7th Dec 2004, 07:06

It's a lovely car, but it really should be quicker. The standard 2.0 develops nearly 40PS less, and has a 5 speed 'box yet is only a second slower to 60.

In terms of handling, and especially in terms of feel, I personally think it's a far better car than the Civic Type-R, but why Ford didn't make it quicker I'll never know. It's not like it's even insurance friendly.

15th Apr 2005, 14:03

Focus ST170 nothing, but problems. Firstly 2 water leaks to front windscreen then Inlet manifold broke, next problem was rear brake discs distorted at 8000 miles (not covered).Lastly the car went in yesterday for a alternator tensioner and the dealer found that the power steering pump was broken, Crank main oil seal was leaking and the drive shaft oil seal was gone, lucky this was all covered under guarantee, but not so good as the car has only covered 12000 miles.

25th Oct 2005, 20:46

Slow. nice dash though, best thing about it.

4th Nov 2005, 08:34

This car is the best hot hatch to date. would wipe the floor with a type-r. I raced my pal in a brand new lotus exige and demolished him round brands hatch. very quick must be around 5 sec 0-60 had 168mph on straight and was only at 4000rpm. amazing. r34 move over.

20th Nov 2005, 16:24

Listen, the Focus ST170 is a slow car. The official performance figures are: 0-60 8.4 seconds and a top speed of 134mph. Now compare these figures with say a Nissan Primera GT, which has only 150 bhp: 0-60 8.5 seconds, top speed 135+. I think you can see what I'm getting at. My mate has got one of these Nissan's and to be honest with you it would wipe the floor with the Focus, even though it has 20bhp less and weighs more than a cruise liner.

11th Jan 2006, 19:31

Don't bother with these overrated, underpowered buzz boxes.

Save yourself a packet and buy yourself a Rover 220GSi-Turbo: 197BHP as standard. Almost as quick as a new Honda Civic Type-R; book figures are almost identical.

A good example can be picked up for around the £2000 mark and they are slowly becoming rarities, meaning appreciation is likely to set in.

One thing is for sure, it will absolutely trounce all over this pathetic Essex boy Ford.

Not bad for a 12 year old car.

14th Jul 2006, 10:06

Lot of intelligent debate here guys. In a straight 0-60 I've timed my ST170 at 7.8secs - quick, but not fast. Plenty of low down torque though for a 10-60 type run. As for the handling, I've never had a problem seeing off Type-R's or BMW's (bar M's), but I wouldn't bother playing with Evo's or Porsche's for any length of time. Happy?

21st Sep 2006, 09:52

Dude, don't mind the haters out there. Offical time was 0-60 in 7.9secs and as was said - not lightning quick, but quick enough and the handling & chassis has been praised by EVO, Topgear and probably every other road test out there.

21st Oct 2006, 13:24

Official time 0-62 is 7.9 seconds.

As fast as an imprezza or a porsche eh? Funny that, I tested one of these a week after I drove a P-1 and I know which I'd put my money on...

ST170 is still a good car though. Quick for the money and it is a capable handler. Not sure I'd favour it over an Octavia VRS though in terms of performance.

4th Nov 2006, 15:44

I thought they stopped making the st170 in 2004/05?

7th Nov 2006, 11:53

To the one thinking of geting a st220 - I was in the dealers on Saturday morning having another go at Ford cos my wonderfull 170 has got a leaking power steering pump, and my alarm sorted which has crashed again. Anyway, all sorted, well until I got home only to find my trim on the front bumpers is coming away.

My advice - stay clear of Fords full stop, my next vehicle will be a Yamaha R1, then I'll whoop all your asses on the road.

30th Nov 2006, 10:42

I wrote this review, and am pleased I have started a bit of a discussion. I really have to say I think I had a car with the bluefin power upgrade, and I had an induction kit fitted. The car also had over 10,000 miles on the clock, and these engines loosen up a treat!

The performance I got from the vehicle was genuine, and I have driven lots of cars in my time (I'm a Saab salesman) and the cars I have driven have ranged from Subarus, Porsche's, Ferrari's etc, and still feel the ST170 with a few tuning mods was still very impressive for performance and handling.

I apologise if I over rated the car, I reviewed it not long after getting it and all the other problems came along which made me get rid of it within 6months! It was terrible.

All in all, a fun car built by monkeys.

18th Feb 2007, 15:01

And it makes ME laugh how ignorant and thick some people can be. Manufacturers design their cars to be all rounders, to appeal to a wide range, they could easily make their cars with that much more power and better handling, but they have to think about other things like fuel consumption, emissions, noise, reliability, comfort. You really can gain power from these simple modds because modern engines are so good, but are strangled by all the EU regulations, so it doesn't take much to free them up a bit.

8th Mar 2007, 15:11

Crikey! I have an Imperial Blue ST170 that I bought last July. I've always (intermittently) owned Fast-Fords, from a MkII Escort with twin Weber's, to a MkI Escort Mexico. I've owned a MkII RS2000, a MkIII RS1600i, an XR2 and a couple of XR3s. Basically, I like Fast-Fords! They're all like Meccano, in that they are simplicity itself to maintain and fix armed with only a Haynes manual. So... the ST170. In the 7 months I've had it, it's been back for: Engine management light coming on while I was on holiday-meaning I couldn't drive it and had to come home early. Broken electric window motor. Lambda sensor replaced. Dash fuses replaced after all my dash lights went off on the motorway at 11pm. Boot-open button replaced. Climate control repaired. Wiper relays replaced. Er...that's it I think. But I'll tell you what, I love this car as much as it's possible to love an object. No, it isn't rapid, but I knew that after the test drive. My MkI Escort was faster, and I owned that baby 14 years ago. Everyone who owns a ST170 (and subsequently complains about it!) should know exactly how quick-or not-it is after their own test drive. To buy a car thinking it's fast, only to find out later it isn't after signing their hard-earned over for it, is beyond me. It won't beat a Porsche. It'll beat an Evo... if both were raced from a 30mph rolling start in 5th gear, but only because of the Evo's turbo lag. Having said that, a Citroen Picasso would beat the Evo too under the same conditions! I defy anyone to disagree.

At the end of the day, it's all relative. I love my car, but as I've stated above with my brand loyalty, I'm possibly biased. As I get older (I'm 35 now) I don't want a pocket rocket and I'm more than happy with my 'warm' hatch. If you want to drive round looking for a Porsche to race, buy an appropriate car to do it in. The performance figures for all cars are easily found these days. As is booking a test drive. You can't really buy one and then complain about its performance later can you? Complain about reliability, things that go pear-shaped etc by all means, because these things aren't evident on a test drive. To sum up, I like tomato soup, but you might not...