1st Aug 2007, 17:59
The comparison with the Honda N/A engine is pointless.
The characteristics of the two engines couldn't be more different. The Honda engine makes a piffling 193 NM of torque at 6500 RPM. The Focus lump makes over a third more (320 NM) at just 1600 RPM.
In a drag race, with the Honda being driven like it was stolen, there wouldn't be a lot in it, but when you want to accelerate quickly right NOW, the Focus doesn't care what gear it's in, it just shoves you back in the seat.
I have as much respect for Honda's engineering prowess, and the genius of the VTEC system as the next man, but the fact is that the first 6,000 RPM of the engine's rev range is just for show. Many very ordinary cars are no slower under 6,000 RPM, which is where you spend the vast majority of your time on the road. By the time the Honda comes on cam, or its driver downshifts, the Focus will have a good 10-20 mph on it.
20th Feb 2008, 07:53
It was my comment on 1st June (330i). My mistake, I was on the wrong page, I was posting about encounters against Mondeo ST220! Sorry...
21st Feb 2008, 06:59
Going back to the Honda comment. Someone saying the NA engine in a 2 litre Honda only produces 197bhp... Well what about the S2000 with a 2 litre engine and 237bhp, and the dc5 Integra with 220bhp, and the new JDM Civic in Japan with 2 litres and 225bhp. So before you comment on what Honda engines can or cannot produce, do some research first!
And to the comment about the ST being 10-20mph faster by the time the Honda driver has dropped a cog or 2??? How long do you think it takes to change gear???
And the VTEC system below 6000 RPM is slow, I'm not denying that, but take the turbo off the ST and let's see how slow that is! VTEC was designed for fuel economy in normal everyday driving, and screaming performance when you need it by dropping down 2 gears.
22nd Feb 2008, 03:32
Vtec is part of the engine, whereas the turbo is an add on. You can add a turbo to a vtec engine, but you can't add vtec to a turbo.
Anyway power is power; some people prefer turbo and some prefer NA.
25th Feb 2008, 09:17
I have recently picked up my 2007 ST3, which replaced my 2002 E46 330CI Sport. In the real world, they are pretty much identical in the power department. I know in a drag to a 100MPH, the ST would just edge it, but to 60 (as the book figures state) the BMW would have the advantage. But then, its all about in-gear acceleration, where the ST plays its trump card; especially when you want to quickly and safely pass someone on a A/B road. By the time you would have changed into 3rd in the BMW with its notchy gearbox, the passing opportunity may have been lost. Overall, I am impressed with the ST (after the nightmares I experienced with the 2 BMW and Cooper S I had previously). I used to own a Focus ST170, and enjoyed hassle free motoring even if insurance was a killer (for what I would call a lukewarm hatch back). I am interested in chipping my car with 260BHP achieved by Bluefin/Dreamscience and Code:Red. But 17% BHP rise and an additional £260 onto my insurance premium does not really justify it at the moment.
As regards VXR being quicker; I personally love the look of the VXR and the straight line performance, but it understeers if pushed hard. Coming from a bone-shattering E46, the ST is a welcome change, because it manages to offer a nice smooth ride despite running 18" wheels and low profile tyres.
28th Feb 2008, 09:27
Out of the 3 cars being compared I think I prefer the Focus as well; the golf is a bit too dull and Astra is a bit too extreme. I would probably rather drive the Astra, but I don't think it would be as easy to live with, and they seem to drop a lot in value.
Had a go in an 02 plate Cupra Leon R the other night; that was a quick car with the remap it had, and sounded nice. How does the new one compare to the ST2, GTI and VXR?
28th Feb 2008, 12:12
"I would probably rather drive the Astra, but I don't think it would be as easy to live with and they seem to drop a lot in value"
Look on Autotrader; the VXR is holding its value better than the ST and the Golf. A 2005 VXR will still cost you £13500; you can get an ST2 of the same age for £12000, and as for the GTI, you can get a 2005 model for £10500, and it costs more in the first place.
29th Feb 2008, 18:05
I hadnt checked the residuals on all the cars (it wasnt really the point of my post, I asked a question you ignored in order to nit-pick). I just looked and they are all equally bad at holding their value, but depressing really. The focus is a shocker when you look at the prices of RS Focus', but I did hear Ford were doing special deals on them for people over certain ages, and I do see quite a few on the road, so maybe its also down to the number of them about.
1st Apr 2008, 12:18
"And anyway the ST is definitely a better car and more practical, especially in 5 door"
And how do you work that out, because I can't see a single upside to an ST over a VXR. And as for the practicality with the 5 door; to be honest that practicality isn't worth how ugly it is in 5 door format; it looks like an oversized yacht, not a hot hatch.
22nd Dec 2008, 17:37
This engine is legendary. You can buy it under the bonnet of a Volvo with 300 bhp and a bulletproof reputation.
Volvo have never built a weak or unreliable engine. The T5 continues that tradition but adds some brute force to the mix.
30th Oct 2009, 03:52
Only my opinion but... I can't believe some of the comments I have read on here with regards to STs vs a VXR. All you need to do is watch Top Gear to compare them both. Clarkson has driven more or less most cars ever made, so I think it's safe to assume he knows his stuff (albeit only his opinion) however he stated the Focus was excellent, and the VXR wasn't. "would I buy one with money?... NO"
It's a Vauxhall - Vauxhalls are not good cars anymore like they used to be. There are only 2 good Vauxhalls, the VX220 and the Monaro... both of which Vauxhall didn't really have that much to do with - VX220 = Lotus, and Monaro = Holden. You see the point? Where is the Vauxhall badge on a VX220? Even Vauxhall didn't really want people to know it was a Vauxhall!
Why make a massively powerful car that can't handle it? It's stupid!
Just about every car Ford that has made in the last 10 years has been massively successful and everyone has liked them - can't say that about Vauxhalls. Which cars do you see more of?
I know which car I will be buying next.
9th Jul 2007, 04:25
"In all honesty, it's a 2.5 turbo that only produces 200bhp. Yet a 2 litre N/A honda engine can deliver more that that. You see the point?"
Stats are a bit wrong there... The ST has 222/225bhp and the Honda 197bhp (not more than 200, UK cars though ;) )
I do agree with you about the point though, I don't see it either.