Mk1 focus rs vs MK2 st

Mucky_Pup · 17 Jun 2010 at 20:23

I'd have the ST, namely because I already have an ST. Plus I never like the Mk.1 Focus styling.

9designs2 · 17 Jun 2010 at 20:43

Janesy B said:
Surely a Cupra R 225 would be the combination of both?

I was talking Mk2 Cupra, current version, not original.

Is not as common as the ST (in these parts).
Is more every day usable compared to RS
Is fun and easily tunable like RS
Is as quick, and remaps easier than ST.

So for me, and my tweaked Cupra, gave blend of all of them...... And I'm long term RS fan, had 3, and was club member for 14 years......

MikeHiow · 17 Jun 2010 at 21:42

Can you tell me how the Cupra remaps easier than the ST?

It sounds like you're comparing the Cupra to the RS as you would an ST to the RS.

widdyst · 17 Jun 2010 at 21:52

MikeHiow said:
Can you tell me how the Cupra remaps easier than the ST?

It sounds like you're comparing the Cupra to the RS as you would an ST to the RS.

+1 How on earth does a cupra remap easier than an st ?
Surely you have the RS and ST somehow mixed up ? Or you dont really know enough about the ST :confused:

9designs2 · 17 Jun 2010 at 22:35

widdyst said:
+1 How on earth does a cupra remap easier than an st ?
Surely you have the RS and ST somehow mixed up ? Or you dont really know enough about the ST

The ST is more limited I believe on how far you can take it before you get into more serious engine mods. The VW engine gets to 320bhp quite easily, and not much more effort to 360.....
I think I know the difference between the too..... I work at Ford

LOL
Though the 5 pot engine does make nicer sound

[TW]Fox · 17 Jun 2010 at 22:37

9designs2 said:
The ST is more limited I believe on how far you can take it before you get into more serious engine mods. The VW engine gets to 320bhp quite easily, and not much more effort to 360.....

What on earth would be the point in that. A 360bhp Seat Leon, great :/

Firestar_3x · 17 Jun 2010 at 22:43

For overtaking things?

MikeHiow · 17 Jun 2010 at 22:49

The ST will hit around 310bhp with an exhaust, intake, intercooler and remap, and I believe 350 if you add a turbo.

I believe the TFSI engine requires similar amounts of work to get to similar power.

That said, over 300bhp in either car would be mostly pointless.

Camoe · 17 Jun 2010 at 23:53

ST cause its sexyer.

oweneades · 18 Jun 2010 at 07:26

MikeHiow said:
The ST will hit around 310bhp with an exhaust, intake, intercooler and remap, and I believe 350 if you add a turbo.

I believe the TFSI engine requires similar amounts of work to get to similar power.

That said, over 300bhp in either car would be mostly pointless.

A Cupra will hit 300bhp with just a stage 1 remap if the engine itself is strong (lots of info on this over at the seatcupra.net forums).

Perhaps easier to remap was the wrong phrase, easier to hit 300bhp would be more accurate.

Personally I wouldn't want to drive a Cupra with more than 300bhp. The steering feels completely disconnected to the front wheels in standard form, I can't imagine how bad it would be with more power yet nothing done to the rest of it (handling wise).

As for the original question, neither. The RS is too old and from everything I have read too much of a handful on real world roads to make it a true classic (due to the diff). The ST just doesn't do anything for me.

Out of the two I would choose a Megane R26. It will be less of a handful than the RS (although the LSD can make it twitchy on uneven surfaces) and more fun to drive than the ST.

adam cool dude · 18 Jun 2010 at 08:30

If it was a straight choice I would take a RS because i prefer uncommon cars but if I had to buy one it would be a ST. The RS like most limited fords are way overpriced for what they are.

ubersonic · 18 Jun 2010 at 08:32

The is no comparison, the MK2 ST is a better car, more power (its 260hp after 2008 too) and a better chassis

s-man · 18 Jun 2010 at 08:43

Setting aside the practicalities of fuelling, spare parts and going solely on which I,d prefer to own I would have the RS over an ST. Contrary to the opinion of others my opinion is that the ST is not a better car in every way since I prefer the lean minimalist look of the RS over the STs slightly lardy blobbier shape. I also think that the ST does what it does in a bit of a sledgehammer fashion with the 2.5 and really setting aside the noise it is overly thirsty for what it is. Obviously the ST is going to be a lot more civilised and comfortable than the RS but that is also down to the very different target market. For me the RS is just a much more special car as proven by the scene tax really.

coolamasta · 18 Jun 2010 at 09:26

Obviously styling will come into it depending on taste. The Mk1 RS was iconic being an RS model with a clever LSD, great handling, big brembo brakes etc all as standard which is better than what the ST came with but they weren't particularly quick as standard!

Yes the ST is a newer model, still good handling with a bigger engine and a bit more power but its also heavier and like someone said its the new xr3i as theres loads about and dont look massively different to a normal Mk2 focus.

RS all day long for me mainly because of the LSD diff, handling, brembo brakes and although im not a huge fan of the Mk1 focus styling the RS bodykit does look nice! All I would want to do is tune the engine, 300bhp-ish isn't too hard to achieve and a set of coilovers.

Saying all that the new Mk2 focus RS is awesome and that would win if it were in the same price range lol

MikeHiow · 18 Jun 2010 at 09:48

oweneades said:
A Cupra will hit 300bhp with just a stage 1 remap if the engine itself is strong (lots of info on this over at the seatcupra.net forums).

Really? The internet seems to indicate to me that just a remap will get you around 270-280bhp, around the same just a remap will do for the ST.

You can argue bull**** about "strong" engines being slightly more responsive to modifications all you like, the truth is, both are similarly tuned, both make similar power, and both can easily make more power than is sensible for the chassis.

Dangerous Dave · 18 Jun 2010 at 09:57

MikeHiow said:
Really? The internet seems to indicate to me that just a remap will get you around 270-280bhp, around the same just a remap will do for the ST

They will hit 300bhp with just a remap I have never really seen any not get over 300bhp apart from the early ones where the remaps were still getting worked on. The stock engine/turbo have been pushed to 380bhp by a few owners which I suspect is the limit before parts start to fail.

I wouldn't say either are easier to tune 380bhp in a FWD chassis is pushing it but the same engine is in the S3 where it makes more sense.

Trojan · 18 Jun 2010 at 10:16

Unless I was buying the car as a weekend/trackday toy, it would be an ST every time. It's slightly quicker, newer, much better value for money, and just a much more competent all rounder.

My brother bought an ST recently actually, looking forward to having a drive of it when I'm next in the UK.

Mr^B · 18 Jun 2010 at 10:20

ubersonic said:
The is no comparison, the MK2 ST is a better car, more power (its 260hp after 2008 too) and a better chassis

It's "only" 225, not 260.

They're both strange cars, the ST is now as common as muck, you can't move for them. The original RS had a lot of obvious flaws and does look dated.

No doubt the ST2 is the better car though.

ubersonic · 18 Jun 2010 at 14:24

Mr^B said:
It's "only" 225, not 260.

yes but in 2008 it went from 225 to 260, like I said, ford achieved this with "a K&N panel filter, larger intercooler and a re-map."

Janesy B · 18 Jun 2010 at 14:27

ubersonic said:
yes but in 2008 it went from 225 to 260, like I said, ford achieved this with "a K&N panel filter, larger intercooler and a re-map."

That's the Mountune tuning package released in 2008, not the stock car.