It's firstly AWD, which you well know. The GTR has more weight than ever, but beyond that, stickier rubber and a lot of it, massive power, monster brakes, and a transmission that shifts ridiculously fast. The only modern technology other than the tires is the transmission, and it's a dinosaur compared to PDK. It also still uses port injection.

You love to argue against the flow so much that your bulletproof cranium literally cannot fathom that it has nothing to do with someone defending their favored car and everything to do with the fact the RS isn't what all of us hoped for as a replacement.

I went from DSM to WRX because the bugeye was a head and shoulders better performance car. That's the same reason I left my WRX for an Evo. I tried VW and BMW DI cars in between, but remain convinced that it'll take an M3 or a GTR to upgrade. The new turbo M3 is a little out of reach, and the GTR is financial fantasy for me.

If the RS next body update has a little less weight, a front LSD, an engine and drivetrain than can handle 450hp and distribute it properly, than sign me the F up, because it would be a convincing upgrade. As it stands right now, drift mode and stall recovery with the aforementioned deficits keep it off my radar.

 

and /thread.

Let's all of us do each other a favor and just end this thread right here, until the actual car comes out and we have more info than some random little bits of no information.

Please, let's stop this nonsense. This is the core evil of this thread. Nobody here can make that claim currently. Nobody here has driven one, nobody here has tuned one, nobody here has even touched a steering wheel in one yet. The car isn't even out yet and has zero actual real-world reviews yet. Nobody can make that claim yet, let alone state it as fact.

Will it be as good as an Evo? Almost as good? Not at all as good? Literally, nobody here can make that claim yet. We are all educated and logical humans here (well, almost everyone), let's act like it.

 

The GTR defies physics on the track. A car that fat with that power shouldn't be as fast as it is. The same is true of the Evo, and the STI. They are proof of what technology can do.

The RS hasn't even been tested yet. I don't get how you can say it doesn't live up to the expectations people have for it when all we can go by is the paper stats.

This thread didn't get to 100+ pages from logical and we'll thought out arguments. A lot of the comments are basically "it's not an Evo". That's understandable given it's an Evo forum but let's call a spade a spade here.

 

It's ironic because it's reminiscent of the talk that happened around the Evo X. Evo 8/9 owners talked a lot of smack about the slush box transmission, heavy weight, lack of a 4G63 and other technical deficiencies that were announced as deal breakers before the car had even turned a single lap.

 

wow.. i missed a lot in the past couple of days LOL

i think the root of the disagreement between you and everyone else is your definition of "safe". we look at "safe" being the outcome of an accident. your definition is avoiding the accident in the first place, which is irrelevant to surviving a crash. i'm more concerned with our version of "safe".

i used to drive an Integra Type R. it had stamped steel rear LCAs, front upper a-arms, etc. the aluminum counterparts were no lighter and it was still considered the best-handling FWD car of all time (last i checked). one can not say THAT car has no history or technology built into it. i had no qualms about stamped steel. who cares?

LOL. i think Robevo RS missed the joke because of a language barrier. don't worry, the rest of us got it.


the GTR f'ing amazes me. and it kills me to get beat at the track by a guy who is "kabobing" it the whole way around the track. but you can't argue the car works.

as for the second comment, some of us don't want to. even if my car is slower, i'd like to feel more connected to it and know i'm doing more of the work. i'm okay with ABS as a safety factor. i'm told my ACD is better than mechanical, but i'd rather have a Quaife. i prefer a clutch to paddle shifters. for this reason, i enjoy driving the occasional Miata, AE86, etc. man, what fun (though i'm going slow LOL).
however... if i were building a car to go as fast as i could and dominate everything out there, i accept that i may have to go another route. i can never shift as fast as a paddle shifted car ... not to mention other go-fast aids.
i'd like to think i can become a better driver and out drive all the techy cars out there. probably not, but it gives me a reason to keep improving


that's with every car that comes out. about 100 pages back, i think i made the same comment as you LOL. but that's human nature. we all recognize the fact that the car may come out and make all this talk irrelevant.
.. but it sure it fun to speculate. this thread has been very entertaining.

 

Emphasis/context.
It's fact that I feel skeptical for it as a replacement based on the things mentioned above. I apologize for lumping any others in with that inference, not my intention.

Your post is a good indication that it's time for me to take a break from this thread. I'm cluttering instead of contributing. Hopefully more info will be available on this car soon.

 

Actually, Ford has done extensive testing. Looking at what info they have, and have not released, provides some insights.

Ken Block hooning in the rain - check. Nürburgring time - buried. Makes you go Hmmm

 

More speculation based on poor assumptions. We don't have any real world numbers yet. Come up with whatever tin foil hat conspiracy theories you want from that.

 

Fact: Ford has done Focus RS testing on the Nürburgring on at least 2 separate occasions.
Fact: Ford has not released any of the lap times.
Assumption: Ford has decided not to release the info because they deemed the results not helpful to potential sales.


Or do you think they are hiding "stellar" results for some reason?

 

Or they were, you know, testing a preproduction car, like many manufacturers do, and not looking to set a lap time with an off the show room floor, finished product.

Like I said, it's poor speculation using assumptions you've decided are valid because you simply aren't willing to see past the Evo.

 

Car will be in people's hands soon enough, and I am sure we will see what it can do. I will bet you the Focus RS gets spanked by the CTR.

 

So? The CTR caused its own uproar on here and other forums because it was a "cheater" car. No matter how the RS does, some people will talk smack about it. I have no doubt that if the RS posts a decent time, say faster than the Evo 8 or 9, there will be excuses abound. For some people, the RS cannot "win".

 

I am talking stock production cars. CTR vs. RS Nürburgring times. There will undoubtedly be independent head to head testing.

I bet the CTR wins. You seem to be an RS fan, want to take that bet?

 

And the "stock" CTR lap time has been questioned and criticized on virtually every car forum.

Why is the CTR suddenly the metric you want to use? The RS wasn't built to compete with the CTR. Hell, the Evo doesn't compete with the CTR.

I'm not an RS fan. I am curious about the car though, as it's on my list of potential buys.

Edit: For reference, the CTR was faster than the GTR at the Nürburgring. Seems a bit odd, don't ya think, a 300 HP FWD Civic going faster than a 500+ HP AWD sports car? Hell, it obliterated the Evo. So really, if the RS beat it, would that shut you up? Doubt it, suddenly you'd be on the "cheater" car bandwagon.

 

Because you gave me a hard time for comparing the RS to a 10yr old evo. So I will change gears and compare it to one of its market competitors. If Ford wants to be the hothatch performance King, it has to step in the ring with the CTR.