Ford Fiesta ST Beats Toyota GT86 on the Track in EVO Test

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by DylanFRS

That's not really true. I'd rather not go back through the thread though and find everyone that either implied it or flat out said it.

You should use the quote function because no one knows who you're talking about.

[DylanFRS]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

You should use the quote function because no one knows who you're talking about.

You're right, I read back through and no one implied that the FR-S had to be more fun because it was RWD instead of FWD. I don't feel the need to hog this thread anymore arguing circles around myself so I'll stop and let us get back to the Fiesta ST. Looks like a fun car! Still looking at getting one or the Focus ST within the next couple years for my wife.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by DylanFRS

You're right, I read back through and no one implied that the FR-S had to be more fun because it was RWD instead of FWD. I don't feel the need to hog this thread anymore arguing circles around myself so I'll stop and let us get back to the Fiesta ST. Looks like a fun car! Still looking at getting one or the Focus ST within the next couple years for my wife.

Yep the Fiesta ST and mk7 GTI are high on my list of cars to test-drive. I had envisioned keeping my mk6 for a few more years, but if the mk7 is as good as they say, I might be tempted.

[Anaxilus]

Originally Posted by topazsparrow

The rear suspension is exactly the same. It's the front spring rate that is every so slightly different. Where are you getting your information from??? Are you seriously trying to argue that the BRZ is anything but on-par with an FRS on a track? It's almost exactly the same car. The BRZ pushes more and the FRS is traditionally more neutral. The difference is hardly enough to make up for a fraction of a second in either direction.

Sorry, yes, it's the front springs that are softer on the FRS to tip the front end on turn-in. Gave the prior post too much subconscious credence when he just saw the rear end swinging out and offered an incorrect analysis. However, I had heard a rumor that perhaps the BRZ has stiffer dampers in the rear as well to offset the spoiler. I believe this swap was said to be part of the Scion spoiler option as well.

Actually I was saying the BRZ will be faster than the FRS around a track for most drivers. Not sure if I'd go so far to call a stock FRS neutral. It is designed to get the tail out.

But yes, the spring rate difference in the FRONT will have a noticeable difference in track time depending on the driver's ability to handle the different balance w/ VSC off. Obviously the two videos revealing more than a few seconds of difference tells you how much a driver's synergy w/ a car can make. The car can't drive it self. Well, actually....

[topazsparrow]

Originally Posted by Anaxilus

Sorry, yes, it's the front springs that are softer on the FRS to tip the front end on turn-in. Gave the prior post too much subconscious credence when he just saw the rear end swinging out and offered an incorrect analysis. However, I had heard a rumor that perhaps the BRZ has stiffer dampers in the rear as well to offset the spoiler. I believe this swap was said to be part of the Scion spoiler option as well.

Actually I was saying the BRZ will be faster than the FRS around a track for most drivers. Not sure if I'd go so far to call a stock FRS neutral. It is designed to get the tail out.

But yes, the spring rate difference in the FRONT will have a noticeable difference in track time depending on the driver's ability to handle the different balance w/ VSC off. Obviously the two videos revealing more than a few seconds of difference tells you how much a driver's synergy w/ a car can make. The car can't drive it self. Well, actually....

Now you're trying to say the stock BRZ spoiler makes enough down-force to warrant stiffer springs?

You need to stop making things up or stop believing everything you read on the internet. None of the OEM spoilers generate a measurable amount of down-force. period. They are purely cosmetic. I had written a rebuttal to everything else you wrote but I just deleted it as I'm relatively certain you're going to make up your own facts to refute it anyway.

Please. Just stop making this shit up. At the very least provide a source or a link to back up your claims.

[s5pitfire]

wow.....................................

it's a bit sad but that little hatch FWD turbo car looked to be much better on the track than the FRS. I'm sure better tires would help the FRS, but it looked likt it was skating on ice the entire time, not able to grip the road at all.

brb investing heavily into suspension and handling, then using the crappiest tires possible (toyota)

[Kostamojen]

Originally Posted by OrbitalEllipses

*waves* Hi Kosta.

You already know my vote, but what is it that you find underwhelming about the power? The delivery? Where it's delivered? Coming from a lightly modified WRX I wasn't necessarily impressed and I'm still not, but I've realized it's not that important to me. Will I be adding FI? Probably down the line sometime, but the car is fun without it.

Will this car be your all-in-one car, your commuter, your only whip, your fun ride? If you can make a distinction of what kind of car you need, I think you'll find your answer.

Answer isn't that easy now that I've driven 8 other cars besides the FRS. Haven't driven the Fiesta yet, but I have driven two Mini JCW's, a MS3, C30, Abarth, and Focus ST.

The Focus was the best of the bunch, with the JCW's right behind. The FRS was certainly good, and I suspect the Fiesta will be somewhere around the JCW in terms of performance but much much more reliable.

Originally Posted by Sport-Tech

I'm in much the same position as you on this. One other plus for the Fiesta ST based on the videos I have seen (and my FR-S test drives) is that the ST has a much sweeter engine note in-cabin, not nearly so harsh.
Another car you may wish to add to your list is the new GTI coming next year - getting great reviews but may not have quite the enthusiast's edge as the other 2. The ST has been getting raves, most recently on Top Gear.

I think the price difference might be important here too... The fiesta is ~$3k cheaper than a FRS, less if you add the Recaro seats, but a LOT less than the BRZ.

As for all the tire comments... I agree that tires are really the only mod that the FRS/BRZ needs to be much much faster.

But theres something iffy to me about the power delivery on the twins, it doesn't have the push-you-back-into-your-seat power. But that is the ONLY flaw I found with the car minus the tires, everything else is 100% perfect.

Right now I'm leaning between the BRZ, Focus ST (LOTS of discounts on these!), the Fiesta ST and a used JCW. Depends on what I can actually afford with the BRZ (or even an FRS) being the most expensive and least powerful of the lot.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Kostamojen

Right now I'm leaning between the BRZ, Focus ST (LOTS of discounts on these!), the Fiesta ST and a used JCW. Depends on what I can actually afford with the BRZ (or even an FRS) being the most expensive and least powerful of the lot.

If power is something that's important to you, I would highly recommend going with a different car. I love my FR-S, but just being honest. All of the other cars you listed are FI, meaning they'll have a good chunk of midrange torque that the Twins don't have. In order to get the full 200 hp out of these cars, you have to downshift (often 2-3 gears) and drive the car hard to redline. It's fun for some, work to others. Different strokes for different folks, but if you're looking for power, I think you'd be happier with a FI car like the Focus ST, MS3, WRX, or even a GTI w/tune.

[regal]

Originally Posted by s5pitfire

wow.....................................

it's a bit sad but that little hatch FWD turbo car looked to be much better on the track than the FRS. I'm sure better tires would help the FRS, but it looked likt it was skating on ice the entire time, not able to grip the road at all.

brb investing heavily into suspension and handling, then using the crappiest tires possible (toyota)

The suspension on the twins are not heavily invested in at all. It has an impreza rear suspension, and the front suspension is just a Mcpherson strut moved opposite of the imprezza. This is by no means a costly double wishbone suspension like on an Elise or a Miata.

It is very basic and raw, the low center of gravity chassis is what Toyota heavily invested in. It allows decent performance without harsh spring rates/dampers up front to help rider comfort.

I don't see the car as being neutral stock, the front spring rates are way to low vs the rear.

To me this is a stupid comparison. The fiesta isn't a drivers car and is what it is. The GT86 has almost unlimited potential, just look at Robispec's car that is lowered 3 inches but has nearly the full stock suspension travel, amazing performance.

You buy a fiesta if you want an economical practical hatchback, nothing wrong with that. You buy a GT86 because its a drivers car out of the box but can surpass a Porsche Cayman S as you upgrade it over the course of ownership. A fiesta will never have that opportunity.

[Mikem53]

Originally Posted by regal

The suspension on the twins are not heavily invested in at all. It has an impreza rear suspension, and the front suspension is just a Mcpherson strut moved opposite of the imprezza. This is by no means a costly double wishbone suspension like on an Elise or a Miata.

My vette had a complex double wishbone suspension using SLA on the front. My M3 used a more simple McPherson strut setup on the front.. I didn't notice any shortcoming with the M3 other than you couldn't dial in more camber. Sometimes it's packaging that determines which setup is best to use.
Toybaru used lots of stamped steel and heavy metal pieces where some nice aluminum suspension pieces could have saved weight..

[regal]

Originally Posted by Mikem53

My vette had a complex double wishbone suspension using SLA on the front. My M3 used a more simple McPherson strut setup on the front.. I didn't notice any shortcoming with the M3 other than you couldn't dial in more camber. Sometimes it's packaging that determines which setup is best to use.
Toybaru used lots of stamped steel and heavy metal pieces where some nice aluminum suspension pieces could have saved weight..

Yes I'm not saying that the suspension is bad, more that Toyota focused on the chassis and they didn't have to invest heavily on the suspension.

Honestly my '95 Civic EX had much more invested its stock suspension than the Twins. But I like the simplicity of the twins suspension, rebuilding or modifying a double wishbone suspension can be incredibly painful and labor intensive. I hated swapping springs on that car let alone and changing all the bushings!

But to be honest there is a reason Lotus, Corvettes, Catterams, Arial atoms, etc all have full doublewishbone, Double wishbones allow a suspension designer great freedom in creating the camber curve the suspension will see under compression and rebound.

I do feel a little loss vs wishbone because in my area we have very hilly very curcy up and down roads, but again the chassis is so well designed its not a big disadvantage.

Here is interested read I had saved on my hard drive:

They also ensure stable suspension geometry during body roll and turning, and provide the designer with great opportunities to tune the car's roll characteristics through changes in roll center height and roll axis.

But MacPherson struts are actually a newer suspension design than the double wishbone setup, and have been used to create some incredible handling sports cars even today. They have their distinct design advantages, which include lower overall vehicle weight, lower cost to produce, and more efficient use of space under the vehicle. The weight savings is passed along through their being only 3 points on the chassis the suspension ties to, and these are spread far enough apart that the unibody and front subframe can be lighter (becuase they don't have to be so rigid). Both the design's compactness and lower cost comes through basic simplicity and the aforementioned chassis mounting setup.

[Mikem53]

Originally Posted by regal

Yes I'm not saying that the suspension is bad, more that Toyota focused on the chassis and they didn't have to invest heavily on the suspension.

Honestly my '95 Civic EX had much more invested its stock suspension than the Twins. But I like the simplicity of the twins suspension, rebuilding or modifying a double wishbone suspension can be incredibly painful and labor intensive. I hated swapping springs on that car let alone and changing all the bushings!

But to be honest there is a reason Lotus, Corvettes, Catterams, Arial atoms, etc all have full doublewishbone, Double wishbones allow a suspension designer great freedom in creating the camber curve the suspension will see under compression and rebound.

I do feel a little loss vs wishbone because in my area we have very hilly very curcy up and down roads, but again the chassis is so well designed its not a big disadvantage.

Here is interested read I had saved on my hard drive:

I have no doubt the DW suspension is better overall.. I was surprised that the BMW was as good as it was being so simple and all.. And I always owned Hondas because they handled better than other cars in their class.. Before they dumbed it down and the bean counters took over.. I tracked my FRS once so far.. But the stock tires limit everything and don't let you know what the suspension is capable of.. Like you, I am watching those that are experimenting with suspension pieces and such to see what works best and makes sense..
After owning the M3 for a few years.. I don't mind having Mc struts on this car after seeing how capable it can be..

[Suberman]

Originally Posted by Mikem53

My vette had a complex double wishbone suspension using SLA on the front. My M3 used a more simple McPherson strut setup on the front.. I didn't notice any shortcoming with the M3 other than you couldn't dial in more camber. Sometimes it's packaging that determines which setup is best to use.
Toybaru used lots of stamped steel and heavy metal pieces where some nice aluminum suspension pieces could have saved weight..

McPherson strut pretty much duplicates SLA geometry with a lot less unsprung weight. Porsche uses this at all four corners of its best handling sports car, the Cayman/Boxster. The less the suspension travel the more accurately McPherson strut locates the wheel. One significant advantage is low ball joint loadings. The spring load is taken entirely by the strut and the single ball joint only locates the bottom end of the strut. Other advantages are ease of manufacture, durability, easy servicing and robust alignment preservation, it is quite common to never need to align a McPherson front end unless you renew parts.

[thill]

Originally Posted by Suberman

McPherson strut pretty much duplicates SLA geometry with a lot less unsprung weight. Porsche uses this at all four corners of its best handling sports car, the Cayman/Boxster. The less the suspension travel the more accurately McPherson strut locates the wheel. One significant advantage is low ball joint loadings. The spring load is taken entirely by the strut and the single ball joint only locates the bottom end of the strut. Other advantages are ease of manufacture, durability, easy servicing and robust alignment preservation, it is quite common to never need to align a McPherson front end unless you renew parts.

http://www.edmunds.com/car-reviews/t...-cayman-r.html