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

[michaelosx]

Originally Posted by n2oinferno

I would very much be interested to see the same exact car in a FWD/RWD version and then run them around the track to see which is faster. I don't think we'll ever get that chance though.

Mythbusters, are you listening????

[Frost]

Originally Posted by s0sl0w

The Focus had a very cluttered, busy interior that I really hated. But the acceleration was brilliant, much stronger feeling that a BRZ, and once again, no lag worth mentioning. However every input into the throttle was immediately greeted with being able to feel the car and steering electronics constantly fighting, the wheel would surge between light and heavy as the E-diff would do it's best to reign in the power. it never took away control but it never felt very organic either, you just pointed the wheel and said never-mind to what it felt like. Absolutely no subtlety of feel. The same can be said for the handling, when really hammed up it plowed like a pig, do it right and the car turned in savagely but it all felt very manufactured. It was nothing short of impressive but it also felt nothing short of assisted. Great handling FWD's? Yes. Deserve the praise being heaped on them? Yes. Actual competition to a pure bred sports car? No. The car pretty much always went where pointed and the handful of times I boned it up I was still able to recover it well and keep out of trouble but it never felt natural or good while doing it.

This sounds a LOT like MotorTrends comparo between the Focus ST and the Mazda Speed 3. The Focus ST had quite a bit of torque steer that had to be compensated for by the computerized brakes attempting to do what a real LSD would do but still wound up in the dirt just out of 1st gear. Check it out here: [ame]http://youtu.be/OISFrU4I_7s[/ame]

Still nowhere near as bad as the MazdaSpeed 3.

Nice writeup.

[wparsons]

Originally Posted by vh_supra26

http://www.carscoops.com/2013/06/for...a-gt86-on.html

I really wonder about the track/drivers on some tests.

EVO had the GT86 run about a second slower than the Fiesta in the same conditions, but Top Gear had the GT86 run about a second faster and the GT86 ran on a wet track.

IMO, the EVO tester was having too much fun sliding around to put down a really quick lap.

[EAGLE5]

I'm not terribly interested in owning a FWD car anymore. However, I've seen enough blazing-fast FWD cars to know that where the engine is and what wheels are driven is just one of a bajillion factors that each have pluses and minuses. Where the engine is and what wheels are driven don't even make the top ten on the list.

Case and point:
http://jalopnik.com/5813304/ride-alo...-has-ever-seen

[Sport-Tech]

Originally Posted by s0sl0w

I'll give it a shot.

That was far more than a shot - very nuanced and detailed comparison, not to mention well written, many thanks for taking the time to do this - I 'm adding it to my library of reviews.

Regarding the Fiesta's overboost - it's available again within a second of lifting your foot off the gas so that would not have been an issue. I wonder if some of the weaknesses you point to in the Fiesta would be far less evident in street driving (even enthusiastic street driving), only emerging at 10/10ths.

I would have jumped at a chance to attend one of those ST track days but they don't run them up here. I wish Scion or Subaru did one as well.

[Anaxilus]

Originally Posted by jsimon7777

I'm not terribly interested in owning a FWD car anymore. However, I've seen enough blazing-fast FWD cars to know that where the engine is and what wheels are driven is just one of a bajillion factors that each have pluses and minuses. Where the engine is and what wheels are driven don't even make the top ten on the list.

Case and point:
http://jalopnik.com/5813304/ride-alo...-has-ever-seen

I think I'm going to have to disagree w/ you. I'd put avoiding front engine/FWD up in the top 3-5 factors at least when designing a fast race car. I think the 93 or so other cars faster than the Megane on this list would also agree.

[ame="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_N%C3%BCrburgring_Nordschleife_lap_times"]List of Nürburgring Nordschleife lap times - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia[/ame]

It's no coincidence that the ratio of FWD cars in the top 150-200 cars is extremely low. No one is saying FWD can't be fast, it's just not ideal to be fastest. Never will be unless you're Q from SNG and can manipulate the space/time continuum.

Edit - The Megane Trophy is impressive but there seems to be some question about whether it was a shortened track, whether pieces were removed (missing rearview mirror in a stock car?), finding 9 secs by adding only 15hp, newer street tires, and adding more weight than the previous plexiglass model. Again, the rearview mirror delete was obviously more important than shedding weight off the windows? Odd...

[EAGLE5]

Is there a car on the list with similar power:weight that did as well?

[Anaxilus]

Originally Posted by jsimon7777

Is there a car on the list with similar power:weight that did as well?

Well, see my edit in the previous post before we decide which time we should actually be looking at. The 8:07 seems to be a bit magic in how it dropped 19 secs by adding weight versus the plexi glass model, and being 'stock' yet stripping out a mirror.

[Anaxilus]

Looks like there is an Evo X GSR and maybe a few NSXs that are 'close' to the same P/W ratio but are faster if we accept the fastest 8:07 time. Cayman S and STI Spec C are a bit better in P/W and also a little faster.

[Gixxersixxerman]

In the motorcycle world.. Almost all track tests are done on control tires.. In fairness, while the street portion of the test is usually done on the OEM spec tires.. I have no idea why the automotive world has not picked up on this.. Would make the tests more "fair" and would get rid of so much bickering between car guys.. I don't believe in other mods, but control tires just seem fair to me

[Anaxilus]

Originally Posted by Gixxersixxerman

In the motorcycle world.. Almost all track tests are done on control tires.. In fairness, while the street portion of the test is usually done on the OEM spec tires.. I have no idea why the automotive world has not picked up on this.. Would make the tests more "fair" and would get rid of so much bickering between car guys.. I don't believe in other mods, but control tires just seem fair to me

You have a valid point. Though many manus do tune the chassis to a particular set of rubber so it's fair and not fair at the same time. It would eliminate the ones that send cars to journalists w/ 'ringer' tires that will never be produced w/ the vehicle.

I guess it's a bit surprising to me because I'm quite familiar w/ the RE050 and they aren't that great. Most Lexus cars have them. The RE05/050A version must be quite a nice evolution. The Top Gear review on the Megane Trophy claims they did the Nurburgring even 10 secs faster than the actual record, yet their's didn't count. There's too much BS around these Nurburgring times it seems to me.

All I can know is that the Megane is a very fast track car for a FWD that appears very well balanced and precisely tuned from the factory (why only 500 units seems another odd curiosity since it would slaughter the competition w/ those numbers). I see nothing that convinces me that drivetrain layout is somehow now irrelevant because of the Megane.

The times at Tsukuba seem to indicate the Trophy is 7 secs/lap slower than the GT86 Griffon which has the same P/W ratio. Who knows...?

[Gixxersixxerman]

Originally Posted by Anaxilus

You have a valid point. Though many manus do tune the chassis to a particular set of rubber so it's fair and not fair at the same time.

Yes they do set up each bike according to the manufactures specs after giving the size of the tires.. But that's so the geometry is as close to stock as possible.. Not that I'd ever feel it but racers can feel adjustments in .5mm heights.. It's insane reading through MotoGP specs and reading set ups and notes and seeing that just a .5mm drop in the front preload and a 1mm rise in the rear ride height makes a big difference on Ben spies M1 last year.. Hell I can't feel the difference in 5 clicks of suspension adjustments lol..

But yes I do see where your coming from also.. Even tho they might be the same "size" number wise the tire could be noticeable taller or wider and mess with the stock cars set up

[Dazza]

Originally Posted by wparsons

I really wonder about the track/drivers on some tests.

EVO had the GT86 run about a second slower than the Fiesta in the same conditions, but Top Gear had the GT86 run about a second faster and the GT86 ran on a wet track.

IMO, the EVO tester was having too much fun sliding around to put down a really quick lap.

Fair call, unless you have a professional race driver setting the times these comparisons can be very hit and miss dependant on the skill level of the tester

[Kostamojen]

I'm kind of cross-shopping these two right now...

Haven't driven the Fiesta ST yet, but I did drive the FRS last week for the first time.

I'm interested in the Fiesta because it looks fun to drive and isn't overpowered for a FWD car, plus light as heck like the Abarth and other small hot hatches. Its also practical and possibly slightly faster in a straight line than the twins (and probably going to be easily modded due to the turbo motor of course).

I was disappointed with the power of the FRS when I drove it, but everything else I loved. I need to see the Fiesta in person and test drive it, but the $3000 difference might be a problem for me I don't know yet for sure.

I have also been looking at the Abarth, MX-5 Club, Sonic RS, even used Mazdaspeed 3's... So I'm open to anything, but the Fiesta and BRZ/FRS seem to be my top 2 right now until I see the Fiesta in person.