2009 Ford Focus RS!

[forza2.0]

I think the RS will rewrite history in terms of FWD handling. When getting off the line however, it will struggle to gets its power down, and no weather, LSD or clever electronics will change that.

well you have to remember that the accelerator isnt a "on or off switch", and a talented driver can be extremely quick in a fwd hatch!

 

[the Interceptor]

Agreed, but accelerating from a standstill is a physical process with a natural limit for a FWD car. If you exceed that limit, your tires will spin, and you will lose pace. Unless you fit wider tires to increase grip, there is no way to raise the bar. Therefore, the new suspension setup of the RS will improve cornering, but not getting off the line.

 

[Joey D]

If you exceed the limit in any car, no matter what the drivetrain, you will spin the tires. It's all about knowing how to launch.

 

[the Interceptor]

Sure, but the FWD setup has the problem of shifting weight to the back when accelerating, thus reducing front end grip. Therefore, a FWD car with 300 hp and 235 tires will be slower to 60 mph than a RWD car with 300 hp and 235 tires. Assuming that theres the amount X of horsepower you can actually put to the ground with a FWD car when accelerating from a standstill, putting in horsepower above X will not increase acceleration.

 

[Joey D]

Sure, but the FWD setup has the problem of shifting weight to the back when accelerating, thus reducing front end grip. Therefore, a FWD car with 300 hp and 235 tires will be slower to 60 mph than a RWD car with 300 hp and 235 tires.

A FWD car will not always be slower than a RWD or AWD car with the same horsepower and tires. There are many more factors to consider, drivetrain lose, weight, gearing, etc.

 

[forza2.0]

Agreed, but accelerating from a standstill is a physical process with a natural limit for a FWD car. If you exceed that limit, your tires will spin, and you will lose pace. Unless you fit wider tires to increase grip, there is no way to raise the bar. Therefore, the new suspension setup of the RS will improve cornering, but not getting off the line.

Yes very true. Once I get my new car, one of the first things im gonna do is stick the widest tyres that will fit on it, with some super grippy tires.

I really love FWD cars for spirited driving on public roads, its their "flaws" or imperfections that make them so perfect!

 

[Jim Prower]

A FWD car will not always be slower than a RWD or AWD car with the same horsepower and tires. There are many more factors to consider, drivetrain lose, weight, gearing, etc.

Yes, that's understood, but if will you admit that if ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, a FWD car will have tractive issues compared to a RWD or AWD car?

 

[the Interceptor]

Yes very true. Once I get my new car, one of the first things im gonna do is stick the widest tyres that will fit on it, with some super grippy tires.

But that gives you another problem. The front tire width of a FWD car is very limited, because you will get severe suspension setup issues and problems with full steering lock. Usually, a RWD car will be able to handle wide tires on the rear axle much better.

 

[Dave A]

A FWD car will not always be slower than a RWD or AWD car with the same horsepower and tires. There are many more factors to consider, drivetrain lose, weight, gearing, etc.

No, but the FWD setup in comparison to the others is at a natural disagvatage when it comes to putting it's power down. The weight shifts off the powered wheels and the point of maximum traction is lowered. I like FWD cars though, all the ones I've owned have been good drivers cars.

 

[Joey D]

I understand how FWD work, yes if everything is the same then the RWD should be faster. You'll just never find two equal with all the variables the same between FWD and RWD to make an accurate comparison though. Really it's a moot point.

 

[the Interceptor]

If you compare real life figures of cars, you'll notice that even the most powerful FWD cars will struggle to crack the 6 seconds mark from 0 to 60, while RWD with comparable specs will usually play in the low 5 second range.

 

[Joey D]

If you compare real life figures of cars, you'll notice that even the most powerful FWD cars will struggle to crack the 6 seconds mark from 0 to 60, while RWD with comparable specs will usually play in the low 5 second range.

The Neon SRT-4 does it in 5.6 per Car & Driver.
http://www.allpar.com/neon/neon-srt-4.html

Cobalt SS does it in 5.7 per GM.
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/28/officially-official-2008-chevy-cobalt-ss-bows-at-sema/

Once again it's all in how the car is set up.

 

[forza2.0]

A 200hp hothatch will most likely be faster than a 200hp rwd or awd car. Go up to 300hp and on average the 4wd car will be the most consistently fast, and the rwd car the fastest on the track in the right conditions.

For example the megane sport trophy is faster than the RX8 on most tracks that both cars have been tested on!

 

[the Interceptor]

The Neon SRT-4 does it in 5.6 per Car & Driver.
http://www.allpar.com/neon/neon-srt-4.html

Cobalt SS does it in 5.7 per GM.
http://www.autoblog.com/2007/10/28/officially-official-2008-chevy-cobalt-ss-bows-at-sema/

Those cars are about the fastest stock FWD accelerators you will find, which brings me back to my previous point: there's a limit to what you can put down, and adding more horsepower won't shift that limit. If I'm not mistaken, Ford estimates the new RS with 5.6 seconds to 60 mph as well. Therefore, I think this is as good as it gets.

A 200hp hothatch will most likely be faster than a 200hp rwd or awd car. Go up to 300hp and on average the 4wd car will be the most consistently fast, and the rwd car the fastest on the track in the right conditions.

For example the megane sport trophy is faster than the RX8 on most tracks that both cars have been tested on!

I agree to that, but I'm only talking about the traction issues at low speeds.

 

[forza2.0]

I agree to that, but I'm only talking about the traction issues at low speeds.

Oh right, yes that is 100% true, a 240hp cupra is just as fast to 62mph as a 310hp cupra or a 400hp cupra. Above that speed is where the more powerful cars can use their power.

 

[Philly]

That could also be an effect of the gearing. It certainly does make sense that 5.6 could very well be at or near the FWD 0-60 time, however we do not know if the RS is geared significantly higher or anything. Also, how do the weights compare between this and an SRT Neon?

How much does weight distribution at a standstill play a role? The GTI has a 60/40 distribution F/R, maybe a car with 70/30 would be quicker to 60? Possibly faster than a car with similar specs that was RWD because more weight will stay over the front axle than shift to the rear? And how much would a stiffer rear suspension under acceleration affect weight transfer?

 

[Jim Prower]

And what are the effects of said changed distribution and suspension settings when the road curves?

 

[Philly]

I believe we were talking about straight-line speed, but yeah, such compromises would probably hurt turning too much, especially when turns are the FWD's biggest advantages.

 

[McLaren]

If you compare real life figures of cars, you'll notice that even the most powerful FWD cars will struggle to crack the 6 seconds mark from 0 to 60, while RWD with comparable specs will usually play in the low 5 second range.

Um, I can hit 60 in a little over 5 seconds, thank you. The TL is rated at 5.5 seconds.

 

[forza2.0]

Um, I can hit 60 in a little over 5 seconds, thank you. The TL is rated at 5.5 seconds.

How are you timing it?

 

[McLaren]

How are you timing it?

Through my head though I usually hit 6. But, I've already read a few online articles that state the 0-60 is in 5.5.
Car & Driver

 

[forza2.0]

Through my head though I usually hit 6. But, I've already read a few online articles that state the 0-60 is in 5.5.
Car & Driver

What are the stats on the TL?

Dont worry found em. Thing is american mags always seem to get fast figures. All of the european hothatches with a similiar power to weight ratio are usually over 6 seconds.

 

[Jim Prower]

It might be those extra two miles an hour, or a bad conversion from KM/H to mph. or, hell, even different gearing between Europe and the US, or test procedures. Could be anything, really.

 

[Blackbird.]

Um, I can hit 60 in a little over 5 seconds, thank you. The TL is rated at 5.5 seconds.

I'd like to also toot my own horn and say the SRT4 is rated at 5.6 seconds.

 

[the Interceptor]

Okay, 5.5 secs. Any faster stock street FWD car out there?

On another note, it was stupid of me to introduce times of this. So my question is whether you guys basically agree that there are limits to a FWD car you can't overcome by adding power, which was my original point?

 

[Blackbird.]

Actually I just read the C&D report and that was the '03 SRT4 times. They tested the '04 and it took off another .3 seconds making it 5.3sec 0-60.

The '03 car ran to 60 mph in 5.6 seconds and cleared the quarter in 14.1 seconds at 102 mph. The '04 model nipped 0.3 second off the 60-mph sprint (5.3 seconds) and ran the quarter in 13.9 at 103 mph.

On another note, it was stupid of me to introduce times of this. So my question is whether you guys basically agree that there are limits to a FWD car you can't overcome by adding power, which was my original point?

I agree. Taking again the SRT4 as an example. The Stage 3 upgrade that gives it I think nearly or above 300hp I think is pointless. Unless possibly if you do a
lot of other things to make it hook up I think through most of those gears full throttle the wheels will just spin. To sum it up I agree FWD definitely have limits.

 

[forza2.0]

To throw in another argument, fifth gear tested 3 different cars to see if they did the claimed 0-62mph times and non of the cars hit it. The atom was close, the Mini Cooper S works was a little off and the mazda mx5 way off!

 

[niky]

The MX-5, from what I remember, takes about 7.9 seconds to hit 100 km/h... I still can't believe C&D's 6.5 second time to 60 mph... atmo corrections or not... the 6.9 other magazines are getting (C&D's SAE corrections are usually about that optimistic) seems better, but I can't help feeling that there's no way you can get an MX-5 that fast except at a drag-strip.

FWD cars will be slower off-the-line... but not necessarily from weight transfer... just due to the inadequacy of suspension geometry to keep the tires on the ground. Front-engined RWD cars also have similar issues, though to a lesser extent... but it's there... in fact, in some RWD cars, they design some softness in the rear to allow weight transfer, which means bad things for the handling. In FWD cars, you want to prevent weight transfer to the back, which means a stiffer rear... which means good things for the handling.

Still, a FWD car is handicapped off the line, but once underway, it can hold its own, and thanks to clever traction control, torque-limiting strategies (a la Mazdaspeed3) and, of course, better tires, they can be quick at anything past a standing start.

235 is not an excessive size for front-tires, for a front-driver. especially a new one... I know some track-junkies running up to 265 in front on older FWDs... which weren't designed to take more than 215... for newer cars, which already have bigger wheel wells and fitments, it's not unknown for tuners to stick 245s on in front. This is what's on the Civic Type R that beat the S2000 at the racetrack... same tire compound, same sizes, same power... the Civic had 245/205 and the S2000 had 205/245... the Integra that lost to both was stuck to 205s since it couldn't take wider tires.

The Golf GTi R that was tested in Sport Compact Car from 0-60 in well under 5 seconds had 265 tires in front, and that was apparently no handicap on the racetrack. Oh... it did have R-Compoundds... so that may be construed as cheating...

 

[Tornado]

Also, how do the weights compare between this and an SRT Neon?

Based on what the Focus ST weighed, probably about the same.

Yes, that's understood, but if will you admit that if ALL ELSE IS EQUAL, a FWD car will have tractive issues compared to a RWD or AWD car?

Time Paradox!

[/stir]

 

[YSSMAN]

Okay, 5.5 secs. Any faster stock street FWD car out there?

The GM W-Body cars, tuned by GMPD (Impala SS, Grand Prix GXP, LaCrosse Super) were all supposed to hit 60 MPH in the same neighborhood. Considering that they're all pretty much 4000 lb lead-sleds with OHV V8s and FWD matched to four-speed slushboxes, its an oddity that deserves recognition.