Ford: Focus News
#1001
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 846 Likes
on
526 Posts
Anyway a quick Google search gave me this result:
http://www.cbp.gov/trade/basic-impor.../importing-car
I think the most important factor is factory warranty. I know that for some manufacturers, warranty from US does not cover Canada. I think something similar would apply.
That's right, I believe the FoRS in Canada comes fully loaded. If you just want 345hp turbo with SH-AWD, and don't need or wanna pay for other fancy features, then you are out of luck.....
#1002
Ex-OEM King
I'd save the $1k for the sunroof but the RS2 package is almost a must.
The following users liked this post:
Sarlacc (01-27-2016)
#1003
2024 Honda Civic Type R
Hmm, I still see the ST on ford.ca: 2016 Ford Focus | Ford Focus ST Highlights | Ford.ca
I'm a big fan of moonroofs. I don't use the AC so I always have my windows down and moonroof open when the weather permits. Also nice to let sunlight in during the drive. I'm short so the slightly lower roofline doesn't affect me.
#1004
The Third Ball
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: Los Angeles, Ca
Age: 45
Posts: 49,418
Received 5,079 Likes
on
2,696 Posts
The following users liked this post:
RPhilMan1 (01-28-2016)
#1005
Ex-OEM King
If the dealer threw one in for free I would take it but I wouldn't drop an extra $900 to get one.
I enjoy AC though, humidity sucks. Windows down is a lot of fun when the weather is right but can really suck at other times.
I'm short too, the height isn't a concern.
I'm well on my way in joining you...
#1006
2024 Honda Civic Type R
I enjoy sunroofs a lot, I have a panoramic sunroof in my Jeep right now and the S2k has an enormous sunroof.
If the dealer threw one in for free I would take it but I wouldn't drop an extra $900 to get one.
I enjoy AC though, humidity sucks. Windows down is a lot of fun when the weather is right but can really suck at other times.
I'm short too, the height isn't a concern.
If the dealer threw one in for free I would take it but I wouldn't drop an extra $900 to get one.
I enjoy AC though, humidity sucks. Windows down is a lot of fun when the weather is right but can really suck at other times.
I'm short too, the height isn't a concern.
I don't mind humidity at all... nothing like that drop of sweat going down your back.
#1008
I feel the need...
The 600-hp 2016 Ford Focus RS RX: Officially the baddest Focus ever
Yes please!
Read more: 2016 Ford Focus RS RX rallycross car specifications and renderings
The 0-60 mph launch time? Under two seconds. This thing is a monster.
#1009
Team Owner
Wow.
I wonder for how many miles one of those engines or drive trains lasts for. How can it accelerate like that also?
I wonder for how many miles one of those engines or drive trains lasts for. How can it accelerate like that also?
#1010
Ex-OEM King
For the second, sticky tires and lots of low end torque. I bet it runs out of steam at the high end of the rev range though.
#1011
Team Owner
And how do you get that much down low torque out of a high boost 2.0L turbo? Those turbo(s) are set up to provide maximum power high up in the RPM range... not exactly easy to get 600+hp out of a 2.0L engine unless it is spinning ungodly fast. Which again makes me wonder about reliability. Is it one race and time for a new engine?
Ever watch a rally race? Those engines are screaming at almost all times. Doubt they are setup to run out of steam up high. But I dunno. Maybe I've been huffing too much glue this morning.
#1012
Ex-OEM King
My GTR comment was when they were blowing up transmissions left and right because people were using launch control. It was an attempt at a funny.
I don't do rally cross or any racing but if this is a race application then I'd assume it has some insanely aggressive clutch system (where you can rev the motor high and drop the clutch) with a suspension that might as well be steel rods and super sticky track tires. The drive train will obviously have to be built to withstand that kind of a shock load as well.
I also doubt this will be able to go 0-60 in less than two seconds anyway. That's an enormous feat that not even the Hennessey Venom nor the Koenigsegg Regera can do.
I don't do rally cross or any racing but if this is a race application then I'd assume it has some insanely aggressive clutch system (where you can rev the motor high and drop the clutch) with a suspension that might as well be steel rods and super sticky track tires. The drive train will obviously have to be built to withstand that kind of a shock load as well.
I also doubt this will be able to go 0-60 in less than two seconds anyway. That's an enormous feat that not even the Hennessey Venom nor the Koenigsegg Regera can do.
#1013
Team Owner
Steel rod suspension
Who knows about the 2 second 0-60... the rally cars are pretty much bare shells, with nothing else other than safety items and 2 lightweight seats. It does sound rather ludicrous though. I'd probably wet myself if I accelerated that fast in a car
Who knows about the 2 second 0-60... the rally cars are pretty much bare shells, with nothing else other than safety items and 2 lightweight seats. It does sound rather ludicrous though. I'd probably wet myself if I accelerated that fast in a car
#1014
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 846 Likes
on
526 Posts
Here it is, I believe this is the first instrument test for the Focus RS:
2016 Ford Focus RS Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
0-60mph: 4.6s
5-60mph: 5.7s
0-100mph: 12.2s
1/4 mile: 13.4@105mph
70-0mph: 158ft
Skidpad: 0.98g
Tons of grip, good handling, good brakes. Drift mode not as good as first thought.
Those acceleration numbers don't look that great for a car with 350hp/lbft at less than 3500lb.
In fact, those figures are pretty much on par with a WRX STI that has 45hp less while being just 50lb lighter.
The heavier Lancer Evo with an ancient 5MT is also a little bit faster in acceleration..again with substantially less power:
2015 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Final Edition Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
It's not like the STI or Lancer are really that underrated either.....As a truly underrated
car would probably be the Audi S3 with 290hp that does the 1/4 mile in 12.9@108mph:
2015 Audi S3 Sedan Instrumented Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
Granted, that has launch control ....but that trap speed.....and also the BMW 340i...way heavy, 320hp, and just as fast...weird...
2016 Ford Focus RS Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
0-60mph: 4.6s
5-60mph: 5.7s
0-100mph: 12.2s
1/4 mile: 13.4@105mph
70-0mph: 158ft
Skidpad: 0.98g
Tons of grip, good handling, good brakes. Drift mode not as good as first thought.
Those acceleration numbers don't look that great for a car with 350hp/lbft at less than 3500lb.
In fact, those figures are pretty much on par with a WRX STI that has 45hp less while being just 50lb lighter.
The heavier Lancer Evo with an ancient 5MT is also a little bit faster in acceleration..again with substantially less power:
2015 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Final Edition Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
It's not like the STI or Lancer are really that underrated either.....As a truly underrated
car would probably be the Audi S3 with 290hp that does the 1/4 mile in 12.9@108mph:
2015 Audi S3 Sedan Instrumented Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
Granted, that has launch control ....but that trap speed.....and also the BMW 340i...way heavy, 320hp, and just as fast...weird...
#1015
Team Owner
I'm starting to really wonder about Ford's Turbo engine power claims.
When I first heard of the FoST, I figured it would be hella fast for it's given power numbers... but it's not THAT fast at all.
Same with the FoRS. Same with some of their others.
When I first heard of the FoST, I figured it would be hella fast for it's given power numbers... but it's not THAT fast at all.
Same with the FoRS. Same with some of their others.
#1016
2024 Honda Civic Type R
With a simple tune, those power numbers will jump up and the times will go down.
Then again how often do you guys go 0-60 in your car? The RS would be a daily driver for me. I'm not going to beat on it, but I'm going to have fun while driving it.
TB, FoST hella fast for FWD @ 252hp/270tq? Grip is the biggest problem. Also the tiny K03 turbo runs out of air at the top of the RPM band. It's very torquey (plus plenty of torque steer) but it's not a drag strip car and never was meant to be.
Then again how often do you guys go 0-60 in your car? The RS would be a daily driver for me. I'm not going to beat on it, but I'm going to have fun while driving it.
TB, FoST hella fast for FWD @ 252hp/270tq? Grip is the biggest problem. Also the tiny K03 turbo runs out of air at the top of the RPM band. It's very torquey (plus plenty of torque steer) but it's not a drag strip car and never was meant to be.
#1017
You'll Never Walk Alone
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada
Age: 37
Posts: 9,521
Received 846 Likes
on
526 Posts
Yea, the mustang 2.3T and Fusion Titanium (though an older engine) are like that too. Given their power to weight ratio, they should be faster.
The point isn't about how fast the car is. Honestly, 0-60mph in 4.6s and 1/4mile in 13.4@105mph is plenty fast already. The point again, is that given its power output and weight, the acceleration figures don't seem to line up. And this isn't the only example, as we pointed out the likes of Mustang 2.3T, Focus ST, and Fusion Titanium as other examples.
Again, the likes of Evo and STI with 40-50hp less while being around the same weight are just as fast in terms of acceleration. it does make one wonder, where does the extra 40-50hp do?
We've also seen enough of the FoST in stock form to know that it's a car that does 0-60mph in low 6's, and 1/4 mile in high 14's at about 95mph. Nice numbers, but again, for a car with 252hp/270lbft/3250lb, that seems a bit slow. Here are four different tests from 3 different links to demonstrate what I just said:
2015 Ford Focus ST Instrumented Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
2014 Ford Focus ST Long-Term Road Test Wrap-Up ? Review ? Car and Driver
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...swagen-gti.pdf
The last link is especially interesting. It compares the GTI with 200hp with the FoST with 252hp, both 6MT. The GTI is lighter, but the FoST still has a much better power to weight ratio:
GTI: 15.3lb/hp
FoST: 12.8lb/hp
What's even more interesting is that while the FoST is 0.1s faster to 60mph, the GTI is 0.5s to 100mph.
0-60mph:
GTI: 6.4s
FoST: 6.3s
0-100mph:
GTI 16s
FoST: 16.5
The point isn't about how fast the car is. Honestly, 0-60mph in 4.6s and 1/4mile in 13.4@105mph is plenty fast already. The point again, is that given its power output and weight, the acceleration figures don't seem to line up. And this isn't the only example, as we pointed out the likes of Mustang 2.3T, Focus ST, and Fusion Titanium as other examples.
Again, the likes of Evo and STI with 40-50hp less while being around the same weight are just as fast in terms of acceleration. it does make one wonder, where does the extra 40-50hp do?
We've also seen enough of the FoST in stock form to know that it's a car that does 0-60mph in low 6's, and 1/4 mile in high 14's at about 95mph. Nice numbers, but again, for a car with 252hp/270lbft/3250lb, that seems a bit slow. Here are four different tests from 3 different links to demonstrate what I just said:
2015 Ford Focus ST Instrumented Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
2014 Ford Focus ST Long-Term Road Test Wrap-Up ? Review ? Car and Driver
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...swagen-gti.pdf
The last link is especially interesting. It compares the GTI with 200hp with the FoST with 252hp, both 6MT. The GTI is lighter, but the FoST still has a much better power to weight ratio:
GTI: 15.3lb/hp
FoST: 12.8lb/hp
What's even more interesting is that while the FoST is 0.1s faster to 60mph, the GTI is 0.5s to 100mph.
0-60mph:
GTI: 6.4s
FoST: 6.3s
0-100mph:
GTI 16s
FoST: 16.5
The following users liked this post:
TacoBello (04-05-2016)
#1018
Senior Moderator
Yea, the mustang 2.3T and Fusion Titanium (though an older engine) are like that too. Given their power to weight ratio, they should be faster.
The point isn't about how fast the car is. Honestly, 0-60mph in 4.6s and 1/4mile in 13.4@105mph is plenty fast already. The point again, is that given its power output and weight, the acceleration figures don't seem to line up. And this isn't the only example, as we pointed out the likes of Mustang 2.3T, Focus ST, and Fusion Titanium as other examples.
Again, the likes of Evo and STI with 40-50hp less while being around the same weight are just as fast in terms of acceleration. it does make one wonder, where does the extra 40-50hp do?
We've also seen enough of the FoST in stock form to know that it's a car that does 0-60mph in low 6's, and 1/4 mile in high 14's at about 95mph. Nice numbers, but again, for a car with 252hp/270lbft/3250lb, that seems a bit slow. Here are four different tests from 3 different links to demonstrate what I just said:
2015 Ford Focus ST Instrumented Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
2014 Ford Focus ST Long-Term Road Test Wrap-Up ? Review ? Car and Driver
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...swagen-gti.pdf
The last link is especially interesting. It compares the GTI with 200hp with the FoST with 252hp, both 6MT. The GTI is lighter, but the FoST still has a much better power to weight ratio:
GTI: 15.3lb/hp
FoST: 12.8lb/hp
What's even more interesting is that while the FoST is 0.1s faster to 60mph, the GTI is 0.5s to 100mph.
0-60mph:
GTI: 6.4s
FoST: 6.3s
0-100mph:
GTI 16s
FoST: 16.5
The point isn't about how fast the car is. Honestly, 0-60mph in 4.6s and 1/4mile in 13.4@105mph is plenty fast already. The point again, is that given its power output and weight, the acceleration figures don't seem to line up. And this isn't the only example, as we pointed out the likes of Mustang 2.3T, Focus ST, and Fusion Titanium as other examples.
Again, the likes of Evo and STI with 40-50hp less while being around the same weight are just as fast in terms of acceleration. it does make one wonder, where does the extra 40-50hp do?
We've also seen enough of the FoST in stock form to know that it's a car that does 0-60mph in low 6's, and 1/4 mile in high 14's at about 95mph. Nice numbers, but again, for a car with 252hp/270lbft/3250lb, that seems a bit slow. Here are four different tests from 3 different links to demonstrate what I just said:
2015 Ford Focus ST Instrumented Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
2014 Ford Focus ST Long-Term Road Test Wrap-Up ? Review ? Car and Driver
http://media.caranddriver.com/files/...swagen-gti.pdf
The last link is especially interesting. It compares the GTI with 200hp with the FoST with 252hp, both 6MT. The GTI is lighter, but the FoST still has a much better power to weight ratio:
GTI: 15.3lb/hp
FoST: 12.8lb/hp
What's even more interesting is that while the FoST is 0.1s faster to 60mph, the GTI is 0.5s to 100mph.
0-60mph:
GTI: 6.4s
FoST: 6.3s
0-100mph:
GTI 16s
FoST: 16.5
#1019
Team Owner
yes, but, that would mean Ford's power curves are abysmal. Which doesn't make sense, since the ST uses a small turbo which dies out at the top of the rpm range.
and c'mon, how bad can the drive train losses be? what, maybe another 10hp?
and c'mon, how bad can the drive train losses be? what, maybe another 10hp?
#1021
I thought this car would be touching 12s. But they did a good job with the chassis apparently. Haven't seen a single review where it comes in second place.
#1022
Here it is, I believe this is the first instrument test for the Focus RS:
2016 Ford Focus RS Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
0-60mph: 4.6s
5-60mph: 5.7s
0-100mph: 12.2s
1/4 mile: 13.4@105mph
70-0mph: 158ft
Skidpad: 0.98g
Tons of grip, good handling, good brakes. Drift mode not as good as first thought.
Those acceleration numbers don't look that great for a car with 350hp/lbft at less than 3500lb.
In fact, those figures are pretty much on par with a WRX STI that has 45hp less while being just 50lb lighter.
The heavier Lancer Evo with an ancient 5MT is also a little bit faster in acceleration..again with substantially less power:
2015 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Final Edition Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
It's not like the STI or Lancer are really that underrated either.....As a truly underrated
car would probably be the Audi S3 with 290hp that does the 1/4 mile in 12.9@108mph:
2015 Audi S3 Sedan Instrumented Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
Granted, that has launch control ....but that trap speed.....and also the BMW 340i...way heavy, 320hp, and just as fast...weird...
2016 Ford Focus RS Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
0-60mph: 4.6s
5-60mph: 5.7s
0-100mph: 12.2s
1/4 mile: 13.4@105mph
70-0mph: 158ft
Skidpad: 0.98g
Tons of grip, good handling, good brakes. Drift mode not as good as first thought.
Those acceleration numbers don't look that great for a car with 350hp/lbft at less than 3500lb.
In fact, those figures are pretty much on par with a WRX STI that has 45hp less while being just 50lb lighter.
The heavier Lancer Evo with an ancient 5MT is also a little bit faster in acceleration..again with substantially less power:
2015 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution Final Edition Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
It's not like the STI or Lancer are really that underrated either.....As a truly underrated
car would probably be the Audi S3 with 290hp that does the 1/4 mile in 12.9@108mph:
2015 Audi S3 Sedan Instrumented Test ? Review ? Car and Driver
Granted, that has launch control ....but that trap speed.....and also the BMW 340i...way heavy, 320hp, and just as fast...weird...
#1023
Team Owner
dude, SHUT UP already.
Seriously, NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR STUPID, BASELESS FEELINGS ABOUT HOW GREAT HONDA IS.
THERE ARE OTHER GREAT CARS OUT THERE. GET OVER IT.
Seriously, NO ONE CARES ABOUT YOUR STUPID, BASELESS FEELINGS ABOUT HOW GREAT HONDA IS.
THERE ARE OTHER GREAT CARS OUT THERE. GET OVER IT.
#1024
Ex-OEM King
#1025
Moderator
#1026
Team Owner
I dunno how you do it, tribe.
Wait.
Let me try.
Wait.
Let me try.
#1027
Team Owner
#1028
hatch are much taller on avg than coupe/Sedan. the aerodyanmic shaping is closer to mini SUV.
Honda is engineered for high durability.
Honda is engineered for high durability.
Honda Civic Type R review, specs and photo gallery
And in competent hands, the Civic Type R can go like hell right out of the factory. If a couple of hot laps with a pro driver at the wheel were any indication, it seems to relish tire-shredding, gear-jamming abuse. Incredibly, the Brembo front brakes never seemed to fade; we guess those ducts and vents really do work. Nothing under the hood melted or caught on fire after an afternoon of punishment, so far as we could tell.
A race track may seem like a funny place for a bone-stock Honda Civic, but it seems slightly less funny once you’ve seen and felt what the Type R can do
And in competent hands, the Civic Type R can go like hell right out of the factory. If a couple of hot laps with a pro driver at the wheel were any indication, it seems to relish tire-shredding, gear-jamming abuse. Incredibly, the Brembo front brakes never seemed to fade; we guess those ducts and vents really do work. Nothing under the hood melted or caught on fire after an afternoon of punishment, so far as we could tell.
A race track may seem like a funny place for a bone-stock Honda Civic, but it seems slightly less funny once you’ve seen and felt what the Type R can do
#1029
Senior Moderator
#1030
Senior Moderator
Why? just because it isnt a drag race king? And you just pointed out how their turbos work. Great down low, almost instant boost. It makes for very easy DD.
The following users liked this post:
RPhilMan1 (04-13-2016)
#1031
Ex-OEM King
Hatch is actually MORE aerodynamically efficient than a sedan and 99% of the time, they have the same ride height and roof height as the sedan counterpart.
Thanks for playing.
The following users liked this post:
00TL-P3.2 (04-07-2016)
#1032
Moderator
He used to drive me nuts. At some point, some kind of switch flipped in my head and I just became thoroughly entertained by his nonsense. I consider him the "court jester" of Acurazine at this point. I find it hilarious that one individual can generate so much nonsense. I've concluded that he has a special talent and I'm going to appreciate it.
The following 3 users liked this post by ttribe:
#1033
#1034
Team Owner
He used to drive me nuts. At some point, some kind of switch flipped in my head and I just became thoroughly entertained by his nonsense. I consider him the "court jester" of Acurazine at this point. I find it hilarious that one individual can generate so much nonsense. I've concluded that he has a special talent and I'm going to appreciate it.
What would AZ be without him?
#1035
Team Owner
Go drive a Prius at 110 mph and fuel economy is least of your worries.
#1036
Moderator
#1037
Team Owner
No, not a drag race king. Like I said, I thoroughly like that car, but the numbers don't seem to add up. It seems like it should be a bit faster.
#1038
Team Owner
Please provide proof that the TLX is more efficient at 90 MPH than the Prius. Please provide any proof, at 110mph, for any of the statements you are making. If not, then please, STFU.
#1039
Team Owner
2G TSX is worst car. Such low quality of Honda. Poor fuel economic. Poor aerodynamic. Poor fit and finish interior. Looks like lower class Honda Fit interior. Such unrefined garbage.
The following 4 users liked this post by TacoBello:
#1040
Moderator
^