Why isnt this car discussed more often?

Its disscused every day ford shill.
>$50k girls car
Fuck off.

That isn't a new RS, in case you thought it was. RS's in europe are cheap and fairly easy to come by.

you're a complete moron.

I bet you think the RS you keep hearing the hype about is the first one ever made.

fucking retard. you seriously glanced at the front, saw the RS badge and went "OMG SHILL 50K MEME"

In case you're wondering why I'm giving you the fat end of my stick, it's because the car OP posted is an old RS that's never been available in the NA market.

Yes it does, 2.5L and I believe it also has a mechanical diff standard.

mechanical limited slip diff* i should say.

not sure if this is bait or just retarded

They had an ST from about that year on Top Gear, Clarkson had only good things to say about it. Dunno what the difference is. I thought I saw him drive an RS and say it had ridiculous torque steer but I didn't see the clip on Youtube.

youtu.be/yzyomH_huFk
Here is Clarkson on the 2011 RS

FWD is great. It's the best platform for cheap commuter cars.

Fr are easier to work on thought

Car has a tremendous amount of torque steer, and the shifter was a little bit too numb for me. But the throws on the shifter were nice and short. Also you really do feel the turbo boost, and I liked that too. The engine will probably be made fun of, just because Volvo, but it's pretty good. Just don't get that hideous green one.

FWD is shit. Get over it.
>torque steer is fun
>less traction than RWD or AWD is fun
>Terrible acceleration times are fun
Stop with this bait. We get it, you drive a slow FWD car or regret your purchase. Stop trying to convince yourselves physics don't exist. You FWD fags are worse than the le fwd trolls.

God damn. Truth bomb.

>less traction than rwd
Uhm, i thought that was the whole point of ff cars? since traction and most of the weight is in the front wheels, wouldn't that produce more traction?

:^)

No, during acceleration weight shifts to the rear of a vehicle. That is why FWD cars have such horrific 0-60 and quarter mile times.

In addition while accelerating and turning the total amount of traction is limited. On a RWD car you may use 100% of front grip to turn and use rear grip to accelerate, on a FWD car you have to waste turning grip to accelerate.

The only time a FWD car has more grip is on flat ground in the snow or ice due to the weight as you said, but that is only while driving slow.

However the whole premise of FWD cars being good in the snow is the biggest meme ever as the first time they meet a slight incline on ice or a steep hill in the snow the weight shifts to the rear of the vehicle (just like accelerating in the dry). I've driven every drivetrain out there and lived in horrific winter hell holes and FWD sucks balls and is only useful for people who can't drive for shit as it is inherently easier, it the snow and ice and also in the drive.

In short, FWD is inferior in every dimension to RWD or AWD. Its only benefit is light weight/small packaging/and that it is easier for women and poor drivers as there is no scary oversteer.

If you are an auto enthusiest and actually believe fwd to not be shit...kys. If you say hey, fwd sucks cock but i like the car, thats cool. But to think it isn't the shittiest drivetrain ever made is delusional.

*I've driven every drivetrain out there and lived in horrific winter hell holes and FWD sucks balls and is only useful for people who can't drive for shit as it is inherently easier, in the snow and ice and also in the dry.

Being this assblasted. kek.

I'm not ass blasted, the man asked a serious question and I gave a truthful scientific answer. Sorry it wasn't what you wanted to hear bey bey. If you like your FWD car good for you, just don't delude others with misinformation, especially when we are approaching 300+ horsepower, the drivetrain limitations become overwhelming.

>I don't understand weight transference during acceleration

Daily reminder that FWD completely outclasses RWD in the most difficult and taxing Motorsport cars are subjected to.

The euro version is FWD?

fwd is better than rwd for rally cause you can pull the handbrake and still have throttle control. which is irrelevant considering awd btfos everything on a loose surface. rwd btfo errything on asphalt

Drag boats are also faster on water.

You know that's a FWD only class right?
I'm not disagreeing that FWD is good for rally as long as the surface is slippery, but using WRC to make that point doesn't really work.

You can only use certain cars in WRC. All the R cars are FWD except RGT and R4.

So, we'll never know if a RWD car could be competitive against them.

This is correct, after posting all that I realized my answers were confined to tarmac. However lets not forget that AWD still outclasses FWD in rally tho ;)

Ufos are faster than civilian planes

Isn't odd that UFOs use the same FAA and international lighting? You'd think the point was not to be spotted.

Quite frankly I don't know, I was responding to the FWD trolls.
IDK, weight transfer to driven front wheels is such a fundamental part of driving an AWD rally car I can't image RWD being as good. At the school I went to they didn't even teach a RWD class.

R1/B-Spec, R2/Group 2, and R3/Group 5 are the 2WD classes. This doesn't just go for WRC, but any rally series in the world. The R4, RGT, R5, RRC, and World Rally Car classes are all 4WD-restricted.

That being said, there's an R3 GT86 that was designed to meet FIA regulations as a RWD competitor to the FWD Clio and DS3 R3's in WRC events.

It isn't even competitive with those cars on tarmac.

>86 twin
>not competitive
this is a given

Thats an AWD fiesta, look at the rear tires hahaha

Wrong.

>tfw no awd fiesta

>boat steering is better than torque steering

boi

ewrc-results.com/profile.php?p=76117

FWD is great for inexpensive economy cars and that's it. RWD is better at everything else.

"it's fwd"

No shit, that image certainly looks otherwise
>I pull my shopping cart not push it

The focus rs is an awd tho

Weight transfer paired with a light rear end and solid rear axle. One of the key reasons why FWD is so competitive is you can use all of that to initiate deceleration oversteer coming into a corner so that you're in a more straight exit line when going back onto the throttle--which negates the chance of power understeer. The more eccentric drivers will go even hotter into the corners and get even more oversteer, thus you get pictures like that which can make the cars look like there's power driven to the rear.

Huh, that cool as shit thanks user. Man, they have to be coming in hot as hell for the rear to still be spinning that fast. I did a 3 day rally course and those guys are just insane. Absolutely insane. I'll stick to asphalt on my bikes and cars thank you.

I actually made a thread about it recently

I had no idea it was FWD

I turned it down because i thought it was a genuine road version of the rally cars, thinking it was AWD and everything, but it isn't, so i lost interest.

I've heard the torque steer is pretty gnarly.

gnarly as in good or bad

Not sold in the States, not AWD. And as far as the Focus RS in Australia goes the few (only 315 produced for here) for sale cost more than a WRX STi with similar mileage. Also the Focus XR5 Turbo exists, and is cheaper and can be made much quicker.

God u fuckers are stupid. Op is talking about the old rs. The one that was only fwd.

No it fucking wasnt. We aren't talking about the new one.

Im talking about the new one

U r the type of person that talks about their kids in the middle of other people's conversations aren't you....

No, no that's not you, you would have to get someone pregnant for that to happen.

Because a T5 C30 is more pretty, less boyracer-y, and pulls off the whole Volvo turbo-5 thing better. Also, S40 and V50 are offered with AWD as well. Power on those B5254's can easily reach 350-400hp without many issues.

Saab once said you shouldn't put anything over 200hp on the front wheels. Keep in mind Saabs generally lack torque steer due to their equal length halfshafts.

Now, Volvo has a tradition, dsting back to the 850 T5, to ignore all this sound advice, and create something FUN. Think a 250hp FWD wagon is bad? Imagine a 350hp FWD hatch.

>The engine will probably be made fun of, just because Volvo,
Wrong. Those inline five engines were just about the best thing Volvo ever did outside of the V8 Supercars unit they designed with Polestar and Yamaha.

>U r
Good lord stop using SMS language you fuckwit

Why is Volvo the only based aspect of Sweden?

>Fiesta RS
>Focus ST's 2.0 turbo
>250hp
>AWD
Goddammit Ford, make it already.

>30k priced

If Ford made a sedan version that didn't look like shit i'd like one

As usual, Veeky Forums fails at physics. Shame, the US used to know how to build fwd cars.

youtube.com/watch?v=0tVilgrKwS0

youtube.com/watch?v=EukjwQ5BBNw

As you say, don't spread misinformation about what fwd can or cannot do since you clearly don't know anything.

>Fiesta base: 14.5K
>Fiesta ST: 21K

>Focus base: 19K
>Focus ST: 24.5K
>Focus RS: 36K
There's about a 4.5K difference between their base specs, 3.5K between their ST specs - let's assume the Fiesta RS ends up at somewhere between 31.5 and 32.5K MSRP then. I think 30 would be a steal, it'd kill Focus ST sales.

Fiesta RS is never being made unfortunately, and if it ever does, it won't be until 2019-2020 earliest after the model refresh happens in 2018.

HOW
IN
THE
FUCK
DO
SO
MANY
OF
YOU
RETARDS
THINK
THE
CAR
IN
OP
IS
THE
NEW
FOCUS RS

Seriously this whole thread is completely full of fucktard morons that know next to nothing about the car in OPs post.
>Ladies and gentlemen, the Veeky Forums community.

And it would still be faster if it was RWD or AWD you delusional fwdfag

>caring about econoshit

nobody cares about highway rolls lol, lets see that thing get off the line