I do not understand the question. Different stock RS's on different dynos are putting up the same results (i.e., ~250whp).

I am sure you could contact Kaizen and Mishimoto and ask them to prove their dyno's are accurate

 

Look at the 0-110 MPH. That is pretty telling. The RS gets there 1.6 seconds faster. That's a pretty clear sign that it's making more HP than the STI.

Here are some other numbers:

2015 Evo X MR

Zero to 60 mph: 4.9 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 14.0 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 32.2 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.7 sec @ 99 mph

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/...mr-test-review

So the Focus RS is faster than the Evo X MR in all categories. It's substantially faster in the higher speed runs.

 

Confirmed, dense. Not all dynos are created equal.

It's not an accuracy problem, it's a measurement problem.

 

It likely has to do with the gearing. But if you really think that waiting until 100+ miles per hour to see any advantage of a 50hp. difference makes sense, then I give up.

 

While i didnt do the math or anything, the RS does seem to have the tallest 4th gear. It could be that it manages the speed without an additional shift. Because 1.6 seconds is pretty huge, and even the hp advantage it has on paper doesn't really justify that big of a difference.

 

If the results were from a single dyno I might agree. But when multiple dynos give the same result...

So you think Kaizen's and Mishimoto's awd dynos do not correctly measure whp? Really?

Furthermore, the same dyno also measured a 2015 STI at 250whp. So even if 250whp really means something else, why would both the STI and RS have the same results? The RS should be higher right?

 

dyno's are just tools, they can only focus on a certain element of the total picture. On top of that peak HP numbers are also just a small piece of the picture. 1/4 mile times are real, and they are much better report card on how well a car is performing.

 

The RS is faster almost across the board, but a 50 HP isn't going to become massive until the speed gets up there. Really, what do you want here? The RS to be 2 seconds faster to 60 mph than a car with 40 less HP?

 

Again, it's not about accuracy. A dyno is a tool.

I already addressed the STI comparison.

 

What are you talking about? How do you see "faster across the board"?
The STI is quicker 0-30, quicker 0-100, and identical in the 1/4 mile.

2016 Ford Focus RS vs. 2015 Subaru WRX STI
0–30 MPH 1.5 sec vs. 1.4 sec
0–60 MPH 4.6 sec vs. 4.7 sec
0–100 MPH 12.2 sec vs. 12.0 sec
¼-MILE @ MPH13.4 sec @ 105 vs. 13.4 sec @ 104
http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...e-specs-page-5

 

if the car and driver numbers are to be accepted as credible. Both the RS and STI weigh basically the same, so for the focus to claim to have 45hp and 60 ft-lb more power doesn't make sense based on the 1/4 mile times. Unless some other factor can be identified to explain this, then the reported power numbers seem pretty suspect.

 

C&D is about as credible as it gets for independent testing. Not only are Ford's numbers suspect, but there are now multiple stock RS dynocharts, from multiple tuners, showing the stock RS putting down 250whp. because the "overboost" feature is not working consistently. I am not sure what more some of you need to see to break free of Ford's marketing grip.

 

The Ecoboosts use direct injection so they are limited by the cam driven high pressure fuel pump. You have to get crazy and add things like additional injectors and such to go true E85. There is a setup available for the Focus ST but it has some drawbacks.

Most owners do a E30-E45 mix, like I do in my Fiesta ST.

 

damn from a modding standpoint, that seems like a pretty huge disadvantage for direct injection.

 

Your link is dead.

I noticed that you intentionally left out the results that favor the RS:

RS STI
ROLLING START, 5–60 MPH 5.7 sec 6.7 sec
TOP GEAR, 30–50 MPH 7.6 sec 10.8 sec
TOP GEAR, 50–70 MPH 6.0 sec 7.8 sec

So from a rolling start, the RS wins by a full second. In a top gear pull, it's 3 seconds. Huh, why would someone who hates the RS want to leave out the full results?

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparis...omparison-test

The RS was also ranked first in the comparison but that's none of my business.

Bolded for posterity. Car and Driver ranked the RS first, ahead of the STI and the Golf R.