Its not specularion. There have now been multiple cars dyno'd and tons of complaints of inconsistent/underwhelming power. http://www.focusrs.org/forum/9-focus-rs-discussions
http://www.focusrs.org/forum/9-focus...appointed.html
http://www.focusrs.org/forum/9-focus...mile-et-s.html

And these complaints are from RS owners. Presumably the people most likely to praise the car.

 

It's speculation in terms of the cause and the long-term ramifications. You're also relying on a car forum as "proof".

 

No, I am relying on dyno charts provided by respected tuners. http://www.focusrs.org/forum/9-focus...r-rs-dyno.html

So how exactly did Ford come up with the 350hp number?

 

Who haven't figured out what the problem actually is yet. There was a time when people claimed the GTR was untunable because of what "respected" tuners told them.

You're jumping the gun here, and acting like the conclusion you desperately want to be true in your head is a definitive fact.

 

Ford advertises car with 350hp. Real world testing falls short.

How am I jumping the gun? Remember when the RX8 did the same thing and a ton of them got returned under lemon laws?

 

Did you even read the thread?

So it's a low reading dyno.

So no overboost, it's stock Evo or STI HP wise, and way over torque wise. With overboost, it decimates both cars.

 

You need to read more about it. 3 separate dynos have come up with results well short of the advertised 350hp. Even on the inconsistent "overboost" runs.

What's your theory on the RS NOT giving out advertised power numbers? Disappointed. http://www.focusrs.org/forum/9-focus...appointed.html

 

I read the link you provided. The numbers are unusual, there's no doubt about that, but you're acting like Chicken Little here. The dyno numbers in the link you provided show the car making well above the advertised numbers in overboost mode. The torque is great.

 

I am not sure how you extrapolate any of the posted data as being above the advertised 350hp.

Mishimoto tests show 250whp. http://www.focusrs.org/forum/9-focus...-focus-rs.html

Even if the Ford 350hp number was done on an engine dyno, in overboost, that would be some significant drivetrain loss.

 

Are you intentionally being this dense?

According to your own link, the RS gained 40 hp when it went into overboost mode. In terms of torque, in non-overboost mode, it put down 290, 40 more than the STI benchmark. In overboost, it put down 320 wtq. Now this might be tough, but using the STI as the bench mark, we can extrapolate what those numbers are roughly at the crank. 290 wtq would be 340 tq, and 320 would be 370 tq. That's keeping the math as simple as possible for you.

According to Mishimoto:

Where is the bench mark comparison? It's worth noting that both Mishimoto and the above tuner tested cars that weren't broken in yet.

 

Ok, lets follow your STI comparison:
2015 STI (mfr. claimed) 305 hp
Dyno's at 250whp consistently.

Focus RS(mfr. claimed) 350 hp
Dyno's at 250whp consistently.

What good is overboost if it is inconsistent (maybe 1 out of 5 runs from testing so far)?

This also explains why the C&D testing for these 2 cars was so close.
0–60 MPH 4.6 sec vs. 4.7 sec
0–100 MPH 12.2 sec vs. 12.0 sec
¼-MILE @ MPH 13.4 sec @ 105 vs. 13.4 sec @ 104
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...e-specs-page-5

 

Sure, the numbers are unusual. Until we get an actual explanation, I'm going to refrain from declaring that the sky is falling, in a country I don't live in, as you are doing here, complaining that initial dyno results are indicative of problems for a car you have no desire to own.

 

I don't think its a problem. I just think Ford got it wrong with the overboost thing. Will likely be quickly resolved with tune, as razorlab pointed on his FiST, he turned overboost off, and just ran all the boost all the time.

 

The most obvious explanation is usually the correct one. It appears Ford exaggerated the RS' hp number. There is real world data now.

 

That's not the "obvious" explanation. You're also butchering Occam's Razor which states, is a very simplistic form, "the simplest explanation is usually the right one". "Obvious" is not right. "Obvious" to you appears to be that Ford ****ed up, or the RS is a PoS because you hate Ford and the RS.