I don't know, sorry. There were guides for importing cars from the US when CAD was on par with USA....

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.....

 

I'd save the $1k for the sunroof but the RS2 package is almost a must.

 

Yeah, fully loaded. I wonder why.

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.

 

Bald head + sun = moonroof bad!

 

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.

I'm well on my way in joining you...

 

I don't mind humidity at all... nothing like that drop of sweat going down your back.

 

simple solution: lid for the melon.

 

Yes please!

Read more: 2016 Ford Focus RS RX rallycross car specifications and renderings

 

Wow.

I wonder for how many miles one of those engines or drive trains lasts for. How can it accelerate like that also?

 

To your first question, reference GTR.

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.

 

The GTR isn't hitting 0-60 in under 2 seconds. The GTR also likely does not rev as high as this thing does. This is solely a race application, not a daily driven car like the GTR. Does not equate.

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

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...

 

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.

 

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.

 

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

 

One thing that one needs to remember is where that HP/TQ number arrives and falls off. It can make the car much easier to DD if it arrives lower in the RPM as opposed to one that is faster overall but power doesnt come on till much higher IE S2k AP1. Also i think fords drivetrain isnt near as efficient as some of the others.

 

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?

 

I understand, though the AP1 S2k is a bit extreme..lol...

 

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.

 

Audi S3 is sedan. It has natural advantage over hatch at higher speeds. That's why Civic type R 280km/hr is nothing less than outstanding.

 

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.

 

What advantages are those?

 

 

I dunno how you do it, tribe.


Wait.


Let me try.

 

 

hatch are much taller on avg than coupe/Sedan. the aerodyanmic shaping is closer to mini SUV.


Honda is engineered for high durability.

 

Yet the prius, one of the most fuel efficient vehicles on the road is shaped much like a hatch

 

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.

 

I am 100% certain you have no idea what you're talking about.

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.

 

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.

 

As long as you drive below 75mph. At 90 mph even TLX more effficient than Prius. At 110mph Prius fuel economic is worse than some of V8 sedans.

 

yup.

What would AZ be without him?

 

But at 95 mph Prius is more efficient than TLX. not sure about at 105 tho.
Go drive a Prius at 110 mph and fuel economy is least of your worries.

 

at a Prius getting to 110.

 

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.

 

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.

 

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.

 

^