Ford Focus ST Forum banner

1 - 20 of 39 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Ok im usually pretty good at agreeing and understanding paper racing..LOL you know weight to horsepower ratio and all that good stuff! But this one has me stumped! Alot of guys go to 0-60 times.com to check vehicle speeds track times. And just form reading different posts and results on other forums it seems the MS3 even tho god awful ugly is pretty quick car! But my question is WHY? And how is it suposidly quicker then the new ST? here is the paper racing specs.. They are both FWD the MS3 Weights 3,281LBS 5 door 6 speed manual 263hp 280ft tq time..5.1 0-60 according to the above mentioned web site. Focus ST weights 3,223LBS so 60 lbs less.. 5 door 6 speed manual 252hp 270ft tq so a hair less power.. and 5.9 0-60 according to 0-60times.com! So tell me if that sounds crazy our car weights less and only has 10 hp and 10 less ft of tourq and its 8 tenths of a sec slower???? There is no friggin way!! If it is true someone please explain why. And from everything i read the ST is way more refined and technalogically advanced compaired to the MS3 in handling and it even looks more sleeker and aero dynamic which would help even more! So again how are we .8 slower?? For real? :sad:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
154 Posts
Proper racing involves corners.........just sayin!

Anyway, CG position, weight transfer and diff tuning play a big part in getting FWD cars off the line. As you say the Focus is more refined and rides better and this comes at the expense of standing start traction. In the real world, mid range in-gear performance is way more interesting and important than 0-60 anyway, especially for a street car.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Discussion Starter #3
Yes i know the handling and mid range power is more important in the real world and the ST has a monster long tourqe curve compaired to the MS3 but man thats still a huge difference in 0-60 between the 2 with power specs so close and weight! I just have a hard time believing that the MS3 I that much faster especially since Ford pretty much made that car! As far as traction that has alot to do with the wheels as wheel. Are the stock wheels on the ST to slippy compared to the stock MS3? And whats the gear ratio difference between the 2? IDK it just dosent add up to me! I could see .3 tenths whith the stuff you named but .8?? Still scratching my head!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
599 Posts
Yes i know the handling and mid range power is more important in the real world and the ST has a monster long tourqe curve compaired to the MS3 but man thats still a huge difference in 0-60 between the 2 with power specs so close and weight! I just have a hard time believing that the MS3 I that much faster especially since Ford pretty much made that car! As far as traction that has alot to do with the wheels as wheel. Are the stock wheels on the ST to slippy compared to the stock MS3? And whats the gear ratio difference between the 2? IDK it just dosent add up to me! I could see .3 tenths whith the stuff you named but .8?? Still scratching my head!
LOL read Car & Driver for the comparison of teh ST to the GTI. The GTI equal to and better in some acceleration tests and it only has 200 HP. The GTI is 200 lbs lighter... but that shouldn't be enough to make up a 52 hp deficit
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Discussion Starter #5
LOL read Car & Driver for the comparison of teh ST to the GTI. The GTI equal to and better in some acceleration tests and it only has 200 HP. The GTI is 200 lbs lighter... but that shouldn't be enough to make up a 52 hp deficit
200lbs is alot and does make a difference. Also the GTI is smaller and only a 2 door which also makes a difference. Alot more nimble! I dont even think the cars should be compared. A 2 door ford focus RS would be a better comparison. Besides the new 2013 GTI has 260 hp! It should be a quick little thing! I was comparing the MS3 to the ST cause they are very similar and with the MS3 being a little heavier and have only 10hp more but being .8 tenths quicker just had me scratching my head big time!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
719 Posts
I think the answer is that you can't believe everything that you read.

I certainly wouldn't put much faith in comparing a 0-60 time that one publication gets on one car with one driver on one day on one track to the time that another publication gets on another car using a different driver on a different day and a different track. Way too many variables even before you factor in the honesty of the reporter.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Discussion Starter #7
I think the answer is that you can't believe everything that you read.

I certainly wouldn't put much faith in comparing a 0-60 time that one publication gets on one car with one driver on one day on one track to the time that another publication gets on another car using a different driver on a different day and a different track. Way too many variables even before you factor in the honesty of the reporter.
Oh i agree with you 100%.. but .8 is huge difference even on another track, different temps and any other variables! 0-60times.com is usually right on tho so it bothers me! Look at their ST time 5.9 thats the fastest test time out of all the reviews ive seen! So its not like their bias. There times are usually dead on or close!
 

·
Super Moderator
Joined
·
10,731 Posts
Oh i agree with you 100%.. but .8 is huge difference even on another track, different temps and any other variables! 0-60times.com is usually right on tho so it bothers me! Look at their ST time 5.9 thats the fastest test time out of all the reviews ive seen! So its not like their bias. There times are usually dead on or close!
I agree with what everyone's posting here. I don't trust magazines anymore since their intent is to sell you subscriptions and magazines. The internet isn't much better since a there's lot of unchecked facts being thrown around in cyber space.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
719 Posts
Look at their ST time 5.9 thats the fastest test time out of all the reviews ive seen! So its not like their bias. There times are usually dead on or close!
Hmm, I think you're on to something and that my assumption that the 0-60 time differences are not real might just be wrong.

That leaves us with what seems like an unexplainable inability of the ST to get a 0-60 time as good as should (and that's a "on paper" should). Right?

OK, first the disclaimer which is that I know nothing about drag racing.

I wonder if the torque-vectoring part of the ST's brain, the part that uses the front brakes to reduce torque steer even when the stability control/traction control is set all the way off, has something to do with this?

Seems reasonable the torque steer is going to be more of a problem at low speeds which means that the brain is going to be adding brake to correct it. I'm no rocket scientist but I can't figure out a way that using the brake is going to do anything good for acceleration.

Am I missing something?
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
299 Posts
Proper racing involves corners.........just sayin!
Says every owner of a slow car in history! Just sayin..... Haha just kidding mate corners is where it's at. That's why I sold my stang and got an ST!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
74 Posts
I agree with what everyone's posting here. I don't trust magazines anymore since their intent is to sell you subscriptions and magazines. The internet isn't much better since a there's lot of unchecked facts being thrown around in cyber space.
Yeah it's amazing the different times you see for the same car. I've seen ZR-1 times as quick as 11.1 and as slow as 11.7! Some of the rags even test with GTech's! Who's driving has a lot to do with it too and as someone else on here mentioned brand bias could even come into play.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,982 Posts
No one ever got a stock MS3 0-60 in 5.1. I think the very best I've ever seen is a 5.7 and it's usually around 6.1 You just can't get that kind of acceleration out of a FWD car with this power to weight ratio. Now there are a mega****eton of modded MS3's that can do it easily because those guys know modding better than anyone on this style platform. If someone claims they got a 5.1 stock, they are fibbing. :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
wonder if the torque-vectoring part of the ST's brain, the part that uses the front brakes to reduce torque steer even when the stability control/traction control is set all the way off, has something to do with this?

Seems reasonable the torque steer is going to be more of a problem at low speeds which means that the brain is going to be adding brake to correct it. I'm no rocket scientist but I can't figure out a way that using the brake is going to do anything good for acceleration.

Am I missing something?
I've seen this tossed around a bit and it's not correct. The torque steer compensation system automatically "adjusts" the steering rack to account for the torque steer, but it's a separate system from the torque vectoring system you refer to. The vectoring system brakes the inside wheel on a corner to help tuck the nose in and rotate the car.

The torque steer compensation DOES NOT use the brakes to compensate for torque steer, it just adjusts the steering rack.

Ford's not stupid, they know 0-60 times help sell cars like this. They wouldn't handicap that paper stat by making it brake due to wheel spin off the line.

I would speculate that the MS3 is faster off the line because it has a LSD, that simple.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Discussion Starter #14
I've seen this tossed around a bit and it's not correct. The torque steer compensation system automatically "adjusts" the steering rack to account for the torque steer, but it's a separate system from the torque vectoring system you refer to. The vectoring system brakes the inside wheel on a corner to help tuck the nose in and rotate the car.

The torque steer compensation DOES NOT use the brakes to compensate for torque steer, it just adjusts the steering rack.

Ford's not stupid, they know 0-60 times help sell cars like this. They wouldn't handicap that paper stat by making it brake due to wheel spin off the line.

I would speculate that the MS3 is faster off the line because it has a LSD, that simple.
Would Limited slip make that much of a difference? Like i said i could see maybe .2 or .3 with something like that factoring in but not .8! We just need to get dome dang MODs so we can see what this 2.0 ecoboost is made of! If you watch some of tanner foust vids talking about this car he said his race car has the same engine and is built up to 600 hp! And that the engine in the ST has huge potential... Crap id be happy with 300hp! If this car really has that potential these thing will be a beast in years to come when the MOD's start pouring in!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,982 Posts
Got me curious so I checked on a few 2010 Speed3 reviews

Motor Trend 5.6
Edmunds 6.4
Car and Driver 5.6
Road and track 6.1
automobile-catalog 5.9
AutoGuide 6.0

No one is even close to the 5.1 stated initially
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Would Limited slip make that much of a difference? Like i said i could see maybe .2 or .3 with something like that factoring in but not .8! We just need to get dome dang MODs so we can see what this 2.0 ecoboost is made of! If you watch some of tanner foust vids talking about this car he said his race car has the same engine and is built up to 600 hp! And that the engine in the ST has huge potential... Crap id be happy with 300hp! If this car really has that potential these thing will be a beast in years to come when the MOD's start pouring in!
You need to read what people have said. The average paper difference between the two cars 0-60 is more like .2 or .3. Again, I'm only speculating here since I have zero experience with how much difference a lsd makes in drag racing. But based on my understanding of how they work, .2 or .3 seems like a reasonable assumption for lsd based improvement on this type of car.

On another note, and I'm really not trying to be rude. You need to stop creating new threads to ask the same question over and over. It dilutes the conversation over multiple threads and makes it difficult for any real discussion to take place.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
719 Posts
I've seen this tossed around a bit and it's not correct....I would speculate that the MS3 is faster off the line because it has a LSD, that simple.
Damn, wrong again! Thanks for setting me straight kiotae!

Got me curious so I checked on a few 2010 Speed3 reviews

Motor Trend 5.6
Edmunds 6.4
Car and Driver 5.6
Road and track 6.1
automobile-catalog 5.9
AutoGuide 6.0

No one is even close to the 5.1 stated initially
Hmm, so maybe there's no big mystery to be solved afterall!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
201 Posts
Discussion Starter #18
You need to read what people have said. The average paper difference between the two cars 0-60 is more like .2 or .3. Again, I'm only speculating here since I have zero experience with how much difference a lsd makes in drag racing. But based on my understanding of how they work, .2 or .3 seems like a reasonable assumption for lsd based improvement on this type of car.

On another note, and I'm really not trying to be rude. You need to stop creating new threads to ask the same question over and over. It dilutes the conversation over multiple threads and makes it difficult for any real discussion to take place.
What are you talking about??? This is the first time i ever brought up the MS3 and track times! And even if i did bring up other performance threads who cares! Thats what im into. Some people like taking pictures of there cars and stairing at it! I like racing and performance conversations! Everyone talks about how fast cars are around corners and how great they handle and how thats the real race is on rally tracks and driving around the countryside! And even tho i would agree the reality is that its not the case! Straight line races is the reality whether its at a stop light or at the drag strip! Thats the way it is where i live anyway. I was just over my buddies house over thanksgiving and thats all they talk about! Even how fast there diesel trucks are and that they can whoop my car! Its just the way it is! And in the end i just thought it was odd that 0-60 times.com had the MS3 listed at 5.1 sec thats all!!!!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
I'm saying you should keep it to one thread, not that you shouldn't talk about it. Every discussion of performance you start/participate in turns into a comparison of 0-60 and 1/4 mile times between the ST and either a MS3 or WRX. There's a sub-forum with threads already started for those direct comparisons. This is not it. I'm sure I'm wasting my time trying to explain this to you.

Perhaps I've spent too much time on NASIOC.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Damn, wrong again! Thanks for setting me straight kiotae!



Hmm, so maybe there's no big mystery to be solved afterall!
I had to look it up to be sure I hadn't misread something. It's a new car, none of us know that much about it yet and there's a lot to still be discovered.
 
1 - 20 of 39 Posts
Top