Eh....172 Cup vs Focus ST?
ClioSport.net
Register a free account today to become a member!
Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
-
When you purchase through links on our site, we may earn an affiliate commission. Read more here.
Eh....172 Cup vs Focus ST?
As far as handling is concerned the mk1 V is far behind the mk2.
Straight line the ST is faster. Trust me as an ex owner of both and I did say there wasn't much in it in the dry.
Bluefin the ST and it will spank a mk1 V6 in a straight line and round the bends.
The mk1 V6 is not all that fast a car to be honest; you have to have perfect conditions to get the most out of it and that is a rare occurance in the UK; but it is a crazy car and a crazy drive!!!!!!
Straight line the ST is faster. Trust me as an ex owner of both and I did say there wasn't much in it in the dry.
Bluefin the ST and it will spank a mk1 V6 in a straight line and round the bends.
The mk1 V6 is not all that fast a car to be honest; you have to have perfect conditions to get the most out of it and that is a rare occurance in the UK; but it is a crazy car and a crazy drive!!!!!!
Last edited:
APR LCR225
We are talking about straight line figures here though, not handling, as when it comes down to that they are a totally diferent car. I know full well about all the suspension alterations, as we were going to convert a smashed mk 1 230 to run mk2 spec running gear including converting the engine with 255 parts. Im also very familiar with the volvo unit found in the focus st and have experienced it in various cars putting out all kinds of power figures with differernt states of tune.
We were also talking about standard cars, bluefin isnt in the equation. When it comes down to out and out pace, there wont be much in it between the two either way before driver error comes into it.
After seeing how close it was in my mates gti-6, im pretty confident my cup wouldnt do a bad job against one at all driven well (more so with its mods)
We will have to agree to disagree then.
IMO the standard Focus ST is faster than the standard Clio V6 mk1 in a straight line.
If the conditions are perfectly dry with nothing on the road (leaves etc) then there isn't much in it, but the ST would still shade it.
Which of the two have you owned though and not just read stats on???
Did I mention that I have owned both?
I'm moving onto something much slower now anyway.
IMO the standard Focus ST is faster than the standard Clio V6 mk1 in a straight line.
If the conditions are perfectly dry with nothing on the road (leaves etc) then there isn't much in it, but the ST would still shade it.
Which of the two have you owned though and not just read stats on???
Did I mention that I have owned both?
I'm moving onto something much slower now anyway.
Clio MK 4
I dont think you'd keep up. You probably wont beat it but at the end of the day who will be more embarrassed at the pub?
"You couldn't pull away from a clio?" o dear lol. This being the majority of people underestimate clio sports
"You couldn't pull away from a clio?" o dear lol. This being the majority of people underestimate clio sports
133/225/CLS AMG
From a standing start I think you'd be surprised how well an RS Clio would keep up!!
The ST has torque limiters in 1st and 2nd gear which makes them noticably slower than they should be, and a lot less pull than my Megane 225 off the line.
Also a mate of mine has one and according to one of the Ford magazines they could get it to hit the stated 0-60 time.
From 3rd gear up you'd stuggle, but a straigh up drag race wouldn't be as clear cut as you'd think. Having owned a Clio 172 and test driven an ST I'm quite confident of that.
The ST has torque limiters in 1st and 2nd gear which makes them noticably slower than they should be, and a lot less pull than my Megane 225 off the line.
Also a mate of mine has one and according to one of the Ford magazines they could get it to hit the stated 0-60 time.
From 3rd gear up you'd stuggle, but a straigh up drag race wouldn't be as clear cut as you'd think. Having owned a Clio 172 and test driven an ST I'm quite confident of that.
172 cup
Clio v6 & Atom 300
More v haters. Boring! :-(
From memory and a quick google:
Standard cars!
Focus ST 6.5 to 60
v6 mk1 6.4 to 60
v6 mk2 5.8 to 60
So real world the ST would beat a mk1 due to better spread of torque unless the vee was ready in the correct gear. BUT a mk2 would significantly pull away!
Lets get back on topic!!!!!
Peter
From memory and a quick google:
Standard cars!
Focus ST 6.5 to 60
v6 mk1 6.4 to 60
v6 mk2 5.8 to 60
So real world the ST would beat a mk1 due to better spread of torque unless the vee was ready in the correct gear. BUT a mk2 would significantly pull away!
Lets get back on topic!!!!!
Peter
133/225/CLS AMG
Thing is mate, the ST does not hit its quote figure!! So I'd imagine any V6 would have it off the line.
As I said the torque is limited in 1st and 2nd gear to prevent the wheels spinning up. You drive a Megane 225 then get in a Focus ST and you'll feel the difference straight away.
The Focus is quick but by my experience and what I have read in Ford tuning mags, it needs a re-map to actually hit its performance figures.
As I said the torque is limited in 1st and 2nd gear to prevent the wheels spinning up. You drive a Megane 225 then get in a Focus ST and you'll feel the difference straight away.
The Focus is quick but by my experience and what I have read in Ford tuning mags, it needs a re-map to actually hit its performance figures.
Point noted ;-)
However, what I was saying is that on the roads, bumping into another car and then ragging it off from a set of lights has too many variables to really deicde which is quickest. A lot of it comes down to whether the other driver realised you were racing, whether he coudl really be bothered, or was just pushing it a bit to see how far you would go.
Cheers H
APR LCR225
Read stats on...dear me
Granted havnt owned both, but driven both mk1 and mk2 v6s, focus rs, megane 225/F1, r32 golfs, gti golfs, type rs, new volvo s40 t5 (same engine as st and in very similar spec), subaru rb5, Various turbo volvos, 390bhp V70 R,450bhp porsche gt2 to name a few. And know how to drive, and know how engines actually work, and know how to tune them beyond simple things like bluefins, which seem to make simple idiots into knowledge pots.
Another point is that in this theoretical keeping up with whoever argument, if you know how to drive, how wet the road is isnt going to matter with these relatively small power outputs unless its now from standing starts. In which case the V6 should have it as if the focus is anything like the volvo t5s/Rs etc (despite st running less power) traction from low speeds is awful.
Granted havnt owned both, but driven both mk1 and mk2 v6s, focus rs, megane 225/F1, r32 golfs, gti golfs, type rs, new volvo s40 t5 (same engine as st and in very similar spec), subaru rb5, Various turbo volvos, 390bhp V70 R,450bhp porsche gt2 to name a few. And know how to drive, and know how engines actually work, and know how to tune them beyond simple things like bluefins, which seem to make simple idiots into knowledge pots.
Another point is that in this theoretical keeping up with whoever argument, if you know how to drive, how wet the road is isnt going to matter with these relatively small power outputs unless its now from standing starts. In which case the V6 should have it as if the focus is anything like the volvo t5s/Rs etc (despite st running less power) traction from low speeds is awful.
APR LCR225
You talking about mine or standard car? As mine is running full decat exhaust, BMC intake, port matched inlet manifold/plenum, ptfe gaskets, flowed head, Custom live mapped ECU. Maybe cams and 4-2-1 manifold shortly.
Former R27 & Mk1 V6 owner
Just to upset some of the haters - Evo quote the Mk1 V6 as doing 60 in 5.8 and the Mk2 as also doing 60 in 5.8 
Extra weight of the Mk2, and power made further up the rev range (peak torque 1.2krpm higher, peak power at 7,250rpm as opposed to 6,000rpm of the Mk1) maybe cancels out that extra 25bhp? Anyway, had a play with 2 Mk2s (probably people from here?) on the way home from FCS and there was literally nothing at all in it. Perhaps the drivers and passengers were heavier than me and my mate that were in mine
<fans flames>
Dan
Extra weight of the Mk2, and power made further up the rev range (peak torque 1.2krpm higher, peak power at 7,250rpm as opposed to 6,000rpm of the Mk1) maybe cancels out that extra 25bhp? Anyway, had a play with 2 Mk2s (probably people from here?) on the way home from FCS and there was literally nothing at all in it. Perhaps the drivers and passengers were heavier than me and my mate that were in mine <fans flames>
Dan
I've hung on to one in a straight drag, and he went nowhere. Modded 172 though. Was around the time they first came out so may well have been tighter than a nuns chuff.
They'll pull away when you hit 5th no doubt, but the bhp/tonne is utterly unremarkable so it's never going to leave you for dust below 100mph.
They'll pull away when you hit 5th no doubt, but the bhp/tonne is utterly unremarkable so it's never going to leave you for dust below 100mph.
Obviously the driver of the ST wasn't trying as it would piss on that feable engined A3.
Focus ST
I went from 182FF to Focus ST.
As said in standard form there really will be very little in it. Wouldn't be surprised if some 'quick' cups are slightly quicker than STs they've raced, especially if the ST is low mileage. 182 was more fun and arguably quicker on twisty roads.
Mk1 V6 - 0-60 is flattered by RWD traction. EVO timed 0-100 of standard ST at 16.5 seconds and Mk1 V6 at 17.0 so there really will be very little in it.
Running dreamscience re-map and it now feels night and day quicker although a lot of this may be due to the ridiculous torque figure (450 NM). Addictive though, especially with the 5-pot warble.
Cup and ST are very different cars. ST is a lump, but is supremely comfortable, very solid, handles surprisingly well considering weight, and you don't have to drive everywhere at 5000+ rpm to feel like you making swift progress. Still miss my 182 sometimes though!
As said in standard form there really will be very little in it. Wouldn't be surprised if some 'quick' cups are slightly quicker than STs they've raced, especially if the ST is low mileage. 182 was more fun and arguably quicker on twisty roads.
Mk1 V6 - 0-60 is flattered by RWD traction. EVO timed 0-100 of standard ST at 16.5 seconds and Mk1 V6 at 17.0 so there really will be very little in it.
Running dreamscience re-map and it now feels night and day quicker although a lot of this may be due to the ridiculous torque figure (450 NM). Addictive though, especially with the 5-pot warble.
Cup and ST are very different cars. ST is a lump, but is supremely comfortable, very solid, handles surprisingly well considering weight, and you don't have to drive everywhere at 5000+ rpm to feel like you making swift progress. Still miss my 182 sometimes though!
