FR-S vs 2012 Ford Focus ST

[SpeedR]

Originally Posted by Capt Canuck

Apologies for being a pedant, but if 'FWD sucks for performance driving' no race series would use it. Some do. Except for off-tarmac rallying, I think it would be more accurate to say AWD sucks for performance driving.

I did not say it could not be used for performance driving,

Rules determine if something is or is not used in a racing series and the rules more often than not are there to make you slower or safer they normally have little to do with helping your performance. See NASCAR and why they are only now leaving carburetors behind.

Racing series are setup for a variety of reasons hell the fact that something is not good at racing is often the point of racing it, Lawn mower racing any one.

I have a lot of respect for someone who posts a good time at a RR in a focus its hard to do that it’s a lot easier to post a good time in a 370Z or an EVO. But if offered I would still take the 370Z or EVO.

[Capt Canuck]

Originally Posted by SpeedR

I have a lot of respect for someone who posts a good time at a RR in a focus its hard to do that it’s a lot easier to post a good time in a 370Z or an EVO. But if offered I would still take the 370Z or EVO.

Me too :-)
The AWD luv - apart from its off road/nasty conditions usage - is truly lost on me.

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Capt Canuck

Apologies for being a pedant, but if 'FWD sucks for performance driving' no race series would use it. Some do. Except for off-tarmac rallying, I think it would be more accurate to say AWD sucks for performance driving.

Can't tell if you're serious about this or just trolling. The fastest accelerating production car right now is AWD. Half of the fastest time attack cars right now (unlimited class) are AWD. Someone earlier mentioned BTCC as an example of FWD racing. Well back in the day, Audi pioneered AWD and literally dominated BTCC and won a championship in 1996. AWD was subsequently banned from the BTCC series as posing an unfair advantage.

Excerpt:

All SuperTouring cars are based on mid-sized family saloons and have to retain the same drive configuration that the production model uses. This has meant that the majority of SuperTourers have been front-wheel-drive (FWD), which is not the most ideal format for a racing car.

In a conventional racer, the front wheels steer and the rear wheels push the car along, while braking effort is split between the two due to even weight distribution. In a FWD car, the front wheels not only drive and steer the car but also has to handle most of braking effort due to the concentration of weight (engine and gearbox) at the front.

This caused many of the early teams great difficulties as conventional rear wheel drive engineering could not be applied and new techniques had to be learnt. Some teams (Ford and Vauxhall) even tried converting their cars to rear wheel drive in an effort to improve performance, but found that too much power was lost taking drive from their transverse engines back to the rear wheels.

Audi was the only team to race a four wheel drive model, the A4, which won the championship in 1996. But four wheel drive was banned soon after.

Source: http://www.supertouring.co.uk/the_cars/the_cars.html

[Capt Canuck]

Originally Posted by DarkSunrise

Can't tell if you're serious about this or just trolling. The fastest accelerating production car right now is AWD. Half of the fastest time attack cars right now (unlimited class) are AWD. Someone earlier mentioned BTCC as an example of FWD racing. Well back in the day, Audi pioneered AWD and literally dominated BTCC and won a championship in 1996. AWD was subsequently banned from the BTCC series as posing an unfair advantage.

Ya I'm just having some fun and I should have done a better job of quoting in my posts. I meant to add the long list of racing series the other fella listed.

As the thread has had a lot of this sucks, that sucks, this is terrible, I wanted to add my two pence. Will try harder next time.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by SpeedR

I would not say its garbage there is defiantly worse suspension setups.
Every car makes compromises of one kind or another. I like the balance of compromises that the FR-S has made.

What are you getting pissy about I’m sorry you got your little ego hurt because you drive a FWD and I said something bad about it. I gave you some knowledge you apparently did not know or have before get over it stop being a baby.

Two of my current cars are FWD there nothing wrong with it other than it’s not as good for performance driving.

Getting pissy with someone who tells you a truth you don’t want to hear only guarantees people won’t want to tell you the truth.

its convienient to choose when you are an elitest. if macphersons werent a good enough example how about 4 cylinders? they are the worst common performance engine yet here you are on the fr86 forum. you are confusing me "getting pissy" and "thinking youre stupid." these things you claim are facts, simply arent. heres a fact, the s2000 regularly gets its ass handed to it in the scca runoffs. the crx is an auto x monster. fwd sucks isnt a fact.

the majority of counterarguments involve an "all else being equal" clause and what that really means is "if you take away all the advantages of fwd then it is worse" fwd will be a combination of lighter, cheaper, and more power to the wheels. sure fwd has a lower performance cieling but most of us on this forum dont have the money to get there. ive watched a n/a 1.8 civic go around buttonwillow under 2:00. thats faster than pobst did it in a c6 z06

[DarkSunrise]

Originally Posted by Capt Canuck

Ya I'm just having some fun and I should have done a better job of quoting in my posts. I meant to add the long list of racing series the other fella listed.

As the thread has had a lot of this sucks, that sucks, this is terrible, I wanted to add my two pence. Will try harder next time.

Yeah I could see why someone might get that impression from that list. A lot of it just comes down to what drive configurations are permitted in the rules and what kind of restrictions (weight, power, etc.) they'll place on each configuration.

Also, agree with you... there are way too many generalizations being thrown around loosely in this thread.

[Turbowned]

You guys do bring up some good points. Just like FWD is cheaper to manufacture, It was cheaper to manufacture the BRZ/86 with MacPherson front struts in place of multi-link and a four cylinder N/A in place of something with more grunt.

However I look at it this way: The first cars had a low cylinder count. More cylinders were later added to make more power. When fuel economy became a real, actual concern, manufacturers looked to make smaller, more efficient engines. The high-specific-output small displacement engine was produced (in the case of the BRZ/86, 100hp per liter which is quite an achievement).

The first suspension setups were primitive leaf-spring/coil spring and shock configurations, later developed into other improved (but still not perfect) designs, like the De Dion Tube rear axle. The MacPherson front strut setup was an improvement on earlier designs, just as independent rear suspension was an improvement on solid rear axles, and some rear shock/spring combos were improved on with Chapman rear struts. Later, double-wishbone and multilink suspension setups proved to be more effective (but also more expensive) than traditional MacPherson and Chapman strut setups.

Front-wheel-drive on the other hand was developed after rear-wheel-drive to make cars less expensive to produce and "safer" to drive for the inexperienced driver. It's not as though FWD came first and someone said "Hey, wait, this is all wrong. I can make this better!" and then developed RWD. It came after RWD, and was not ideal for performance, but it did well enough and made it so we could build lots of cheap cars for average Joes and Janes to buy and putt around in.

This is honestly why I have beef with front-wheel-drive. It was developed to make economy cars, not performance cars. Improving on a fundamentally-flawed platform to me is not the way to do things. It's not unlike why I'll never buy a Mustang, no matter how much R&D they put into their live rear axle. To steal part of a quote from Angus MacKenzie, having the fastest front-wheel-drive car is "a bit like saying you're the healthiest guy in intensive care".

/potentially flawed argument. The Focus ST looks like it could be a very fun car to own. I'm sorry if I've angered the FWD faithful on here, but it's just not my cup o' tea. If nothing else, I'm trying to convince anyone cross-shopping the BRZ/FR-S and the Focus to go with the damn BRZ/FR-S! Can you fault me for that?

[Dimman]

The whole point that has been missed, is that though F1 cars etc... are RWD that has nothing to do with either the FT86 twins, nor the Focus ST.

The cars are not so anywhere near so close to being identical that the driven wheels will be the deciding factor.

Here it comes down to personal taste.









Again, in case it was missed: These are not F1 cars.

[SpeedR]

Originally Posted by fatoni

its convienient to choose when you are an elitest.

Never said I was an elitist just the opposite I have mentioned several times I have 2 FWD cars currently.

Both Porsche and BMW have used macphersons and 4 cylinders fairly effectively but they don’t seem real fond of FWD. Come to think of it I know of no FWD supercars and I can’t think of any FWD GT cars or sports cars.

So Honda if fairly well known for FWD so Y is the S2000 RWD or how about the NSX..

Originally Posted by fatoni

fwd will be a combination of lighter, cheaper, and more power to the wheels.

The vast majority of mass produced very lightweight performance cars are RWD, MX5, MR2, Lotus, ect.
Cheaper depends on the manufacture and what they have in the parts bin. But ya normaly
More power to the wheels I don’t see how you think that, But certainly not more power to the road and that’s what matters.

Originally Posted by fatoni

sure fwd has a lower performance cieling

Look I am not saying anything everybody doesn’t already know FWD dose sucks for performance driving, you know it you just don’t like that I said it.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by SpeedR

Never said I was an elitist just the opposite I have mentioned several times I have 2 FWD cars currently.

Both Porsche and BMW have used macphersons and 4 cylinders fairly effectively but they don’t seem real fond of FWD. Come to think of it I know of no FWD supercars and I can’t think of any FWD GT cars or sports cars.

So Honda if fairly well known for FWD so Y is the S2000 RWD or how about the NSX..


The vast majority of mass produced very lightweight performance cars are RWD, MX5, MR2, Lotus, ect.
Cheaper depends on the manufacture and what they have in the parts bin. But ya normaly
More power to the wheels I don’t see how you think that, But certainly not more power to the road and that’s what matters.


Look I am not saying anything everybody doesn’t already know FWD dose sucks for performance driving, you know it you just don’t like that I said it.

400 years ago the vast majority of people thought the earth was the center of the universe. majority doesnt mean right you should really look at that post about the megane vs the brz. just for a little bit

[mines13]

Originally Posted by fatoni

400 years ago the vast majority of people thought the earth was the center of the universe. majority doesnt mean right you should really look at that post about the megane vs the brz. just for a little bit

Don't waste your time or energy. He is entitled to his opinion, and remember, that is all that it is.

[SioXie101]

now that the pricing is out starting at $24,495 for the upcoming 2013 Focus ST it looks like my list for my next year car buying suddenly got a little bit crowded.

http://www.ford.com/cars/focus/focusst/

i wonder if others have consider this car, knowing that for the first time Ford will be bringing this awesome eurobred hot hatch into our shores....
IMHO i never expect the price to start that low, was expecting it to start at $28K to $30K.

A loaded version with SYNC + Nav = $28,930.

[Capt Canuck]

Others are indeed considering it

http://www.ft86club.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2551

[FrX]

My brother plans to buy an ST. Looks like a fun car. May force him to trade cars every now and then.