Hating on the Focus RS

[bill25]

For a faster 4 door around VIR, you'd have to step up to some of the following vehicles (slowest at the top):
Audi S8 Plus
Charger Hellcat
Audi RS7
Porsche Panamera Turbo S
E63 AMG S-model
ATS-V
Porsche Panamera Turbo
And somewhere 15 spots up the list, the CTS-V of course. But I guess the point is, if you want to go faster around VIR, you will have to pay more than $35,595.

The Focus RS time was the same as the Civic Type-R, 2 years earlier, but it sucked then. It must be good now that that same time 2 years later puts it in this same context.

Granted, the RS is now 42K. That is creeping into ridiculous pricing. But, it is faster than a Gen2 CTS-V, and Shelby GT500 (2011), and .4 seconds slower that a 2016 Hellcat, .3 seconds from a 2007 Corvette Z51, it is definitely no slouch.

[kevm14]

Yes, they are the same speed around VIR. I like the Civic better because:
- It has a better platform (more sophisticated, better ride/handling balance)
- A better back seat
- I believe the steering is better, though I'd have to look into that - I know the RS has a faster ratio, but fast steering does not equal good steering
- They pulled off equivalent performance with FWD which, aside from the talking point of knocking the Cobalt SS off the spot as FWD VIR champion, also means 3,459 - 3,104 = 355 lbs lighter which pays dividends from handling to fuel economy to general feel.
- Significantly cheaper, though I'd have to check used RS prices to compare to new Type R prices, because a used RS for a hypothetical $25k would present a totally different argument against a $35-36k new Type R, though I am certain the Type R will retain value better.

[Bob]

The bottom end of the used RS market is in the $27-29k range at the moment, although some of the cheapest ones were at that dealer that is famous for reselling lemon law buybacks.

[kevm14]

I am going to go out on a limb and suggest there were a fair amount of RS buy backs (compared to other vehicles, on a percentage basis), some of which were probably mostly driven by buyer's remorse (think of the initial buyers who probably paid ADM, then the excitement dies down, engine problems emerge, etc.).

[kevm14]

The Focus RS time was the same as the Civic Type-R, 2 years earlier, but it sucked then. It must be good now that that same time 2 years later puts it in this same context.

Granted, the RS is now 42K. That is creeping into ridiculous pricing. But, it is faster than a Gen2 CTS-V, and Shelby GT500 (2011), and .4 seconds slower that a 2016 Hellcat, .3 seconds from a 2007 Corvette Z51, it is definitely no slouch.

I know you like the AWD of the RS. But you never answered my other question. For $42k, $35k or even $25k, are you really going to drive your Focus RS in the slushy crap? What's the difference if it is a Camaro or Focus RS? Ruining an expensive car is ruining an expensive car.

[bill25]

There are 2 ideas for the Focus RS.

The first: For the person who wants a practical, quick car they can drive year long because they don't want 2 cars. This can carry people, groceries, and drive year round by only changing tires. Now this is smaller, but far cheaper than what the cars you mentioned were, except the Civic. Which really looks ridiculous by the way. Not that I love the exterior of the Focus RS, it is a little less ridiculous looking.

The second: The used case, in my opinion, having this as a daily when it is depreciated and having the Camaro would be a big upgrade from having the 3 and the Camaro. Yes, my plan would be to drive it in garbage weather, because my plan isn't to buy this at 30K, but more like maybe 10K down the road.

I get that it isn't as big as a SS or Hellcat, but it is pretty good performance (actually very close to the Hellcat for 20K less) for way less than those. Yes the Civic is cheaper, but that is really the only competition, and I don't see myself trying to tame the angry mosquito. And lastly, I have been driving FWD for way too long. I would like to try out different driving dynamics.

[kevm14]

There are 2 ideas for the Focus RS.

The first: For the person who wants a practical, quick car they can drive year long because they don't want 2 cars. This can carry people, groceries, and drive year round by only changing tires. Now this is smaller, but far cheaper than what the cars you mentioned were, except the Civic. Which really looks ridiculous by the way. Not that I love the exterior of the Focus RS, it is a little less ridiculous looking.

The second: The used case, in my opinion, having this as a daily when it is depreciated and having the Camaro would be a big upgrade from having the 3 and the Camaro. Yes, my plan would be to drive it in garbage weather, because my plan isn't to buy this at 30K, but more like maybe 10K down the road.

Yeah the second case makes some sense, as that's my case for every single car ever. My only response to that is, when the Focus RS reaches $10k, what else is available in that price range that might be, well, more interesting? I mean you can go find a WRX beater today if you want, and 5 or 10 years ago, a new WRX may have seemed appealing as a future daily. But here we are, and I don't personally think they are appealing at all.

And as much as I like the Cobalt SS, it turns out that by the time things depreciate to my price range, my interests sort of move on.

I get that it isn't as big as a SS or Hellcat, but it is pretty good performance (actually very close to the Hellcat for 20K less) for way less than those. Yes the Civic is cheaper, but that is really the only competition, and I don't see myself trying to tame the angry mosquito. And lastly, I have been driving FWD for way too long. I would like to try out different driving dynamics.

Sure, I get that. All I can say is, I think you would be blown away by the driving dynamics of the Type R. I don't think it would be like your 3 but with more power. It would feel like something different entirely. It's probably not something you'd be able to imagine without just trying it.

Here are some gross generalizations. For pure driving dynamics, I think RWD is best. There are exceptions but there aren't really any RWD cars where the AWD version makes them better. The new M5 is a notable exception.

And cars available in AWD are an improvement from the base car, because they started with FWD so AWD tends to even out weigh dist, even as it adds weight. The Type R is a notable exception. I do not think it would be better with AWD, and I do think the Focus RS would be worse with FWD.

FWD tends to be the worst all around for both performance and handling. Again, the Type R is an exception. The Cobalt SS also did pretty good and at 260hp I think it would have been worse with AWD. I'd say the same for the Mazdaspeed 3. What makes the Type R so amazing is it is at a performance level where the competition needed to switch to AWD. Which means the barrier was not physics; it was engineering.

However, those FWD cars would most likely be better if they were somehow converted to RWD (which would require a significant amount of re-engineering, not just bolting up a rear differential and driveshaft). I would assume that would even apply to the Type R. Unfortunately, that is not really a thing. It would end up as a completely different car for a completely different market, and unfortunately, at a completely different price point most likely.