# New Focus ST - Check the exhaust note!



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

http://www.ford.co.uk/ie/foc_c307_exper ... e/-/-/-/-#

Pheww! 8)


----------



## dj c225 (Nov 3, 2004)

The 5 Cylinder sound is great, looks like a nice little car, though not really something I would go for.


----------



## coupe-sport (May 7, 2002)

Really growing on me this. Loved the 5 cyl warble of my 20v turbo Fiat Coupe (made the TT sound like a fridge :? ) and i've always had a soft spot for Ford Hot Hatches.


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

That website is exceptional. The best car launch site I have seen by miles.

I like everything about the car other than the front.

The badge will probably preclude me buying one though, which is a shame  Image wise I would prefer a GTi.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Carlos said:


> That website is exceptional. The best car launch site I have seen by miles.
> 
> I like everything about the car other than the front.
> 
> The badge will probably preclude me buying one though, which is a shame  Image wise I would prefer a GTi.


Thats fine, just make sure you pull over when you see it in your rear-view :lol:

It will thrash it....


----------



## che6mw (Nov 13, 2003)

Carlos said:


> That website is exceptional. The best car launch site I have seen by miles.
> 
> I like everything about the car other than the front.
> 
> The badge will probably preclude me buying one though, which is a shame  Image wise I would prefer a GTi.


Interesting ... have to agree that sadly the Ford badge does nothing for me, but having said that my forage in to Toyota land has taught me they know how to treat a customer versus my time with premium brands.

Would you preclude the Ford GT from your shopping list because of the badge though ?


----------



## genocidalduck (May 19, 2005)

I've had plenty of Fords. As the Sierra's and Mondeo's were great as cabs. Nothing wrong with the cars at all build quality is miles better than it used to be and parts are cheap than most if not all other Marques. However i hate there service department. Not yet found a Ford dealer that has been good.


----------



## Carlos (May 6, 2002)

I am not anti-Ford - our last family car was a Mondeo estate and that did the job no probs, didn't miss a beat in the three years I owned it. The Focus ST, in the market it's in - up against the Golf GTi - and used M3s are approaching this price point - I'm not so sure. I love the Focus RS - IMO it transcended the Ford brand, something I'm not sure the ST can do.

I see Autocar have put it top of the tree in the Hot hatch test this week.

Sico - I hardly think a 222bhp Focus is going to "thrash" a 197bhp Golf GTi. In the real world such a performance difference (0.2 seconds to 60) will manifest itself as "slightly faster on the straights" - nothing more.

All this said, if I had the money in my hand for a new hot hatch now, I wouldn't be able to decide whether to put it into the Golf or the Focus...but it would be one of these two.

The Ford GT is not on my shopping list for reasons other than the badge!


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Carlos said:


> I am not anti-Ford - our last family car was a Mondeo estate and that did the job no probs, didn't miss a beat in the three years I owned it. The Focus ST, in the market it's in - up against the Golf GTi - and used M3s are approaching this price point - I'm not so sure. I love the Focus RS - IMO it transcended the Ford brand, something I'm not sure the ST can do.
> 
> I see Autocar have put it top of the tree in the Hot hatch test this week.
> 
> ...


Just going on the information in Driver magazine this month!


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

dj c225 said:


> The 5 Cylinder sound is great, looks like a nice little car, though not really something I would go for.


The Volvo 5 pot lump is a good un.

Original Audi Q 5 pot was a charasmatic unit.

I passed a german plated ST some weeks ago on the M4. It looked quite good in dark grey I thought. I' still go for a Golf over the Focus for quality, reliability, image, and residuals (that may easily neutralise the price difference)

Gotta admire Ford tho for puting the engine from an old Volvo estate into a Focus. The 2.5T lump should tune to 300 hp easily, FWD limiting factor.
Should be a nice torquey drive stock and enough to irritate many a more expensive car.


----------



## Kell (May 28, 2002)

I must admit thta the shape is growing on me too.

Sounds pretty nice also.

If it wasn't my money, I'd probably have the Focus, if it was my money I'd go for the Golf for similar reasons that Gary cited above.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> dj c225 said:
> 
> 
> > The 5 Cylinder sound is great, looks like a nice little car, though not really something I would go for.
> ...


Risiduals Ahhh well thats where your wrong - Glass's guide who are widley used in the auto industry are predicting the risiduals of the Focus will be slightly better than the golf.

Read Autoexpress, Autocar or Driver magazine for that information.

Your impression that the Golf is better quality etc etc.

I think that to but then I think logically. Take of the badge compare the cars or put the VW badge on the Ford and the Ford on the VW.

I mean have you actually driven, been inside and felt the materials etc. Probably not, you make an awful amount of assumptions based on badge.

Try to think and view beyond the badge and logically you would be wrong.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

sico said:


> garyc said:
> 
> 
> > dj c225 said:
> ...


OK, you think logically too - Ford have never before beaten VW Golf on quality and residuals with any of their offerings. why would fitting a bigger engine in the new Focus change this?

Of course I havent driven one. But I have driven a new Focus Tdci and a new Gold V gti, plus tdi (quality/materials same in both). Golf still ahead in my perceived quality.

Are you suggesting that Ford are using different materials in the ST Focus than the non ST ones? Or that non-ST Foci (?) are not of same quality fit and finish than the new ST?

I dont know about glasses guide, which is mainly for Arthur Daly types dealing in older cars :wink: , but the leasing cos, who will probably be running more STs and Gtis than anyone, seem to predict stronger residuals for the Golf over the Focus.

Unless Ford have effected some quantum shift in their residuals over VW, which is big news indeed.

Dont get me wrong - I think ST will be good and Ford have raised their game - but the Gti will still be a better overall proposition. First reviews seem to reflect this.

Nice to have the choice of closer competition for Golf tho.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

"which is mainly for Arthur Daly types"

More assumptions. :roll: Ask your BMW or Audi dealers what they use my friend.

What leasing companys are you speaking of?


----------



## BreTT (Oct 30, 2002)

sico said:


> "which is mainly for Arthur Daly types"
> 
> More assumptions. :roll: Ask your BMW or Audi dealers what they use my friend.


One and the same, aren't they? :wink:


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

sico said:



> "which is mainly for Arthur Daly types"
> 
> More assumptions. :roll: Ask your BMW or Audi dealers what they use my friend.
> 
> What leasing companys are you speaking of?


You missed the :wink: in your quote. :roll:

Lease Plan for starters will charge pretty much same rentals for both. Considering ST _is_ Â£1700 cheaper this indicates to me that Golf will have superior residuals.

You are free to confuse cogent argument as assumption.

Go buy an ST. And it _will _be worth more than a Golf Gti in 3 years if you really want to believe that. I'd suggest you may be in a minority.

"It's official Ford quality now beats VW quality. " Sounds good.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

garyc said:


> sico said:
> 
> 
> > "which is mainly for Arthur Daly types"
> ...


I would agree that the Ford quality is very close to VW now however, dont be fooled into thinking this has a lot to do with risiduals.

The Honda Civic was never a quality car however residuals were stronger than any other in that segment for a couple of years.


----------



## vernan (May 27, 2002)

sico said:


> The Honda Civic was never a quality car however residuals were stronger than any other in that segment for a couple of years.


That is one of the most ridiculous things I have ever heard

What Car reliability survey:

Honda
â€¢ League position: 1st 
â€¢ Claims per 100 vehicles: 9.9
â€¢ Average age (years): 4.76
â€¢ Average mileage: 45,454
â€¢ Average repair cost: Â£325
â€¢ Average time for repair (hours): 2.4

Honda has climbed from third place last year to take the top position in the reliability stakes this year.

The company is a perfect example of why the Japanese makes have such a good reputation for reliability. Fewer than one in 10 Honda owners needed to make a claim on their warranties, and when they did, the problems were fixed quickly â€" the average repair time being a reasonable 2.4 hours.

However, average repair costs are on the pricey side at Â£325. Thatâ€™s Â£62 more than last yearâ€™s Â£263 average.

Despite this, two Honda models â€" the Accord (built between 1999 and 2003) and the Civic (â€™96-â€™01) â€" take first and second place respectively on the individual model league table.

Verdict: ***** An excellent showing for Honda â€" shame about the increase in repair costs, though.


----------



## garyc (May 7, 2002)

Beat me to it. Was going to post that residuals are by product of quality (perceived or real by whatever benchmark), relaibility and supply levels.

Honda deffo produce quality product that is reliable and not over-supplied.


----------



## gcp (Aug 8, 2002)

I was at Cosworth yesterday, plenty of interesting noises from the Focus on the rolling road.

They do upgrade kits for US spec Focus, not over here yet (apparently).


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

vernan said:


> sico said:
> 
> 
> > The Honda Civic was never a quality car however residuals were stronger than any other in that segment for a couple of years.
> ...


Hmm sorry your getting quality mixed up with reliability they are seperate.

However the Focus does top the charts....

I would say that Honda is reliable however I would not say that any of the materials used in the interior or exterior are quality.

The Honda is more reliable that the TT or most BMW's but which is higher "quality"?


----------



## vernan (May 27, 2002)

I think that "quality" is pretty subjective if you are talking in terms of "luxury" or "premium" or whatever . You're in the realms of marketing etc and talking about that's like nailing jelly to the wall.

I think that objectively a car that is 2nd best in a reliability survey of every model is of higher quality than , say, the TT which was the second _worst_ for reliability. The quality feel of plastics on the dashboard is scant consolation when you're waiting for the RAC on the hard shoulder as a Civic goes past on 200,000 miles, unless you have a rubber fetish.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

vernan said:


> I think that "quality" is pretty subjective if you are talking in terms of "luxury" or "premium" or whatever . You're in the realms of marketing etc and talking about that's like nailing jelly to the wall.
> 
> I think that objectively a car that is 2nd best in a reliability survey of every model is of higher quality than , say, the TT which was the second _worst_ for reliability. The quality feel of plastics on the dashboard is scant consolation when you're waiting for the RAC on the hard shoulder as a Civic goes past on 200,000 miles, unless you have a rubber fetish.


Interesting so if a Reliant Robin was extreamly reliable but a TT was not the Robin would be higher quality in your eyes?

Quality is different things to different people and to some extent includes reliablity however it is the overall package in my eyes.


----------



## vernan (May 27, 2002)

I see your point, but I stand by my definition.

The visible plastics in the TT cockpit are more expensive, but then it costs twice as much, so they bloody well should be. There is no doubt that on an entirely level playing field, Honda's mechanical components are the best there are - compared to any other car manufacturer, let alone a TT.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

vernan said:


> I see your point, but I stand by my definition.
> 
> The visible plastics in the TT cockpit are more expensive, but then it costs twice as much, so they bloody well should be. There is no doubt that on an entirely level playing field, Honda's mechanical components are the best there are - compared to any other car manufacturer, let alone a TT.


Furthermore, the TT plastics are lovely to look at, but the fit and finish leaves much to be desired, and the whole thing squeaks like buggery. Parcel shelf rattles, dashboard rattles, seat squeaks etc etc.

Define "quality"... the brand perception, the quality of the materials, the care taken in ensuring the car is fault-free?

My Nissan has poorer quality plastics than my TT, but was put together far better on the inside.

My S4 squeaks too...


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

Did you know that "things gone wrong" is higher for VW than Ford. In fact Ford are just below Toyota.

In fact VW are looking bad.

So Ford is a higher quality product! According to you!

I will get you the proof and where the figures cam from if you want.


----------



## jampott (Sep 6, 2003)

sico said:


> Did you know that "things gone wrong" is higher for VW than Ford. In fact Ford are just below Toyota.
> 
> In fact VW are looking bad.
> 
> ...


I believe you. As soon as people's perception of Ford changes to match this, it won't look like such a daft statement.

VW have been plagued with what appear to be poor design or sourcing choices with component parts.

Unfortunately, Ford themselves don't really make anything in "our" price range or car style (TT, I mean) - but they ARE responsible for Land Rover, Jaguar, Aston Martin, Mazda and Volvo - most of which are considered to be very good (or class leading) niche brands. Not a bad stable, methinks.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

I confidentally lay money on it, Ford's Customer Service is a darn sight more efficient, friendlier and sympathetic than Audi's!  :-*


----------



## che6mw (Nov 13, 2003)

^Abi^ said:


> I confidentally lay money on it, Ford's Customer Service is a darn sight more efficient, friendlier and sympathetic than Audi's!  :-*


my experience of their sales sucks just as bad though. Guy who took me out spent more time telling me he wanted to be a Sky installation engineer than he did try and sell me the car! And despite numerous phone calls and numerous visits to my local dealership they were unable to give me a trade in price I needed to go through with the sale.

Just about the only reason (bar disappointing performance vs. expectations) that I've a Toyota sat outside and not an ST170.


----------



## che6mw (Nov 13, 2003)

sico said:


> Hmm sorry your getting quality mixed up with reliability they are seperate.
> 
> However the Focus does top the charts....
> 
> ...


Would disagree the civic is not on a level with a focus. Was impressed by both when looking to step from the TT (they were much higher than I expected of "non premium" brands) but would say the civic IMHO beat the Ford for build quality. Noone can argue with Honda or Toyota reliability either. Only trump card I see the Focus had over the Honda was better styling.


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

che6mw said:


> sico said:
> 
> 
> > Hmm sorry your getting quality mixed up with reliability they are seperate.
> ...


The build quality was better!? Jesus I would strongly disagree. I have been in the Civic type R many a time (my friend has one) and it has plastic painted silver and hard dashboard plastics.

Still whatever floats your boat however, the general European taste is one of soft dash plastics with a matt finish and no painted plastics.


----------



## Dotti (Mar 9, 2003)

che6mw said:


> I've a Toyota sat outside and not an ST170.


 :lol: :?


----------



## che6mw (Nov 13, 2003)

^Abi^ said:


> che6mw said:
> 
> 
> > I've a Toyota sat outside and not an ST170.
> ...


Maybe that highlights just how aweful the local dealership was ? There are only so many times I can ask how much money I need to give them to get a car on their forecourt!


----------



## sico (Feb 6, 2003)

che6mw said:


> ^Abi^ said:
> 
> 
> > che6mw said:
> ...


Thats poor, why did they give you so much hassle? What were you trading?


----------



## che6mw (Nov 13, 2003)

sico said:


> che6mw said:
> 
> 
> > ^Abi^ said:
> ...


My partner was looking to sell her Ka so we figured it wouldn't be so hard for Ford to give us a trade in on it! It was in mint condition, so not something they'd want to avoid. And to be honest we didn't want the hassle of selling privately with a little baby on the way. So we weren't holding out for unrealistic prices. Any price from them would have been nice! Infact a responce to my calls would have been just fine!!! In the end my money went elsewhere.


----------



## Toshiba (Jul 8, 2004)

Carlos said:


> ISico - I hardly think a 222bhp Focus is going to "thrash" a 197bhp Golf GTi. In the real world such a performance difference (0.2 seconds to 60) will manifest itself as "slightly faster on the straights" - nothing more.
> quote]
> 
> where do you get that from? the 0-62 time of the focus is 6.4 secs, golf is 7.2/3 depending on where you look. Thats a full second. top end is 155 vs 146. mid range is vastly bester too on the focus, plus it handles far better so it says. I think thats a trashing in anyones book.
> ...


----------



## Orange&amp;Blue (Sep 21, 2005)

I was passed by a new Focus ST while cycling to work this morning. It was an â€˜RACâ€™ Orange colour and looked like it had been designed to be a Tonka toy in my opinion. [smiley=freak.gif]

The ST 170 that was also in the line of traffic looked much better.

I got to a junction just as the ST pulled out and the driver floored it down a fast bit of A roadâ€¦â€¦now I could get used to that noise 
:twisted:


----------

