Ford Focus RS500

After 500 non-stop laps of the Nürburgring, we are very confident of its durability and delighted at the way it performed, with an eight-minute lap time within reach
Click to expand...

driver spending 66 hours 'testing' it's ability around the 'ring with no pee stops? it must be good :D
 
It looks absolutely pigging awful. If somebody had styled their Focus like that before the likes of the RS was released we'd have all wet ourselves at how gash it looked, but since Ford had done it is it somehow desirable?
 
Joshy said:
It looks absolutely pigging awful. If somebody had styled their Focus like that before the likes of the RS was released we'd have all wet ourselves at how gash it looked, but since Ford had done it is it somehow desirable?
Click to expand...

You really think that? I think the new Kia's coming out look fantastic! It's nothing to do with badge :)
 
Wicksta said:
The original RS500 was named after the power output of the race car, not the amount made. It seems a bit sad to name a marketing run-out special after such a great car Ford had in the past.

No, the original RS500.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DA1Ao-GBe8Q
Click to expand...

So you're saying it shouldn't be named RS500 because that was used on a Sierra - RS = Rally Sport, 500 = production run. It's been used on Escorts, homologation specials, Sierras etc, so why not a Focus. The Sierra wasn't the first to use the naming convention. There was an RS2000 in the 70s, however I'm not sure it was used before that even.

This is reiteration, but I'm not sure what you're getting at.

It was always going to be expensive, but it will probably hold it's value. Not sure I'd pay for it though.
 
Ok lets compare with the stock RS then. Even then the 330S is, despite being more expensive, better value for money considering the 330S comes with Leather / Alcantara (£510 on the focus, Nav (£1500 on the focus) climate control (only available as part of lux pack 1 for £766) all as standard. That £27500 soon becomes £30,266 with comparative spec to the scooby.

And production run car vs production run car, the RS only packs 305 PS to the imprezas 330 PS. Subaru will crack on to 60 in 5.2 to the RS 5.9. Scooby will lap the bedford autodrome in 1.30.8. The stock impreza with almost 50bhp less than the 330S cracks it in 1.30.2. Suffice to say with an extra 50bhp, the 330S is going to be well under 1.30.

who says 4x4 doesnt offer an advantage ? considering the stock STI is over 20bhp down and still faster despite being over 30 kilos heavier.
 
not got a time for the 330S

normal STI (not the 330S) did it in 1.30.2
RS did it in 1.30.8

Evo havent taken the 330S round yet. Will have to see if i can find a laptime for another track.
 
So both cars have similar power and similar lap-times (despite the starting advantage of the Subaru) which tells me 4WD didn't make much difference around the track? Unless I'm missing something?
 
the subaru is heavier and less powerfull

what was that about "no advantage"? ;)

i seem to recall a comment in one of the reviews that said that 4x4 was boring and too easy, which is probably closer to the truth. The BTCC wouldnt go shoving blocks of concrete in the 4x4 audi a4 BTCC car if there was no advantage.

But the impreza and evo have made going fast look easy using 4x4 since the 80s :D I'd go so far as to say its their entire appeal. Takes a very dedicated sort of ford fan to look upon struggling with FWD as a term of endearment.
 
But 99% of people that buy the RS do not give a **** about shaving .3 seconds off a standing start, or getting the power down .2 seconds sooner out of a corner.

4WD isn't that fun to be honest, sure it can be faster, but that also means you need to be travelling faster to get the same level of fun.

The fact that they have similar lap times says it all to be honest, regardless of what weight advantages the Focus has. That said, none of these cars prospective owners will ever pilot them that quick, in fact, I bet only a fraction take them on track.
 
if you dont give a damn about going faster than why buy a focus RS.

why not settle for the ST? that argument doesnt hold for me. People buy the RS, because its an RS. Its the ultimate hot focus and they are probably a bit disappointed its not 4x4, but not enough to stop them buying it.

The fact that so many debates go on about this says that a lot of prospective owners do care if it has 4x4 or not. Has it been a disasterous decision ? no because ford have prooved they can sell it for £27.5k with FWD and it will still make people form a queue that would put alton towers to shame.

Doesnt mean the RS wouldnt be faster for it though.
 
The trouble is, this debate is normally done by people who have never driven an RS or a modern Impreza/Evo.

Well why not settle for an ST? You can have one making the same power, and that is arguably faster for a little over £1k.

Like I say, an Impreza/Evo might be faster by a few tenths, but it doesn't matter on the road, and Ford are selling the RS to road users that will leave it in the garage all week until the weekend comes, where it will be allowed out if its dry.

People buy the RS because its an RS, its a car that will grab attention wherever it goes, and draws compliment from young and old alike (see, we all have a little boy racer in us :P ).

For most, I believe its the prestige* of the RS rather than its all out performance.

*for want of a better word.
 
Gorgeous, but there is no way on this planet i'd spend £35K on one.

Plus it should really have more BHP than that, isn't it less than the regular RS?

About 4WD - would have been nice to have, but overall not really fussed.

[Edit] It's 350ps not 250ps Pharcyde you plank! :p
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom