Which one and why? I'm Strongly considering one or the other as my next car. In Australia the Focus is a 5 door and Fiesta is 3 door.
What kind of driving do you mostly do, what are your roads like, and how much space do you need?
3dr vs 5dr makes it easier, the Focus is a no-brainer if you need back seats and cargo space. The Focus is faster in a straight line, and is nicer and roomier inside. The Fiesta is much more fun on tight canyon/mountain roads and easier to deal with in congested city traffic.
I actually strongly prefer the 5dr Fiesta and wouldn't have bought one if we only got the 3dr. Having back doors makes the FiST a much more justifiable and practical car than it'd be without them. I'd buy an actual coupe/sports car if I only wanted two doors.
I currently drive an Integra Type R DC5 (RSX for you Americans) And I'm almost always alone in the car or with my Girlfriend. Back seats don't always get used.
I do a lot of freeway driving to and from work and that could sometimes mean getting stuck in traffic. I also go to university and the car parks are pretty tight sometimes.
I want a car that feels as quick or quicker than the Integra but good fuel economy is important because freeway driving. I've narrowed it down to these hatches for this reason
The reason I've been looking for a new car is because the Integra is getting old, the air con fucking sucks which is a deal breaker in Australia and I get 400km to a tank.So after 4 years it feels like it's time to part ways with it.
It's a souped up economy car, and it's FWD. A sports car should be designed from the ground up for performance, and in almost all cases sends power to the rear wheels. (There are a few notable exceptions that I'll except, like the ITR and the FWD 90s Elan.)\
Not saying the ST is a bad car at all, I wouldn't own one if I didn't like it, but it's a daily driver with sporting credentials, not a real sports car.
You might enjoy the Fiesta ST, then. I personally think of it as the closest modern equivalent to the Honda hatches of the '90s, like a modern EG or EK in many ways. You'll probably be a little let down on performance if you're coming from an ITR (although I've never driven a DC5 Type R since they never sold it here), but it's still quick and the fuel economy is great.
Yeah I'm really leaning towards a Fiesta ST, Power can easily be increased with Kits from Mountune anyway.
My Integra dyno'd 150hp at the wheels ( think a lot of power has escaped from the engine over the years). Any idea how much the Fiesta puts down at the wheels? Ford says it pulls 180hp but doesn't mention if that's at the flywheel, hubs or wheels
Neither, Ford cars are dogshit.
Wait for the Mazdaspeed 3 you fucking Jewish Ford shill.
Anyone who denies that Ford has paid shills on this board is blatantly retarded.
>good fuel economy
I just got a focus st and I'm averaging 28mpg. That's about 75% highway and 25% city. I drive somewhat hard once traffic opens up, but like a grandma if trafficy. Focus isn't terrible in the city unless you're trying to park into tight spaces
I think the fiesta mpg is closer to 35 hwy
I picked the Focus out of the two. Definitely a bit more room inside. But as
said the turning radius sucks.
Having driven both on the track I did have more fun in the Focus. I may be a bit biased though!
Oh wow, I thought the ITR made way more than that.
The ST should put down about 180HP at the wheels stock when it's in overboost. Ford rates it at 180 crank outside the US for insurance reasons, it has an "overboost" that puts it up to 200hp at full throttle but it's limited to 21 continuous seconds or something like that. The timer resets as soon as you lift off and get back on, though, and when are you ever going to be WOT for more than 20 seconds straight?
Torque will be the thing that really blows you away with it. It's only rated at 215 ft/lb but many FiSTs have dynoed with well above that at the wheels, it's really closer to 240-250 at the flywheel.
Yeah the K20 really has fuck all torque, I have to drop it down at least 3 gears if I suddenly want to run through an orange light or overtake cars on the highway... All my turbo and V8 friends don't have this issue.
The ST is really nice for that kind of stuff too, all of its performance is at the low end so it's great at passing. It's actually so biased toward the low end that in the canyons, I find it's faster out of corners in 3rd at 3000RPM than 2nd at 5500 or whatever.
And yeah, K-series are very weak on torque, as are pretty much all Honda motors. I had an '09 Civic SI for a while (which also has a K20) and it was really slow around town, and currently have an AP2 S2000, which also suffers from lack of torque.
>said the turning radius sucks.
fucking this, the turning radius on my Focus is so bad it's actually caused me a bit of buyers remorse.
Turning Radius on a Focus ST 39.4ft
Turning Radius on a Ford F150 40ft
It goes lock to lock super fucking quick, but you gotta navigate parking lots like you're a boat trying to dock.
Mine is an Australian delivered so it is missing
> Japanese K20A (AUDM spec has K20A2)
> Push to start button
> 17 Inch wheels
> Larger headers
> HID headlights
150hp for that car is about right. It made the same power as base model dodge neons and Chevy cavaliers from the mid 90s. But with the benefits of calling itself a special edition and costing triple.
Torque is the main thing that governs acceleration. It's what gets you out of corners quickly, which is why
>HP sells cars, torque wins races.
Is a thing.
HP is mostly relevant in terms of top speed, torque is pretty much everything else.
Have fun with your faulty turbos and disintegrating clutches kek.
inb4 endless excuses from Ford shills
>look mom it's my first reply
Hahahahahahaahhahahaa the irony of THIS FAGGOT.
Are you joking? Audi and Peugeot dominated LM in Diesels for years, and only got dethroned by Porsche this year, who had a hybrid car with extremely torquey electric motors.
GTs are petrol-powered mostly because they're based on street sports cars, and people don't want diesels in sports cars because they're less exciting to drive. The engine tunes and mods on them are heavily biased toward increasing torque, though, and a major part of why turbos have become so common is because they generate very good torque numbers.
>I don't see too many diesels competing at Le Mans faggot
Other than Audi and Peugeot, who is running a diesel as their mainstay? It's always been my understanding that they were fringe competitors who blew the fuck out of everyone, so they ended up changing the rules to give everyone else a handicap. Diesels can be good if you throw millions into research, but they don't win races the way gasoline/hybrid cars do. Diesel is just an inferior fuel, it was designed for granola faggot corn farmers.
Yeah and they still got BTFO by a 35 year old Porsche in total laps.
>tfw glorious genocidal racing pedigree
And hasn't Audi recently had their shit slapped by Porsche again?
Sure, if you call winning by 2 laps "monumentally ass-fucked."
The point of the argument was that torquey cars are faster than high-HP/low torque cars on track, though, so the point still stands. (Although it actually gets fucked up quite a bit at Le Mans, because of the way they balance performance.)
Uh, what? Faggot, Porsche achieved 397 laps in 1971 on ancient dinosaur technology.
Audi got 380 on next-gen TDI supercar technology.
That's a full 17-lap bitchslap. Yeah, monumentally assfucked indeed.
I thought you were talking about the 919 vs. the R18 last year.
But that aside, do you really think classic and modern LM results are comparable?
For one, there were no chicanes back then, and the chicanes add close to 20 seconds a lap. (Based on comparing the fastest laps in 1989 and 1990.) If every lap was at that speed, that would be close to a 40 lap difference - and, in fact, the winning car in 1990 did exactly 30 laps less than the 1989 winner. The fastest Porsche, a 962C, did 382 laps in '89 and only 350 in '90.
Secondly, the things holding modern cars back is regulations, not the pure potential of the technology.
Thirdly, they were much less strict about caution periods in those days, probably 10 of the laps a modern winner is missing are due to yellow and red flag periods.
I'd imagine it's because they went with wheels that are too wide for the wheel wells?
My Fiesta ST has turning circle issues too. I switched to a sportier tire, with the same official width as stock but a wider shoulder, and I get rub at full lock.
No, I don't know the details but I know the "problem" is in the steering rack. It's not a problem at all, it's a design decision. It goes lock to lock in 2 turns. Fiesta ST has a turning circle of 34ft, my old WRX had a turning circle of 31ft. It took a while for me to get used to.
However, my WRX (2012) understeered like fucking crazy, the Focus ST, while having a significantly wider turning radius turns much better. Regardless of that, it doesn't really seem to help much since a WRX still trounces the ST on track times. Oh well. I prefer the ST either way.
Well, I figure they designed the rack that way on purpose to keep the tires from rubbing with wider wheels. The chassis was designed for much smaller tires and then they crammed big ones in there on the ST and had to limit the rack.
I know exactly what you mean about understeer BTW, I had a Bugeye WRX back in the day and it understeered like a pig compared to my ST. Subarus really need a front LSD and the non-STi models don't have them, so when trying to accelerate through a corner all the power goes to the inside front wheel.
Holy fuck you guys are retarded. Read the thread. Some anon argued that you dont see diesels at Le Mans because torque isnt that important. I was simply pointing out that diesels have fucking dominated Le Mans for the past ten years.
Focus drivers are suicidally bad drivers who are oblivious about any rules of the road and must have got their license in a packet of cereal.
That's my observation from a daily commute of 100km.