Focus RS
Evolved Member
iTrader: (5)
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 651
Likes: 5
From: With my admirers in the BACK ROOM!
The Focus will absolutely be faster stock. Ford isn't playing with it's new products. Tires and power alone will make it happen. If they get involved in Lightning Lap, they'll get Block to drive and shatter C&D's tester times. They let Chevy do that with John Heinricy and the Cobalt SS.
I have to lol at the fanboy accusations for not liking the driveline. Warranty isn't a factor; an open diff will break as easily as a limited slip (see broken viscous center and open front diff 03 Evo VIIIs for example). The 05+ ACD and front LSD are bomb proof in comparison. The weight change in the car was less than 20 lbs with the upgrades.
Manufacturers aren't using LSDs for one reason: e-diffs are much cheaper. Period. And it's hogwash they're as fast. You're not transferring torque by applying front braking, you're limiting it. Look at a new GTI with the LSD option or back to the ITR 15+ years ago. There's no better benchmark than autocross for that, and anyone can be involved. LSDs will make your car measurably faster and won't cook your brake pads. I had a GTI and 135i with e-diffs and they were awful. A friend's GTI had an aftermarket Wavetrac, I took it high speed through a roundabout I've been through 100x in my GTI (same tires), and the corner exit speed difference from the ability to put down power was preposterous. Granted FWD sucks, and it'll show traction deficiencies so much worse, but I want an LSD in a nose heavy AWD car too. The RS would be quicker with it.
I have to lol at the fanboy accusations for not liking the driveline. Warranty isn't a factor; an open diff will break as easily as a limited slip (see broken viscous center and open front diff 03 Evo VIIIs for example). The 05+ ACD and front LSD are bomb proof in comparison. The weight change in the car was less than 20 lbs with the upgrades.
Manufacturers aren't using LSDs for one reason: e-diffs are much cheaper. Period. And it's hogwash they're as fast. You're not transferring torque by applying front braking, you're limiting it. Look at a new GTI with the LSD option or back to the ITR 15+ years ago. There's no better benchmark than autocross for that, and anyone can be involved. LSDs will make your car measurably faster and won't cook your brake pads. I had a GTI and 135i with e-diffs and they were awful. A friend's GTI had an aftermarket Wavetrac, I took it high speed through a roundabout I've been through 100x in my GTI (same tires), and the corner exit speed difference from the ability to put down power was preposterous. Granted FWD sucks, and it'll show traction deficiencies so much worse, but I want an LSD in a nose heavy AWD car too. The RS would be quicker with it.
And I'm with you on performance. This car will be faster than a stock X, probably not a lot but still faster - especially with the PSC tires.
Honestly if you have 2 trims like Ford has with ST and RS, you should atleast keep the cheap stuff for ST to be remotely available for people with a shallow budget, while loading RS to be a Halo car and class leader in every way, even if you were hypotetically making a loss on every car.
And yet Ford went with looking at the price(even tho they have a great budget option - ST) and making cuts where there should be none.
Oh and fanboyism comments are funny.
And yet Ford went with looking at the price(even tho they have a great budget option - ST) and making cuts where there should be none.
Oh and fanboyism comments are funny.
I'm not trying to make excuses for Ford, there's some disappointing things from the launch, but I'll wait until it's done before writing it off. I'm also hopeful it'll be priced favorably to the GTI.
The ironic thing is that MSport uses a destroked 2.0L from the Focus in the R5. They are restricted to the chassis as the chassis has to have a 1.6L of some sort in it as sold.
For instance Ford has never offered a MAF on a turbo car. Mitsu has MAF + MAP yet it runs on simpler maps and is easier to tune then Ford's new "complex" ECU. I'd bet the Mitsu head still flows better stock vs stock and I predict the RS will still have plastic parts for the intake like Ford always does.
While the Fords Bosch MED ECU (just like VW!) is complex, it doesn't take much time to figure it out and realize it's actually light years ahead of Evo ECUs and has MANY advantages.
I know from experience.
Last edited by razorlab; Feb 5, 2015 at 11:01 AM.
Manufacturers aren't using LSDs for one reason: e-diffs are much cheaper. Period. And it's hogwash they're as fast. You're not transferring torque by applying front braking, you're limiting it. Look at a new GTI with the LSD option or back to the ITR 15+ years ago. There's no better benchmark than autocross for that, and anyone can be involved. LSDs will make your car measurably faster and won't cook your brake pads. I had a GTI and 135i with e-diffs and they were awful. A friend's GTI had an aftermarket Wavetrac, I took it high speed through a roundabout I've been through 100x in my GTI (same tires), and the corner exit speed difference from the ability to put down power was preposterous. Granted FWD sucks, and it'll show traction deficiencies so much worse, but I want an LSD in a nose heavy AWD car too. The RS would be quicker with it.
They literally could do what.ever.they.wanted money was no excuse and they chose ediffs. Of course, they are probably eleventy billion times better programming and engineered than the VW/Ford eDiffs but still. Why would they mess with it if it sucked at the root?
And NO, I am NOT comparing the P1 to the RS. Don't be silly internet.
Last edited by razorlab; Feb 5, 2015 at 11:01 AM.
i vote for no brake controlled traction controls.
hence why i dont like the Evo brake help for traction and when we play i always turn it off .
As far as i know, the RS has no option for to do that, but i am sure they got the most out of it.
and will work just fine.
i cant wait to see them in action. ( not, the magazin actions
,
hence why i dont like the Evo brake help for traction and when we play i always turn it off .
As far as i know, the RS has no option for to do that, but i am sure they got the most out of it.
and will work just fine.
i cant wait to see them in action. ( not, the magazin actions
,
Evolved Member
Joined: Feb 2012
Posts: 1,253
Likes: 21
From: Ofallon, MO
I dont really like that i have to admit the new RS looks pretty cool and has some nice HP #'s to boot. But i am still holding out hope that some how Honda's Type R will still be able to dominate this car. Or that the Type R will be more of a drivers car at least but we shall see i guess.
Newbie
Joined: Nov 2005
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: Grand Cayman
Not me, I'd rather have a 2.0 and a powerband moved to the right.
All the 2.3 dyno charts I'm seeing really start dying out at 5500rpm. I'd gladly trade a bit of low-end today for a much better top end tomorrow. With a tune and MIVEC dialed in the low-end issues are mostly fixed on the Evo's 2.0 yet it still makes power up top.
I feel the stock 4B11T at 2.0 liters is already comparable to their 2.3..... I would love to see a test where they pit a 2.3 liter Evo against a 2.3 liter Ecoboost both using the exact same turbocharger and then compare.
My gut still says the extra attention to detail Mitsubishi put in the Evo still will "out-class" the RS. For instance Ford has never offered a MAF on a turbo car. Mitsu has MAF + MAP yet it runs on simpler maps and is easier to tune then Ford's new "complex" ECU. I'd bet the Mitsu head still flows better stock vs stock and I predict the RS will still have plastic parts for the intake like Ford always does.
My point is Mitsu did a lot of "invisible but needed" things on the Evolution that I never see domestic makers doing. It's a little less "bean-counter-driven" and cost cutting isn't as obvious on the powertrain where it matters most to me. I hope Ford truly put some effort into making this car serious. They are now in the spotlight and the demons will come out one way or the other so lets hope they didn't skimp.
All the 2.3 dyno charts I'm seeing really start dying out at 5500rpm. I'd gladly trade a bit of low-end today for a much better top end tomorrow. With a tune and MIVEC dialed in the low-end issues are mostly fixed on the Evo's 2.0 yet it still makes power up top.
I feel the stock 4B11T at 2.0 liters is already comparable to their 2.3..... I would love to see a test where they pit a 2.3 liter Evo against a 2.3 liter Ecoboost both using the exact same turbocharger and then compare.
My gut still says the extra attention to detail Mitsubishi put in the Evo still will "out-class" the RS. For instance Ford has never offered a MAF on a turbo car. Mitsu has MAF + MAP yet it runs on simpler maps and is easier to tune then Ford's new "complex" ECU. I'd bet the Mitsu head still flows better stock vs stock and I predict the RS will still have plastic parts for the intake like Ford always does.
My point is Mitsu did a lot of "invisible but needed" things on the Evolution that I never see domestic makers doing. It's a little less "bean-counter-driven" and cost cutting isn't as obvious on the powertrain where it matters most to me. I hope Ford truly put some effort into making this car serious. They are now in the spotlight and the demons will come out one way or the other so lets hope they didn't skimp.
The 2.3 comparo is kind of odd, all 2.3s aren't equal and you're taking an internall modified engine vs a from the factory effort.
I wouldn't knock Ford when it comes to their 05+ engines, they're among the best.
2 diffs is cheaper and lighter than 3, with one less part to break. And given that the ST is already kind of a porker, adding 20 lbs here and there adds up. Not sure I implied it's better, it's not, but there are always going to be compromises at this price point. Mitsubishi compromised on the Evo by putting a chintzy interior in the Evo. Subaru makes the STi by reusing the WRX and a common engine from every other car they make. Ford's compromising by using a not-perfect AWD system. In a perfect world it'd be more like the IX system with proper LSDs front and back + a center diff. But it's still AWD, and other than the small % of drivers who auto-x or track it, and the even smaller % who can actually push the car to the limit, nobody will really notice when they're driving it; it'll still be vastly better than 320 HP in a FWD car.
And I'm with you on performance. This car will be faster than a stock X, probably not a lot but still faster - especially with the PSC tires.
The RS isn't a halo car for Ford, for ****'s sake, not even close. It's a performance version of an economy car with 5-8 variants (depending on how you want to split hairs), one they need to make money on to justify its existence. Car companies aren't in the habit of losing money on cars in order to appease magazine racers.
I'm not trying to make excuses for Ford, there's some disappointing things from the launch, but I'll wait until it's done before writing it off. I'm also hopeful it'll be priced favorably to the GTI.
And I'm with you on performance. This car will be faster than a stock X, probably not a lot but still faster - especially with the PSC tires.
The RS isn't a halo car for Ford, for ****'s sake, not even close. It's a performance version of an economy car with 5-8 variants (depending on how you want to split hairs), one they need to make money on to justify its existence. Car companies aren't in the habit of losing money on cars in order to appease magazine racers.
I'm not trying to make excuses for Ford, there's some disappointing things from the launch, but I'll wait until it's done before writing it off. I'm also hopeful it'll be priced favorably to the GTI.
Tip of the hat to Ford. I have blasted them for years for no AWD turbo option in the states, while taunting us with an awesome rally program and legendary hooligan rides like the Cosworth Escort.
Well, they finally did it, and it really looks like a killer all conditions sports car. [slow clap]
Murica!
Well, they finally did it, and it really looks like a killer all conditions sports car. [slow clap]
Murica!
Newbie
Joined: Dec 2014
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
From: Illinois
I'm not going to lie I am eyeing this Focus RS pretty hard. It has got my attention. Now the three questions I am waiting to be answered are: 1. What are the final performance numbers? 2) What is the final price point? 3) What is my test drive going to be like? If all three of those go in my direction then I will seriously consider buying it if I feel its worth trading from the new EVO X to it. I will be watching the release of any information regarding this car very closely. I am really curious to see what its MPG are going to be. If its going to be in the 30mpg range its going to be a game changer and bring a lot of WRX and EVO fans over to their platform to include it comes with a 6 speed transmission which will more than likely produce pretty decent numbers.
I traded my 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT4 that was highly modded for the 2015 EVO X GSR. I have yet to autocross the X yet but plan to very soon. I am curious to see if my stock X can match the performance I had in my old CSRT4.
I traded my 2008 Dodge Caliber SRT4 that was highly modded for the 2015 EVO X GSR. I have yet to autocross the X yet but plan to very soon. I am curious to see if my stock X can match the performance I had in my old CSRT4.
I am really curious to see what its MPG are going to be. If its going to be in the 30mpg range its going to be a game changer and bring a lot of WRX and EVO fans over to their platform to include it comes with a 6 speed transmission which will more than likely produce pretty decent numbers.
If I had to guess, 21/29 with real world around 22 or 23 MPG.
It is rated at 23/30 with DSG.
My 2013 Golf R with 6 speed manual was rated at 19/27 and I averaged 21.11 MPG over 10,811 miles of ownership.
