Tag Archives: C&D

Ford Focus RS – Hyped?

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/2016-ford-focus-rs-vs-2015-subaru-wrx-sti-2016-volkswagen-golf-r-final-scoring-performance-data-and-complete-specs-page-5

The new (2017 model) Ford Focus RS is the most hyped car I’ve ever seen.  All last year, people saw the buzzwords “drift mode” and “350 HP”.

Well, I want to point out a few things.

  1.  You don’t have to have a built-in mode in order to drift in an AWD car.  Seriously.
  2.  The Focus RS may make 350 HP at the crank, but a good portion of it isn’t making it to the wheels.

Let’s talk about bullet #2.

If you view the above URL, and look at the quarter-mile stats, you’ll notice that all three cars (the Ford Focus, the Subaru WRX STI, and the VW Golf R) have almost identical times and trap speeds.  The Focus has a 45-60 (crank) HP advantage, depending on the car being compared.  The trap speed of the Focus RS doesn’t show that advantage at ALL.  The Focus ran a 105 MPH trap speed, the STI ran a 104 MPH trap speed, and the Golf R ran a 105 MPH trap.

The car is rather new and hasn’t been compared/reviewed by other magazines (R&T, MT, Automobile).  In fact, I’ve only seen two dynos.

Also, I saw someone post that the car has overboost and that it runs overboost at 15 sec intervals and resets after that time frame.  It also resets after shifting, so if an RS is running a 1/4th-mile track, overboost will be reset at every shift, meaning overboost timing out isn’t a factor in the 1/4th-mile, yet it still only manages a 105 MPH trap.

Now, each of those three cars are designed for spirited driving, yes, but they are not designed with the quarter-mile in mind.  But again, that applies to all three cars.

The bottom line is, the Focus RS is either over-rated from the factory (not an unusual thing for Ford, from what I’ve heard), or something is sapping all that power, because it’s like 50 HP is AWOL.  It isn’t a gearing issue (the gearing is hardly aggressive enough to affect a 50 HP advantage).  It isn’t a weight issue (the RS weighs just as much as the STI).  A dyno chart I’ve seen hints that the RS isn’t peaky and doesn’t make a lot of power up high.  Another dyno chart showed 270 peak wheel HP, which is only 20 more than what an STI typically makes.  I’d like to see more dyno charts.

Another thing that people are hyping is that the Focus RS is far more upgradeable.  I’m not so sure about that.  This car is pretty much maxed out from the factory.  You might be able to get some minor gains from it but you’re not going to see a giant leap in HP with bolt-ons.  The argument against this is that the Mustang Ecoboost  has high upgrade potential, so the RS will have the same.  No.  The RS is using more robust parts already, just to get 40 more HP than the Ecoboost engine in the Mustang.  Any car that offers 350 HP from the factory is going to be over-engineered to the point that it’s going to be maxed out from the onset — that’s the case with the CLA45 AMG as well…it saw some gains in it’s latest iteration, but those weren’t all that significant.

Another thing I’ve heard:  The Focus will make the STI obsolete.  I doubt this.  Subaru has always marched by their own drum beat.  This isn’t the first time they’ve had competition.  Some say that Subaru is stagnant, which is true, but what they have works well enough for them.  Not every turbocharged AWD four-cylinder needs to make 350 – 400 HP.  We hear the same thing about the BRZ and FR-S, but I think those cars do fine with the 200 HP they have…they aren’t meant to be powerhouse-type cars, and neither is the STI.

The Focus isn’t really bringing anything to the table that Subaru doesn’t already have.  While the STI is using the old EJ257, the WRX uses the FA20DIT.  The AWD platform in the STI is certainly going to be more robust, though.  The Focus RS AWD platform is too “wizardly”.  There’s too much hocus-pocus going on with it.  It’s a GT-R wannabe.  We know it’ll put all power to the left- or right-side wheels and put up to 70% of the power to the rears when needed, but it’s basically a FWD-biased AWD system…not particularly good as it applies to track usage (the CLA45 AMG isn’t a good track car either, but it wasn’t designed with the track in mind…the Focus RS WAS designed with racing in mind).  The Focus RS’s AWD system is great for highway fuel economy because it’ll cruise with only the front wheels being powered.  That’s cool, but not something that Subaru is interested in.  If fuel economy is a major factor for you as an owner, the STI isn’t the best car for you and Subaru isn’t going to change their mind on that.  If that’s what you want, look down toward the WRX instead, but the WRX and the Focus RS are hardly competitors, as the Focus RS is going to out-class the WRX in a major way (on the track and on the street).  Those that are expecting Subaru to be afraid of the Focus RS don’t understand Subaru at all.

What I’d like to see is the other magazine publishers (R&T, Automobile, and/or MT) doing a comparison similar to what C&D did.  One thing that C&D didn’t do that seems very hokey is that they didn’t comment on the HP discrepancy of the Focus RS.  It almost appears that they purposely ignored it.  Fortunately, it was noticed by the readers and it has been heavily discussed in the comments of the article I mentioned above.  I also found another forum (http://www.focusrs.org/) that has a thread of similar concerns, from actual owners of Focus RSs. So yeah, this is a real concern, especially for someone willing to spend between $30K-$40K on such a car.  It means the product they bought isn’t as advertised.

Do I want Subaru to improve the STI?  Yes, I do.  Do I want a FA20DIT-engined STI?  NO.  Why?  I believe that engine won’t do well in an STI.  There’s a reason why the USDM and JDM STIs aren’t running the FA20DIT engines, and it’s probably because they want an engine that is just as peaky as the EJ207 and EJ257.  The FA20DIT is not that engine.  I believe I’ve said this in other posts on this website, too.  Subaru’s Nurburgring car was powered by the EJ207.  All of their recent JDM special editions have been powered by EJ207 variants.  When I see Subaru using the FA20DIT in their STI variants (street and track vehicles), I’ll eat crow.   A new version of the Focus RS isn’t going to push Subaru into desperation.  I honestly think Subaru doesn’t care.

2015 Subaru WRX Long Term Review Update – Car & Driver

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-subaru-wrx-long-term-test-intro-review

Car & Driver has blasted through 40K miles of review testing of the 2015 Subaru WRX.  I’ve yet to read the review (I just woke up but will be reading through the review today while waking up to coffee).  I’ll update the post with my thoughts afterward.

After-reading-the-article-notes:

This review just might help me better decide my next car purchase, as I’ve considered whether the 2015-2016 WRX would be a good choice of upgrade for me (considering that I’m coming from a 2011 STI sedan).

I want to highlight some of the article’s comments (the ones that jumped out at me).  I’ll add my thoughts on some of them, but some of the comments might not need any comments from me —

…the WRX offers lively steering, confident grip, and a flat ride that rounds off the jolt on sharp impacts just so.

This is great, as most people think that the WRX’s handling would be watered-down compared to the STI.  Remember, I’m comparing this car to my current ride.

By passing on the Limited trim, we missed out on a power driver’s seat, leather-trimmed upholstery, LED headlights, proximity entry, and push-button ignition.

This is interesting.  I hadn’t thought on which trim level I might desire.  My current car is a base model but offers enough options in base trim to make me happy.  I might desire the LED headlights, proximity entry, and push-button ignition, though.

PRICE AS TESTED: $31,290 (base price: $29,290)

That’s a pretty hefty price for a WRX.  I paid $34K for my STI and I can get a base 2015 STI for around the same price as I purchased mine.  The question is, is a 2015 WRX actually worth $29K?  Do WRXs have the same value retainment as STIs?

TRANSMISSION: 6-speed manual

This is good.  I also wanted to highlight that because Subaru also offers a CVT option for WRXs (not that I care for it…I just wanted to note that that’s not the version of transmission I care for).

PERFORMANCE: NEW
Zero to 60 mph: 5.0 sec
Zero to 100 mph: 13.4 sec
Zero to 130 mph: 26.5 sec
Rolling start, 5-60 mph: 6.4 sec
Top gear, 30-50 mph: 11.1 sec
Top gear, 50-70 mph: 7.8 sec
Standing ¼-mile: 13.7 sec @ 101 mph
Top speed (governor limited): 144 mph
Braking, 70-0 mph: 157 ft
Roadholding, 300-ft-dia skidpad: 0.91g

That’s strong performance and is very close to pre-2015 STI stats.  That’s not saying that 2015 WRXs will offer the same track experience or road feel as pre-2015 STIs, though.

With the 1000-mile break-in cleared, we spun the engine to the 6700-rpm redline and dropped the left pedal with only a whisper of clutch slip. Then we did it a dozen more times looking for the quickest acceleration time.  We used this technique—combined with short-shifting into second gear at 5300 rpm—to great effect during an earlier WRX road test, recording a 4.8-second zero-to-60 time. Yet in more than a dozen attempts, our long-termer couldn’t quite match that feat. Instead it peaked at 5.0 seconds in the run to 60 mph and 13.7 seconds through the quarter mile with a trap speed of 101 mph. Not too shabby for a $30,000 four-door, eh? The chassis numbers were equally impressive with our WRX stopping from 70 mph in 157 feet and rounding the skidpad at 0.91 g.

The above is interesting.  I remember the ruckus that C&D generated in their testing procedures.  Not everyone is going to be willing to flog their car off the line at redline.  Mags don’t own the cars they test…they return them after testing.  And if an owner takes their car in for an issue and it is found that the cause of the issue was due to them launching the car in such a manner, the warranty claim will be denied due to abusive driving.  Another interesting tidbit:  the long termer couldn’t match the 4.8-sec 0-60 time…that’s certainly understandable, though, since atmospheric and road conditions may have been different (along with a different driver).

Drivers have called out the excellent electric power steering (which was first perfected on the BRZ) and a more polished cockpit. You won’t mistake the interior for a Volkswagen’s, but our staff has noticed better fits, improved finishes, and a quieter ride than in previous WRXs.

I wish everyone would be as generous in making such comments.  Most people expect every GTI competitor to have a similar interior as the GTI.  That’s not going to happen.  Besides, it is better to compare the new WRX to the old to highlight changes in the model-year…that’s the best way to measure progress, IMO.  VW’s interior is the exception, not the norm, obviously.

While the output of the turbocharged 2.0-liter flat-four—268 horsepower and 258 lb-ft of torque—is nothing to scoff at, power delivery is lumpy and peaky. We shift early in first gear for our testing because the power falls off above 5300 rpm. Lower in the rev range there’s a sudden surge of boost indicative of turbo lag. In an age when turbocharged engines are practically mainstream and their power curves have been smoothed out, this Subaru flat-four still drives like an R&D experiment from the early 1990s.

Hrmmm…that’s not a particularly good note.  I wonder if Cobb has smoothed this out (the lag and lumpiness that C&D claims is prevalent).  I’m not sure how this car can produce turbo lag, with it’s lag-lessening equipment such as the twin scroll turbocharger, which ensures the turbocharger begins to work low in the rev range (the car produces 258 lb-ft of torque at 2000 RPM).  But every WRX enthusiast knows that this particular engine is not a revver, which is why Subaru nuts usually shift earlier than 6K RPM.  USDM boxer engines are not particularly rev-happy.  The article only mentions the 1st-2nd gear shift, though…which makes me wonder if the ECU is limiting power in 1st gear (either on it’s own or due to purposeful mapping).  In fact, I think that the map might well be the cause, as someone else in the article’s comments mentioned “boost threshold”.  That’s not the first time I’ve heard someone mention that Subaru purposely limits the WRX so that it won’t overshadow it’s halo car, the STI.  So that lumpiness and lag are more than likely purposely implemented.  That still doesn’t explain the mention of the 1st gear limitation…is it just first gear, or is it gear-agnostic?

C&D – New vs. Old: 2013 Porsche Boxster vs. 2005 Acura NSX-T

 

2005-acura-nsx-t-and-2013-porsche-boxster-photo-588332-s-986x603

I like car magazine articles such as this one, because I can relate to the older cars very well, and older cars such as the 2005 NSX are still desirable, even if they’re no longer made.  An excerpt from the article:

Driving a new Acura NSX in 2005 was a bit like trying to text on a Motorola StarTAC. Yes, that was the best mobile phone of the 1990s, but it was hardly the best tool for the job. And yes, Acura had updated the NSX over its life, but by 2005 this aluminum supercar was past its sell-by date. Its V-6 still sounded as good as it did when it arrived in 1990; it was just that the 290-hp NSX couldn’t compete in a streetscape filled with400-hp Corvettes911 Turbos, and AMGs. And certainly not with its $90,000 sticker.

The 2013 Porsche Boxster is a good car to compare the 2005 NSX against, and, surprisingly, the NSX holds it’s own when comparing handling characteristic between the two (and engine comparisons give the NSX the edge, as it appears to have a torque advantage).

The rest of the article is linked below.  I enjoyed this read.

http://www.caranddriver.com/comparisons/new-vs-old-2013-porsche-boxster-vs-2005-acura-nsx-t-comparison-test

Car and Driver – New (2015 WRX) vs Old (2010 Audi S4)

I have not read the article yet, although I’ve read the Facebook comments (embedded into this blog below):

 

What’s throwing me for a loop is that none of the magazines have compared the old 2011-2014 WRX with the new 2015 WRX.  Also strange is the fact that all of them have compared the new WRX against the new STI (or at least discussed them against each other).

It’s almost like the car magazine industry is purposely not comparing the old with the new in a direct comparison, which is weird because that’s the sure-fire way of determining what the better changes are, without doing paper-stat comparing.

Once I’ve had time to read the article, I’ll add my 2 cents to the bottom of this post.

2015 WRX Vs. 2015 STI – Motor Authority

Read more @ http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1090558_2015-subaru-wrx-vs-2015-subaru-wrx-sti-which-is-best-for-you

 

This wasn’t a bad article, but to be honest, there have been so many that state the same things that I get a bit bored when reading them.

The few sentences/phrases that jumped out at me (I’ll state why):

 

As for the STI, it starts about $8k higher than the WRX, but it adds more standard equipment, and becomes a considerably more serious performance car.

 

This statement is golden, as it states exactly why there’s a price difference between the two models. They are NOT the same and were never meant to be competitors, yet mags keep comparing them instead of comparing them to the competition. This is a big peeve of mine, because articles such as this just stir arguments that are already heated into fire soup. The mags should be comparing the WRX to previous WRX models and it’s old and new competitors. They should be doing the same with the STI…comparing it with the previous models of STI, and also comparing it to it’s competition.

If you like the pricing of the WRX and consider it the best performance car for the money, get the WRX — just don’t think that you’re getting a cheaper STI, because you aren’t…you’re getting a faster and quicker WRX. If you want even more performance, get the STI.

 

Vast differences in performance—and WRX holds an edge in drivability

 

This above was actually a caption, but it deserves to be so. There is indeed a vast difference between the performance of the two. As was in years past, the WRX will (and probably always will) be the best at daily drivability. That’s not saying that the STI is extra-harsh, but it can be if all you’ve ever driven are cars that have plush and cushy rides. I drive my 2011 STI daily and don’t consider it to be a harsh ride, but I’m a car nut…my wife is not. She reminds me constantly that the car is low, that the car is stiff, and that the car has a harsh ride, but she drives a Honda Odyssey daily.

 

The gearboxes for both models might look the same at a very quick glance, but the WRX gets a cable-shift linkage for its lighter-duty six-speed transmission while the STI gets a heavier-duty gearbox as well as a more precise (and expensive) close-ratio unit with parallel-rod shift linkage

 

This is another ringer, IMO. There are way too many people out there thinking that the 2015 WRX got the same transmission that the STI has. NO, no, no, no, no…..and no again. It basically has the same transmission that it had in prior years, just with an extra cog. It is cable-actuated. It will not stand up to the same abuse as the STI gearbox. Just because you read that C&D did 14 high-RPM clutch dumps doesn’t mean that the transmission is bullet-proof, and most consumers won’t be treating their car with such abuse…if anything breaks, SOA will deny any associated warranty claims.

I’d suggest that anyone that has questions about the differences of the two cars should read this article, because they’ve done a good job of highlighting the cars’ differences.

Read more @ http://www.motorauthority.com/news/1090558_2015-subaru-wrx-vs-2015-subaru-wrx-sti-which-is-best-for-you