD. Even the Golf R with a manual box is setting better times.
All of the above cars will be doing 112-113mph at the end of the quarter mile other than the Golf at 105mph.
The Focus is nowhere near that. 12-13 seconds for 100mph and very few get 104mph on the quarter mile. There's a number of cars flapping around at under 100mph. Even cars with significant modifications are only managing the times and speeds of the standard hyper hatches.
Very pedantic on the tyre front. Michelin's first line on the sales spiel is the tyres are designed for track use. They are road legal, but designed for track performance. I'm sure most people would refer to them as track tyres. The performance gains they claim are huge.
It's fine comparing the times to other cars using the similar tyres. That wasn't the comparison earlier in the thread. Compairing the Focus doing a 8.06 and the Civic doing a 7.43 on the same tyres is fine. I don't think it's so fair to compare Cup 2 tyres v standard road tyres.
Were you at the PH santa pod Sunday service? I was, in my mk3 RS, and I did a 13.56s @ 105.8mph, with a terrible 60ft (for a 4wd) time of 2.15s. Car is standard and at the time had 1100 miles on the clock. It's lossened up since then.
If it had dsg you could knock 0.5s off that time seeing as I do three manual gear changes.
As for the lap times. Read the article on the super tests I posted (if you can speak German). It mentions the tyres of the other tests and they're all Michelin but translate isn't very good so can't really work out what type. Even if the R and Civic were on PSS's, 9 seconds slower isn't all down to the difference between the cup2 and the PSS.
It also says the RS they tested only had 326Ps for the 8:06 lap. Might explain why some of the 1/4 mile times you've seen are slow. My car however, most definitely is not!
Edited by Robert-lhcbq on Friday 21st July 15:14
Tuvra said:
Lack of top end grunt and gear ratios possibly? Factory standard Evo 6/7's top out at between 140-150mph, these latest "hyper hatches" are 165mph+.
Incorrect, as standard the 5 speed evos will do 167mph on the rev limiter. The top speeds that were published were because they only went to redline 7k, the limiter is much closer to 8k. 7606rpm to be precise 
it's only the gearing that limits the top speedGassing Station | General Gassing | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff