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

[d1stance]

For the price disparity in Europe, the FRS/BRZ is not competitive. But in the US, prices are pretty close for whatever reason and it really comes down to preference.

RWD or FWD? Hatchback or coupe? Buy what you really like. Lap times make little difference as long as the basic car is competent.

Case in point: I've been left in the dust on the Nurburgring in my GTR by a Civic... Granted the Civic had the loudest turbo I had ever heard, was gutted, and on slicks.

I also chased down and passed up a Gen III Viper (cautious driver though) at Blackhawk Farms raceway this past week in the BRZ (Pilot SS and pads). Also caught up to and passed up a Volkswagen Golf R (seemed like a decent driver). So much of it comes down to the driver, the conditions, etc etc.

I also tested out the Focus ST and enjoyed it, but really did not want a FWD car. I also found the BRZ was much sexier for cars in the price range. Especially in WRB!

Buy what makes you happy! The BRZ is keeping me happy! (at least for now...)

[BRZ NA]

No comparison unless that ford is FR. Although the frs is under power but for sure if I have a second chance,I still for sure will take frs instead FWD and especially "Ford"......

[dsgerbc]

Meh, the twins are not about numbers. Anyone trying to compare numbers misses the point.

[DylanFRS]

Originally Posted by BRZ NA

No comparison unless that ford is FR. Although the frs is under power but for sure if I have a second chance,I still for sure will take frs instead FWD and especially "Ford"......

Your comment is redundant. I already took care of all the generic useless FRS/BRZ/RWD/etc nutswinger comments in the third post on this thread:

Originally Posted by DylanFRS

Thanks for the post. Very interesting video and definitely not a surprise. That ST looks pretty fun. Definitely looking at that or the Focus ST for my wives next car.

On a side note, that has got to be one of the only cars I have seen that will lift the inside rear wheel stock (and not from maxing the droop). Nice job to Ford on the setup.

Now for the:

"Yeah, but FWD..."
"FWD is for losers"
"But you gotta drive a ford"
"A real driver would be better in the Toyota"
etc
etc
etc...

[Dezoris]

The twins dont look good on paper at all. Performance is marginal at best. Its slow, has poor grip in stock form, brakes are weak etc etc.

But its fun to drive just needs serious work to stay relavent over the life cycle.

[s0sl0w]

Let's not forget that the FR-S's and GT86's retarded suspension setup (relative to the BRZ) makes them a good deal slower as well, shit tires notwithstanding.

[headlikeahole]

No one seems to realize that reviewing the twins by pinning them against other cars in timed races goes against the whole idea behind the car. This idea that the best car is the fastest car is the reason why the AE86 and cars like it dissapeared.

I for one am glad that it's slow. I dont care if you can beat me in a dodge caravan, Ill be having more fun then you.

[MVJ1975]

Damnit, Ford, why can't we have the sweet 3-door Fiesta ST? All we get is the grandpa version.

[DarkSunrise]

Hard to tell by watching someone else drive, but that Fiesta ST seems pretty unsettled in corners. It turns in nicely, the rear end starts to come around like you'd want in a FWD car, but then the chassis starts bobbing around and the car just looks unsettled by mid-corner. I wonder if it's the result of an aggressive E-LSD or VSC getting the chassis to rotate on turn-in, then trying to reign itself in. I'd guess (without having driven it) that there's a lot of electronic intervention trying to force a FWD chassis to be neutral.

I might be old school, but I'd choose the simpler GT86 anyday, everyday. Proper RWD chassis and a torsen LSD in the back. Low to the ground, balanced, and with good steering feedback. Nothing against the Fiesta ST -- it's definitely good value and looks to have a solid engine, but there's nothing really about it that would appeal to me vs. the Twins. Laptimes aren't really relevant because, as the guy in the video said about a hundred times, the tires on the GT86 are crap. Ironically, laptimes seems to have been the sole basis on which Evo declared the "winner" in this comparison. Not surprised, this is Evo we're talking about...

[industrial]

Well, I guess the Fiesta ST is as good as the new Civic SI then. It just somehow looks worse and will probably come with sync, which makes me want to smash the dashboard half the time. Congrats on being faster than a slow car.

This car would be an unbelievable success if it came over here priced $10-13k less than the FRS/BRZ. Fact is, the price difference will be more like 2-3k for us. This is a far different decision than the EVO crowd.

I guess this is akin to magazines raving about how the evo/sti is faster than a s2000/cayman for years and years. Difference strokes for different folks.

[raul]

Originally Posted by topazsparrow

Excuse me for playing devils advocate here, but what empiracle evidence do you have to support this?

It's empirical. The evidence you're looking for is in the laws of physics my friend. Weight transfer. When you package an engine and transmission in the front of the car, you shift the weight balance to the front, making the car more prone to understeer. There's also the fact that under acceleration, weight shifts to the back, giving the rear tires more grip. Under those circumstances, having the power put down in the back makes more sense. Overall, it's easier to make a RWD car easier to drive fast (not in a street context). The FWD car will need some extensive suspension and electronics to compensate for the less-than-ideal balance. The difference in this particular test come from 2 things: tires and torque.

[thill]

Originally Posted by Dezoris

The twins dont look good on paper at all. Performance is marginal at best. Its slow, has poor grip in stock form, brakes are weak etc etc.

But its fun to drive just needs serious work to stay relavent over the life cycle.

I disagree. With stock tires on a track, then yes. With upgraded tires that actually have grip? It is a different car on the track.

Consider this: http://www.roadandtrack.com/special-...transformation
FR-S vs MazdaSpeed3 vs WRX

Stock Primacy tires, the FR-S comes in dead last. If you throw on a set of Dunlop Star Spec tires (even in the exact same size as the Primacy tires) the FR-S beat the other two cars around the track (easily beat the WRX which is surprising) and it gained a 2.3 second advantage vs the stock tires. Consider the Mazda has 263hp and 283ft lbs of torque and the WRX has 265hp and 245ft-lbs of torque. Obviously the twins won't beat either of these cars in a straight line, but it is kicking ass on the turns where it has the advantage.

Bottomline, these track runs in the stock tires are kind of a joke. The stock tires are low rolling tires and, while they are fun to drift in because they break traction easier than tires that have more grip, they are not ideal at all on a track.

I have zero doubt that a twin would smoke a Fiesta (if it can beat a Speed3 and WRX) with a simple $500 tire swap (those Dunlop tires above are only $145 apiece). I will say it again, I really wish Subaru and Toyota would give buyers the choice in tires. And I really wish these comparison tests would use better tires if they are tracking the car in a timed race against other cars that have superior tires.

EDIT: I just checked and you can get a set of these max performance summer tires from Somotomo for $332 for a set of four. These tires would be comparable to the above tires on a budget and I plan on putting these on my car once I do some drifts and reduce the tire wear on the Primacy tires:
http://www.tirerack.com/tires/tires....S&autoModClar=

[thill]

Originally Posted by fatoni

im beginning to think that the tire choice was deliberate. not to make the car much more fun but as a scapegoat for anytime anyone says anything less than stellar about the car.

The tire choice was deliberate. It was chosen for the fun factor and most likely the MPG factor (low rolling tires).

You can choose to ignore the data, but Road And Track, Motortrend, and Edmunds have all put better performing tires on the car and the results were consistent everytime. The car has a lot more grip with better tires and it improves lateral acceleration, figure 8, lap times, etc. I don't think the engineers ever intended for people to be tracking the car with these tires.

[fatoni]

Originally Posted by raul

It's empirical. The evidence you're looking for is in the laws of physics my friend. Weight transfer. When you package an engine and transmission in the front of the car, you shift the weight balance to the front, making the car more prone to understeer. There's also the fact that under acceleration, weight shifts to the back, giving the rear tires more grip. Under those circumstances, having the power put down in the back makes more sense. Overall, it's easier to make a RWD car easier to drive fast (not in a street context). The FWD car will need some extensive suspension and electronics to compensate for the less-than-ideal balance. The difference in this particular test come from 2 things: tires and torque.

i dont know if anything you said has muchto do with the "physics" of a fwd car.