Top Gear Focus RS review.

[Rodp]

They loved it, got round the track IIRC near 5 seconds quicker than the old RS. Still not sure I'd get one due to it being FWD particularly when it's pushing 300hp through them. The torque steer looked savage at times and seemed to have a lot of push understeer but gobs of grip before it started to push.

If it was released here and I did get one, it wouldn't be in green! I'm thinking red. ;)

[platinumXR]

Jason Plato thought it was a trick gadget too when he reviewed it on 5th Gear back in Feb. Still a pity it's not AWD...I might have bought one...

[fou_bleu]

If it were AWD, it'd be so heavy that it would be just as fast as a ST (XR5) or even slower - Jost Capito (the head engineer @ TeamRS) even admitted it in an interview a while back (can't find it soz). From what I've seen on youtube, it handles A LOT better than about all other less powerful FWD performance cars... BTW, mine will be blue thanks! /starts dreaming

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by fordman6

If it were AWD, it'd be so heavy that it would be just as fast as a ST

Possibly, with the car in the form it is now. Not an impossibility but would be an engineering feat in itself coming from Ford. It's not like they can't do it...they have before.... Guess that's why Subaru has more street cred ATM hey?

I can dream can't I?

[colossus]

I don't think it needs AWD either - every review I have read praises the FWD set-up as being the best in the business. Definatly a tough little car

[fou_bleu]

If the RS were to be AWD, it would need a much bigger engine with (obviously) more kW/HP to be at least as fast as it is now. This would wreck any hopes of a remotely efficient fuel consumption figure to entice the buyers. It would still have that extra unnecessary weight (interior, sound proofing etc.) which would dull the performance, making the AWD practically useless. BUT, in a non-Ford manner if they stripped it right out first - ie: interior, sound proofing etc. AWD would be a great idea (project for bored Team RS employees anyone?! )...

[platinumXR]

Oh dear...ok let me rephrase that..."Gee I wish Ford DID make an AWD Focus RS that was not too heavy, or too slow or have a fragile drivetrain...or..."

Geez, I forgot this was a FORD forum...where ARE my manners... :

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by fordman6

If the RS were to be AWD, it would need a much bigger engine with (obviously) more kW/HP to be at least as fast as it is now. This would wreck any hopes of a remotely efficient fuel consumption figure to entice the buyers. It would still have that extra unnecessary weight (interior, sound proofing etc.) which would dull the performance, making the AWD practically useless.

I doubt someone looking at an RS is going to be overly concerned about fuel consumption figures over the ST/XR5. I'm sure you could squeeze a few more ponies out of the turbo engine to compensate for the weight of the AWD if your concern was similar 0-100 performance.

Seen the review? Clarkson takes his hands off the wheel, gives it some stick and it 'violently' pulls to the right. That's not what I want in a car to be honest.

[FPV+fteT3]

Original quote Rodp
I doubt someone looking at an RS is going to be overly concerned about fuel consumption

You would think that buying a performance car the last consideration is how much fuel it uses but read the FPV Boss section and every week there is a thread about fuel economy. It has to burn fuel and lots of it to make H.P. but a lot of HI perf. car owners want 300rwkw but 9L/100k's.....these people should by toyota's.

[5.4 GT]

Renaultsport Clio 200 Cup v Ford Focus RS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae4Rq...eature=channel

Whats all this AWD talk? RWD would've been even nicer! :evilsasmo

[platinumXR]

Originally Posted by 5.4 GT

Renaultsport Clio 200 Cup v Ford Focus RS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae4Rq...eature=channel

Whats all this AWD talk? RWD would've been even nicer! :evilsasmo

Touche....

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by FPV+fteT3

You would think that buying a performance car the last consideration is how much fuel it uses but read the FPV Boss section and every week there is a thread about fuel economy. It has to burn fuel and lots of it to make H.P. but a lot of HI perf. car owners want 300rwkw but 9L/100k's.....these people should by toyota's.

In the scheme of things, the RS I'd say would be around the 9-10L/100km combined mark and wouldn't be that brutal consumption wise, particularly compared to a GT. If you're serious about owning a performance vehicle, you'd have to be aware that it's going to bite your wallet when you pull up to the pump.

I ditched my XR8 last year for a smaller car and enjoying the 5L/100km less fuel consumption with no loss of performance or fun - just loss of boot space and V8 roar. :(

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by 5.4 GT

Renaultsport Clio 200 Cup v Ford Focus RS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae4Rq...eature=channel

Whats all this AWD talk? RWD would've been even nicer! :evilsasmo

Then you could crank the boost right up. :

Looks like the same stretch of road Fifth Gear uses from time to time. That Clio seems a nice bit of kit but I've never warmed to the look of them - same as the Cup car they pit the RS against on Top Gear, ugly as sin.

[MITCHAY]

Originally Posted by 5.4 GT

Renaultsport Clio 200 Cup v Ford Focus RS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae4Rq...eature=channel

Whats all this AWD talk? RWD would've been even nicer! :evilsasmo

That Clio looks so plain compared to the Focus

[fou_bleu]

Originally Posted by Rodp

I doubt someone looking at an RS is going to be overly concerned about fuel consumption figures over the ST/XR5.

I agree, but it would be a deal completing point for customers compared to the Clio Cup etc. if it was faster, but could still sip fuel, rather than gulp. And for the massive money your paying for just a pimped Focus, you'd want it to have at least have SOMETHING over a faster Ford - whats the use of paying $50k + for a turbo 5-cyl. 3-door hatch which uses more fuel than a more practical 4-door sedan with a turbo six with greater performance? (Yes, I know, the Falcon ain't over there - but luckily for Ford Eu, cause the RS would rust in showrooms for gods sake!!!). But what would I know? I'm just another dumb 16 yo....

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by fordman6

I agree, but it would be a deal completing point for customers compared to the Clio Cup etc. if it was faster, but could still sip fuel, rather than gulp. And for the massive money your paying for just a pimped Focus, you'd want it to have at least have SOMETHING over a faster Ford

Yeah, AWD. :P

Performance wise, a Clio Cup and an RS may be comparable under very twisty conditions but I think that's where the comparison ends. 2 adults and 2 kids with gear in the back would ride in comfort in the RS, I doubt they would in the Clio. I think they're aimed at slightly different targets, personally.

- whats the use of paying $50k + for a turbo 5-cyl. 3-door hatch which uses more fuel than a more practical 4-door sedan with a turbo six with greater performance? (Yes, I know, the Falcon ain't over there - but luckily for Ford Eu, cause the RS would rust in showrooms for gods sake!!!).

I would be mortified if the RS used more fuel than the XR6T - I'd wager the consumption is significantly less. Practicality is personal.

Last round of new car purchase I wanted something different so opted for a hatch instead of sedan. I didn't want FWD so paid an extra ~$10k for an AWD hatch. If the RS made it here in the next 2 years, it would make my short list but if I went Ford then 99% chance I'd choose an F6 over it. If it was AWD, then It'd be 50/50 - I'd make that decision after a test drive of both.

[fou_bleu]

Originally Posted by Rodp

I would be mortified if the RS used more fuel than the XR6T

Nowhere did I say that it DOES drink more, no doubt it uses less, but this is in the AWD RS context of which I am speaking.

Ok, to recap my point to avoid further confusion...

Would YOU personally buy:

A - A $50+k ~235kW (current FWD ~225kW) 2.5L I5T, AWD 3-dr Focus, weighing in at a portly 1600kg - doing 0-100km/h (you wanted performance) in ~5.5sec (FWD - 5.9sec - AWD could even increase that time by a poofteenth! Quattro-eqiuiped Audi's anyone?) BUT with consumption of ~10l/100km (FWD - 9.4)

OR

B - A $45k ~270kW 4L I6T, RWD 4-door Falcon sedan, weighing an equally fat 1800kg - doing 0-100km/h in (lets face it - its easily possible with a good driver) 4.~7sec BUT with consumption of ~9l/100km/h.

Now, before I put my "but the Falcon's not in Europe as an alternative" comment flame suit on, I just want to point out that this is hypothetical, so there are no boundaries in availability etc.

[platinumXR]

Easy tiger, not trying to rain on your parade here. Ford are more than capable of creating an AWD Focus if they really wanted to as they have produced very successful and ballistic AWD missiles in the past, but I doubt they would use the current platform you see in the new RS - I am agreeing with you there because if they did use the existing platform it would be a sideways engineering direction.

You are trying to argue a point based on the existing car just, for want of a better analogy; having an AWD system just bolted in after drilling a few more holes.

If Ford did engineer an AWD Focus RS it would [I hope] not be a lazy lard, I can assure you and I was 'saying' that I wish this version was IT as I would buy one over a Falcon in a heartbeat. The new one is a fantastic looking and I am sure capable bit of kit...but for my money...I would only be tempted by an AWD version.

That's what I meant, OK? No animosity intended.

[fou_bleu]

Rightyo then... Sadly though, in this GFC, that dream of the perfect RS is obliterated! :(

[Rodp]

Originally Posted by fordman6

Ok, to recap my point to avoid further confusion...

Would YOU personally buy:

A - A $50+k ~235kW (current FWD ~225kW) 2.5L I5T, AWD 3-dr Focus, weighing in at a portly 1600kg - doing 0-100km/h (you wanted performance) in ~5.5sec (FWD - 5.9sec - AWD could even increase that time by a poofteenth! Quattro-eqiuiped Audi's anyone?) BUT with consumption of ~10l/100km (FWD - 9.4)

OR

B - A $45k ~270kW 4L I6T, RWD 4-door Falcon sedan, weighing an equally fat 1800kg - doing 0-100km/h in (lets face it - its easily possible with a good driver) 4.~7sec BUT with consumption of ~9l/100km/h.

A year ago I would have bought A.

I've never had a case on public roads to take 0-100 times into consideration. You're dreaming if you think you'd achieve a 9l/100km combined cycle in an XR6T though. I don't achieve that in a vehicle lighter and smaller. Add 4 and you might come close.

Buying and owning a car comes down to more than what it can do from 0-100. Maybe that's your criteria, but it's not the overwhelming majority of those that purchase new vehicles. Personally, I'd choose the RS over an XR6T

[Bossxr8]

I read Clarksons review in TGA magazine. Clarkson called the RS "epic".

On twisty roads the RS kept up with a Ford GT driven by the Stig.

[5.4 GT]

Originally Posted by Bossxr8

I read Clarksons review in TGA magazine. Clarkson called the RS "epic".

On twisty roads the RS kept up with a Ford GT driven by the Stig.

That reminds me of this one:

Ford Focus RS vs Nissan GT-R

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZL8u...e=channel_page

[Rude]

Just watched the episode.. I dont even know why they bothered comparing the renault to it. Best hatch in the world that RS.

[Nikked]

Who said FWD's arn't fast!

[vztrt]

Originally Posted by 5.4 GT

Renaultsport Clio 200 Cup v Ford Focus RS

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ae4Rq...eature=channel

Whats all this AWD talk? RWD would've been even nicer! :evilsasmo

That would be awesome if it was RWD.

Saw the review and it got a very good rap, also this model is a stunner of a model.

[xbrules]