Focus RS
Been heavily considering either or as of late. The Golf R with the DSG ran an 11.7 with bolt ons and a tune.... I don't care who you are, you have to admit that's a sexy time.
The Focus RS looks primed to give you a nice chubby with the rear end sliding around. Things are looking up for Ford as of late.
The Focus RS looks primed to give you a nice chubby with the rear end sliding around. Things are looking up for Ford as of late.
I rather interested in lap times. But the Golf R is an option for sure. As it stand I think Subaru really have to ditch that stupid 2.5.
Golf R 2016 received praise for not handing like Audi of yesterday, i.e. For being neutral and possibly oversteery.
They are all relatively heavy cars, and slightly super sized.
The famous Escort Mk2 was/is 900kg circa 4 meters long 1.6 meters wide
WRC rally cars are generally 1250-1300kg, 4 meters long, 1.8 meters wide perhaps
I think that both Focus and Golf will be nice DD cars, but girth will be evident.
GTR is only 100kg more, and built like space fighter, and despite super sized tires/brakes built in technology above and beyond Focus & Golf R, we see it as triumph of Tec-managed brute force over laws of physics.
Not really backroad material, more of a high speed cruiser and big track lapper - ideally lightened substantially.
I think RS & R will compare quiet favorably in dynamic terms.
But we need to look to something lighter in future for performance in absolute terms: natural dynamic quality, such as Elise possesses, Boxster Spyder, for example, but with 4 seats/doors.
They are all relatively heavy cars, and slightly super sized.
The famous Escort Mk2 was/is 900kg circa 4 meters long 1.6 meters wide
WRC rally cars are generally 1250-1300kg, 4 meters long, 1.8 meters wide perhaps
I think that both Focus and Golf will be nice DD cars, but girth will be evident.
GTR is only 100kg more, and built like space fighter, and despite super sized tires/brakes built in technology above and beyond Focus & Golf R, we see it as triumph of Tec-managed brute force over laws of physics.
Not really backroad material, more of a high speed cruiser and big track lapper - ideally lightened substantially.
I think RS & R will compare quiet favorably in dynamic terms.
But we need to look to something lighter in future for performance in absolute terms: natural dynamic quality, such as Elise possesses, Boxster Spyder, for example, but with 4 seats/doors.
Evolved Member
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,066
Likes: 29
From: Tri-State NY/NJ/CT
From Automobile's behind the wheel, Ford keeping it classy even when they have the clearly superior car?!:
"...That U-word is a profanity around these parts. Ford Team RS engineering manager Tyrone Johnson headed up the RS project and is damning of any perceived front-wheel-drive competition. (There’s plenty of it in Europe, but here in the U.S. the Golf R and Subaru WRX STI are perhaps its most logical rivals.)
“They’re all basically the same,” Johnson says dismissively. Haldex-equipped all-wheel-drive cars are dispatched with withering disdain: “Understeery and boring,” he deadpans. Johnson can’t even bring himself to say anything nice about the dearly departed and torque-vectoring Mitsubishi Evo. In fact, the only car I can get him to say he admires is the Nissan GT-R. “Absolutely love it,” he says. “No compromise, so aggressive, and just unbelievably fast and exciting.” His eyes light up. If there’s an inspiration for the RS, at least in terms of pushing the boundaries and fighting for a fiercely independent vision in a vast corporation, it’s the GT-R..."
So “No compromise, so aggressive, and just unbelievably fast and exciting...” is along the design of the new Focus RS but not any of the aforementioned car.
Anyway, while the Focus RS is not exactly light (lighter than my GSR!) I'll give it a nod for cramming in all that fun stuff in this era of heavy/fat cars.
"...That U-word is a profanity around these parts. Ford Team RS engineering manager Tyrone Johnson headed up the RS project and is damning of any perceived front-wheel-drive competition. (There’s plenty of it in Europe, but here in the U.S. the Golf R and Subaru WRX STI are perhaps its most logical rivals.)
“They’re all basically the same,” Johnson says dismissively. Haldex-equipped all-wheel-drive cars are dispatched with withering disdain: “Understeery and boring,” he deadpans. Johnson can’t even bring himself to say anything nice about the dearly departed and torque-vectoring Mitsubishi Evo. In fact, the only car I can get him to say he admires is the Nissan GT-R. “Absolutely love it,” he says. “No compromise, so aggressive, and just unbelievably fast and exciting.” His eyes light up. If there’s an inspiration for the RS, at least in terms of pushing the boundaries and fighting for a fiercely independent vision in a vast corporation, it’s the GT-R..."
So “No compromise, so aggressive, and just unbelievably fast and exciting...” is along the design of the new Focus RS but not any of the aforementioned car.
Anyway, while the Focus RS is not exactly light (lighter than my GSR!) I'll give it a nod for cramming in all that fun stuff in this era of heavy/fat cars.
Last edited by moparfan; Jan 23, 2016 at 10:53 AM.
So its just a coincidence that when you google "intercooler condensation" you get tons of posts from Ford ecoboost and TDI owners? It doesn't make you at all curious why Ford seems to have this issue, while other manufacturers do not?
Or do you buy into Ford's OEM intercoolers being so much better than everyone else's as the cause.
Or do you buy into Ford's OEM intercoolers being so much better than everyone else's as the cause.
This thread reminds me of a really random sub Reddit where 2 or 3 people post bizarre things and everyone else who stumbles across it goes "what... in the actual **** am I looking at?"
I have a gear speed calculator I use, and I got the ratios and plugged everything in for us to all see. The spacing on this car are pretty darn nice, IMO. I'm envious!
Final drive ratio 4.06 (first - fourth)
Final drive ratio 2.95 (fifth, sixth, reverse)
First: 3.23
Second: 1.95
Third: 1.32
Fourth: 1.03
Fifth: 1.13
Sixth: 0.94
Reverse: 1.42
Tire size: 235/35/19
Diameter: 25.5"
Rev limiter: 6700rpm
Max gear speeds at rev limiter:
1st: 39mph
2nd: 64.6mph
3rd: 95.4mph
4th: 122.2mph
5th: 153.3mph
6th: 184.3mph
Gears are spaced nearly perfectly for road course work.
Gears also actually great for quarter mile, allowing mid 11s in fourth gear on a modded car.
Sixth is nice and tall for fuel economy, but not ridiculously so, spaced out properly from fifth. If you have to shift into sixth on a road course, you're on a big boy track and have a lot more HP than stock!
Final drive ratio 4.06 (first - fourth)
Final drive ratio 2.95 (fifth, sixth, reverse)
First: 3.23
Second: 1.95
Third: 1.32
Fourth: 1.03
Fifth: 1.13
Sixth: 0.94
Reverse: 1.42
Tire size: 235/35/19
Diameter: 25.5"
Rev limiter: 6700rpm
Max gear speeds at rev limiter:
1st: 39mph
2nd: 64.6mph
3rd: 95.4mph
4th: 122.2mph
5th: 153.3mph
6th: 184.3mph
Gears are spaced nearly perfectly for road course work.
Gears also actually great for quarter mile, allowing mid 11s in fourth gear on a modded car.
Sixth is nice and tall for fuel economy, but not ridiculously so, spaced out properly from fifth. If you have to shift into sixth on a road course, you're on a big boy track and have a lot more HP than stock!
Evolved Member
Joined: Nov 2015
Posts: 1,066
Likes: 29
From: Tri-State NY/NJ/CT
A very tight, short drift?
Last edited by Robevo RS; Jan 25, 2016 at 05:46 AM.
Then Ford considered a couple options to get that power to the road. Front-wheel drive has its benefits, of course -- the base Focus is FWD and there had been FWD RS models over the years, but it also has traction limitations and tons of inherent understeer. An all-wheel-drive powertrain made the most sense, but not the Haldex-based system found on a lot of competitors.
“A Haldex system offers good straight-line grip but we wanted something better for cornering,” said Johnson.
The idea was something with twin rear clutch packs, one on each rear half shaft. During the research phase the team actually purchased a Range Rover Evoque but broke it pretty quickly. So they designed an AWD system of their own in which the operating principle is the same, but which withstands more torque and abuse.
“The key to faster laps is a high exit speed,” said Johnson.
And this one delivers. The front axle is open and governed by brake torque to whichever wheel is slipping. Nothing new there. The rear axle is what’s interesting. The three-piece rear drive shaft goes to an open differential flanked by clutch packs on each half shaft that are electronically controlled. With about 70 percent of torque going to the rear wheels, the clutch packs can push up to 100 percent of that rear torque to either rear wheel, usually the outside rear wheel to help push the car around the corner. The torque vectoring minimizes understeer and allows you to exit the corner faster than you would with front-wheel drive, obviously, but also faster than you could with a Haldex differential, Johnson says.
That’s in a corner. On long straights, of which the U.S. has plenty, the RS disconnects the rear and becomes a front-wheel drive car for better efficiency.
