We lost a Euro comparo to the Focus ST

[C4L]

Why does objective performance matter that much? To use an example you quoted, take the FR-S. Here are the numbers from Edmunds long term test of the FR-S:

0-60: 6.5 s
1/4: 14.8 s @ 94 mph
60-0: 114 ft
Slalom: 67.5 mph
Skidpad: 0.89 g

And Edmunds' long term test of the GTI:

0-60: 6.6 s
1/4: 14.9 s @ 95 mph
60-0: 120 ft
Slalom: 66.7 mph
Skidpad: 0.9 g

Well first of all, the FR-S is better in almost every category than the GTI. But even if it wasn't, they're close enough where I don't think 0.1 s or 1 mph in any test is of any actual value.

You and I might differ here, but if I was choosing between those two cars for better performance, subjective feel would matter more to me than any hair-splitting between those numbers. (How does the car feel to drive? How much body roll? Steering feedback? How neutral/balanced is the chassis? How responsive is the throttle? Brake feel? Etc.)




Who said anything about journalists? I'm saying drive them yourself and see which you like better.

That I/L test was of a manual GTI on 17" A/S rubber. The worst performing, and no longer available, iteration of the GTI. Though in the FR-S/BR-Z defense it was with a manual and on A/S rubber too.

For the best performing iterations from the factory, from Motor Trend;

FR-S
- 6.2 0-60
- 14.8 @ 94.3mph 1/4 mile
- 118ft 60-0
- 0.93g
- 25.9 Figure-8

GTI
- 5.8 to 60
- 14.5 @ 96.7mph 1/4 mile
- 113ft 60-0
- 0.91g
- 26.5 Figure-8

And like I said, its a combination of the feel and objective performance. No matter how good the car feels, if it is slow, its still slow. And conversely no matter how fast the car is, if it drives like crap, it still drives like crap.

FR-S/BR-Z - SLOW but GREAT FEEL
GTI =- BOTH
Cobalt SS - FAST but NO FEEL

I think the ST should offer a good combination of both but my point was all along that I don't know if it will be enough to sway people from the "FWD M3" that is the GTI...

 

[SwiftGTI]

FR-S/BR-Z - SLOW but GREAT FEEL
GTI =- BOTH
Cobalt SS - FAST but NO FEEL

IMO, it would be:

FR-S - slow but great subjectively
GTI (DSG) - slightly faster, OK/good subjectively
CSS - haven't driven

I think the ST should offer a good combination of both but my point was all along that I don't know if it will be enough to sway people from the "FWD M3" that is the GTI...

Yep, agree with you there. To me though, subjective feel >>>>> 0.3 seconds in the 1/4 or 2 mph slalom etc.

 

[C4L]

Yep, agree with you there. To me though, subjective feel >>>>> 0.3 seconds in the 1/4 or 2 mph slalom etc.

Depends on how you quantify subjective feel...

Again, to me they are both equally important and I want the feel of the car to match the performance.

 

[veedoubleme]

Top Gear reviews the ST: Across America in the new Focus ST

 

[2.0t_convert]

Since when does the divide between 5.8 to 6.2 seconds come down to fast vs slow nevermind the fact those numbers can vary wildly between different drivers.

 

[C4L]

Since when does the divide between 5.8 to 6.2 seconds come down to fast vs slow nevermind the fact those numbers can vary wildly between different drivers.

They are entirely different cars designed for entirely different buyers/purposes.

A claimed 'PURE SPORTS CAR' performing comparable to a 'HOT HATCH/SPORT COMPACT' is just not very good.

Its relative.

They are all plenty quick and I am sorry for bring up the FR-S/BR-Z. I was just trying to illustrate my point of a car that FEELS more aggressive/more sporting than it actually is.

From that Top Gear review of the ST, it seems like a great car. Still not my taste for various reasons but it is good for those who do like it to know that it is a good driving car as well.

 

[DougDome]

Top Gear reviews the ST: Across America in the new Focus ST

Makes me want to take the same drive.

 

[veedoubleme]

Makes me want to take the same drive.

I know. I was thinking the same thing as I read it, except in my GTI of course.

 

[Bruno2000]

The car's feedback is was matter for a lot people.

I like the BRZ exemple, but it could be even more true with the Mazda Mx-5 miata.

The july Motortrend has a nice 28k bang for your buck comparative that tested 6 car under 28k on the track.

Here the best lap time of each;

Mustang v6 (1.29.09)
Genesis 2.0T,(1.29.12)
mazda mx-5,(1.31.88)
the fr-s, (1.31.15)
brz (1:30.32)
and the gti. (1:31.47)

Noticed the slowest is the Miata?

Randy Pobst, that made the tests, is a multiple winner of the 24 hours of Daytona and more, a real pro driver and what he said was very interressing.

Hes favorite was the miata, and his last was the gti.

What he said about the miata :

- Theres a reason 80 mx-5 miatas are on the pre-grid at road america, and its the same reason this is the only car in the which I did an extra lap simply cause I didnt wanna stop.

- I could really place the car where I wanted it in the very satistying way. The steering--wow. Its just so exact. You can feel the rear working all as one piece. Just makes you smile. Turns up the edges of mouth into a big grin.

This is what we are talking about when we talking about feeling! And it dont need to be a NSX as performance wise, to still reward.

Maybe you asking yourself why the Gti was the last in the Randy Pobst heart ? Very easy answers.

- ''The Gti is not a track car, stock,'' Pobst noted.

- It performed best when not pressed to its physical limits. If thresholds were met or surpassed, an undefeatable traction control system intervened with immediate brake intervention anc cut to the throttle. (fixable now)

Please note that on all the 6 cars, The gti is alone with all-seasons tires and still got a similar time compared to others.

All this means that the Gti required light mods to put it on a track and the car, STOCK, is just great, but for the streets.

All this to say that whatever the numbers of the skippad, 0-60 etc, number dont means much at all.

 

[CFG9000]

Top Gear reviews the ST: Across America in the new Focus ST

I have to load 27 different pages to read this review? Who the hell designed that website?

 

[veedoubleme]

I have to load 27 different pages to read this review? Who the hell designed that website?

I know. I'm guessing the people who sell that little ad placement on the right came up with that idea. Oh well... it's Top Gear so the writing is always good. :thumbsup:

 

[CFG9000]

I know. I'm guessing the people who sell that little ad placement on the right came up with that idea. Oh well... it's Top Gear so the writing is always good. :thumbsup:

Joke's on them, I run Adblock

 

[DougDome]

I know. I'm guessing the people who sell that little ad placement on the right came up with that idea. Oh well... it's Top Gear so the writing is always good. :thumbsup:

Yeah, it would have been cool if they used a bunch of different pictures, except I feel like they were mostly the same, and bad...

 

[veedoubleme]

Joke's on them, I run Adblock

I run click2flash so no flash loads in my browser. The joke's on everybody.

Yeah, it would have been cool if they used a bunch of different pictures, except I feel like they were mostly the same, and bad...

And I wish they were higher res. I mean, come on guys, nobody is running 1024x768 screens anymore. Give us some pixels!

 

[mk6medic]

Based on that article, you'd think the ST was the best car out there. Obviously some of that is just good writing, but even through all that it sounds like a pretty damn good car, both in performance and spending time in the cabin. Rather than bash it, us GTI folk should embrace it. Personal opinions always cloud the mind, and there are some who are stuck in the 90s when Ford actually did suck. This isn't a mid 90s Escort. It's one hell of car. Don't like it? Don't buy it. There will be plenty of people who will.

Don't forget, there are people who denounce everything VW and think they just a POS as well. My wife owned a 2001 Jetta that ended up being a lemon. Not just a figure of speech. A legitimate lemon that VW had to buy back from us. I gave VW another chance.