21st Mar 2006, 08:24

You can't compare the Evo's / Scooby's with the GTI or Focus ST. They are derived from rally cars, both being 4WD with ridiculous engines. They can afford to put the power down in an explosive manner, owing to the extra traction. However, check out the performance figures for the Golf R32 and you see that it has a bigger top end than the Evo and is 0.1 sec slower 0-60. In any case the Golf GTI / ST are both at the limit of power on front wheel drive cars. They deliver good performance given this restriction. They are also refined and comfortable enough to be used everyday, with good levels of equipment. A friend of mine has got a Evo 260. They are ugly, noisy and have the interior of a Morris Marina - should only be seen on the rally courses!

22nd Mar 2006, 09:05

RE: comments from 19th Mar 2006. No-one is claiming this is a fast car, if you want a fast car buy a Porsche. I think you are sum-what missing the point here, you cannot compare a hot hatch to a Mitsubishi Lancer what do you mean there in a different league? Did you mean different class? The only exciting car the Japanese have produced over the last few years is the Civic Type R, no-one wants another Evo or Imprezza theres enough already. I'm not saying the Evo is a bad car but there's no way it's exciting, with it's electronic this and active that, stupid styling and bland interiors, they should just give up.

25th Mar 2006, 07:13

True, you have a point, living with the Lancer would be tough, I did find it edgy and a bit manic on the road, probably wasnt a good idea to compare it with the Golf, which I suppose is a lot easier to live with in the long term.

25th Apr 2006, 10:05

The guy commenting on the 21st Dec 2005 says he would never buy a Ford. He then suggests we talk about Nobles for real 0-60 times.

I wonder if he knows the Noble uses a Ford Mondeo engine which incidentally is modified to more than twice its original power output yet remains driveable and reliable.

The "Volvo" T5 engine's gentle state of tune is how it can walk away from the Golf with as little as 1500 RPM on the dial. There will be companies getting over 300 reliable bhp from Focus ST's within months, I guarantee it.

So much more car than the Golf for the money if you're not a badge snob. I'm not by the way ;-)

26th Apr 2006, 13:13

The comments ragarding hot hatches being 'crap' these days. I agree with the performance side. However, they more than make up for it in safety, refinement, creature comforts, and above all - handling. The hot hatches of yesterday were fun, but death traps!

27th Apr 2006, 09:00

I have owned a Mark 5 GTI for 12 months now fully loaded with a DSG gearbox. It amuses me how certain people can make such crap opinions from a half hour test drive where you cannot push the car to really find out. As for looks its pretty good, discreet without going over the top. Fords are crap they always have been. I would never pay £17000 for any Ford car regardless of how fast it is, you will get stung on the depreciation. The only focus that doesn't suffer this is the RS Focus, buy one of those if you can find one.

1st May 2006, 10:29

Depreciation only has a noticeable effect if you buy a brand new car and seel it after 3 years (or earlier). After the 3 year stage they all seem to tail off. I think you'll find the Focus ST has projected residuals equivalent to that of the BMW Mini. I note your comments re. performance. That is something your MK5 GTI does not have at all! I have driven them and they are slow as hell. As for Ford being crap - perhaps you could back that up with a few facts?

10th May 2006, 06:37

RE Comments from 1st May 2006, I think it's you who needs to come back with some facts. The GTI DSG is quicker to 60 than an ST, will hold it's value much better than an ST, and at a recent visit to Bedford Autodrome the GTI was quicker round it than an ST. The only thing the ST has over the GTI is more top end speed which is totally irrelevant as the maximum speed limit is 70mph on a public road anyway.

These sorts of 'my cars better than your car' arguments can go on forever, but at the end of the day if the owner is happy with their purchase then it's two fingers up to anyone who wants to argue about it.

13th May 2006, 04:45

Here's the facts: Golf GTI DSG 0-62 - 6.9 seconds. Ford Focus ST 0-62 - 6.8 seconds. Golf GTI max torque 280 Nm @ 1800 rpm. Ford Focus ST max torque 330 Nm @ 1600 rpm. Top speed and also 0-60 times mean absolutely nothing. It's all about torque and power of which the Focus has considerably more than the Golf. That 15% extra toque will come into it's own on the big hill climbs and also mid range power off fast roundabouts etc. For the record I don't own a Focus, I just like to point out that whilst VW may hold their value better than your average Ford - they don't necessarily build a better car. Each to their own.

13th May 2006, 04:55

Ammendment to Focus ST's torque - it's actually 320 Nm not 330 Nm. 12.5% increase in torque over Golf GTI.

14th May 2006, 17:02

"It amuses me how certain people can make such crap opinions from a half hour test drive... Fords are crap they always have been."

Anyone spot the irony here? Pot, kettle and black spring to mind.

If Fords are crap, why did the mk1 Focus prove more reliable and more satisfying than the mk4 Golf in every customer satisfaction survey since it was launched? Even in Germany, a market notoriously loyal to "home" manufacturers where it won a survey carried out by the ADAC outright.

If Fords are crap, why did VW famously feel the need to copy the Focus rear suspension for the mk5 Golf, and poach a number of the Focus chassis team?

If Fords are crap, how did three of their mainstream models become three of the most successful rally cars of all time? And I mean under the old homologation rules, not the new "kit car" rules under which the competition cars bear no resemblance to the road cars?

If Fords are crap, why can you find their engines in Nobles, Caterhams, Ginettas, Westfields, Morgans and all manner of other sports cars?

If Fords are crap, what does that say about VW quite frankly?

My personal view is that Ford make some great cars and so do VW. Ford just have a habit of doing it for less and without house remortgage parts and service prices. The depreciation comment is a fair one, but that's only because of oversupply to the fleet market rather than a reflection on the cars themselves.


Owner of a 210,000 mile Mondeo that's less problematic, cheaper to maintain (properly) and more dependable than a neighbour's 52,000 mile Passat.