Re: 170 hp thats not even enough

Discussion in '2002 Ford Focus SVT' started by 94octainemotorsports, Aug 9, 2002.

  1. exactly , the mustangs styling, options, suspension, and heritage all play a role in why it beat the f-bodies in the market. next i thought the gt was gonna get 300 hp for 2004, would be nice, als they probably wont bring back the 5.0, the 4.6 is alot better of an engine then the 5.0 and ford might just keep using it
     
  2. if you wanted 300 hp just look op the fr200, it has a turbocharged and intercooled 2.0L engine with 304 hp and way too much torque for a ff car.
     
  3. this car was made to compete angainst teh civic si. it accomplishes this well. 170 isnt a lot of power but hey, its still fun to drive. if you want a car that hauls ass then get a cobra. if you want a car that is light and nimble and fun to drive then get a focus.anyone who ahs eer driven these two cars can understand teh different philosophies. focie arent meant to be tire screeching speed deamons or they wouldnt be based off of econo cars and cost $18k.what is the purpose of having a focus with 300hp if it costs as much as a cobra, just buy a cobra.

    for those of you who are into this type of thing, i understand they are going to build a 200+ hp turbo focus with awd here in the states to resond to Vw's gti that will be very similar, even if honda brings the type r it still wont compare to these because it wont have awd, and it wont have torque, for those of us that live in america we are used to having cars that accelerate without putting the tach on 4k. in america the focus is considered a better car because of this fact, it must suck to live in uk where you have to settle for cars that make a lot of noise and dont go anywhere.
     
  4. thats a concept car.. and anyway, i think that this is a good practical car.. so what if it has 170hp? Horsepower isnt everything.. From what ive heard, it handles VERY well eventhough its FWD..
     
  5. Ok for starters, 170 naturally aspirated horses in a four cylinder are more than respectable. Thats performance, considering that most 4 cylinders average between 110 and 140 horses. So whoever says this isn't enough horses obviously isn't into the compact market.
    Well, I guess that's really all I had to say. Big deal, huh? Oh well.
     
  6. With only 1250kg to haul around this would be a quick car, faster than a miata. It's good for 130mph i'm sure.
    170 Is good but not great from a 2 litre 4-pot, but it has 200Nm of torque and probably has a broad powerband.
     
  7. well, they all have about 7.0sec 0-60. thats not horible. that beats th RSX-S with 200 HP.

    i didnt read all the posts, if this is already on hear im sorry.
     
  8. it might not be slow, yo, its just not powerful enough to race wit it... it's probably got a quarter in like 20 seconds...
     
  9. a 20 second quarter? HAHA.
     
  10. 300 hp? thats too high. Then it would cost more, this thing is very cheap.
     
  11. it is a concept, but you can actualy build one, if you read car and driver(or motortrend i cannot remember) they actualy tell you how it was built and what parts to order from ford racing catalog if you want to build it, it is just very expensive.

    it does handle extremely well. last figures i say were .91 g on skid pad. that is supercar territory, at least by 2000 standards.
     
  12. true.

    300hp in a ff, imagine the torque steer, you'd have to have huge front tires, and stiff rear shock, and maybe a roll bar just to put extra pressure on the front tires, and then it wouldnt have any of those great handling characteristics.
     
  13. Lots of FWD cars handle well, and much better than this one.
     
  14. I'd agree....

    the car should have more horsepower and 4WD
     
  15. i dont know of any car that handles better than this and that is ff. .91g on the skidpad is pretty good for a ff. and dont start naming acura race cars cause tehy are not production.
     
  16. i know r u on drugs dc sport head, 170bhp is plenty for a little ford focus. if it was 300bhp they wouldnt put all that power in a focus they would put it in like an svt taurus which is even to much for that piece of shit. that car would be like as much as a infiniti g35 coupe which doesn t even have 300 bhp.
     
  17. Impreza WRX STI FF (yes it's available) or just the WRX FF, Civic Type-R, Honda Integra Type-R, Renault Clio, Peugeot 106, Peugeot 206, Peugeot 306, Citroen Xsara, hell the Focus RS handles better......shall I go on?
     
  18. amen.
    the focus is getting great aftermarket attention. 170 for a lightweight car is a great starting point. gettting to 250hp will not break the wallet, and at least its not another damn civic.
     
  19. ah, the Civic Type-R has more class than this IMO, and that's actually what this focus was made to compete with (as the ST-170 in Europe of course)

    And with the new Civic Hybrids coming out, I'd think the Civic has a brighter future than this.
     
  20. forgive my ignorance i live in the states where wrx ff isnt available.all ive heard of is someone making a awd wrx into ff so they could get a better dyno dest because awd eats up so much power at the wheels. if ff wrx doesnt handle better than awd wrx then it doesnt beat svt. the awd is known for bad skidpads tests but nobody cares cause it huals ass.

    civic type-r and integra handle as well as rsx which doesnt beat svt.

    focus rs is awd.

    the rest arent sold here so my knowledge is limited.

    show me stats that beat 68.7 mph in 300ft slalom and .91 g on skidpad

    cars must be production, no race spec.
     
  21. plus you get a lot of great technology that you couldnt buy from aftermarket parts suppliers.
     
  22. Actually the FF WRX is available in North America, but it has to be requested at a dealership and might take a while because very few are shipped to North America.

    And the WRX with a low skidpad rating is a perfect example why Skidpad rating isn't really necessary for a car to handle well, the WRX is made more for control not traction, a car can be fully controlled without traction, and also the less weight that's thrown into a corner the less g's will be generated, and with the weight distribution of the WRX little weight is transferred, for example A WRX can turn just as sharply at the same speed as say a Corvette Z06 because even though the Skidpad rating is higher, there is less weight thrown into the turn therefore less lateral g's are generated even though they're turning just as sharply and just as fast.

    People like the WRX (or at least people who really appreciate the car for what it really is) because it's very quick, and handles like few other cars while being an excellent price.

    A car with a High skidpad rating might be able to hold a turn with more lateral force than one with a lower rating, however, a well designed car with a lower skidpad rating can still corner better because less lateral force are generated at the same speed, do you get what I'm saying?

    The Focus RS is FF anyway, I don't know of any AWD version (aside from the WRC spec version).

    The Civic Type-R handles better than the RSX it's been proven time and time again.

    I'll get back to you about the other stuff, I need to go.
     
  23. It doesn't do 0-60 in 6.7
    More like 7.5. But its still a sweet handling car.
    "A good first car" Whatever.
     
  24. i can agree to that. it does make sense, a porshce is awd and 3400lbs, it handles a skidpad well. of course racing cars are all light and they skidpad well, but they also have very good downforce at speed so this compensates for the weight loss. it probably isnt the awd that makes it handle poorly just the way it is set up. still i dont think the wrx can handle. btw a vette weights around 3000lb just like a subie. so weight is important, but i dont think it is the only factor in the skidpad handling. but skid pad is important because it show how well a car can handle a long sweeping turn. slalom is important for chicanes and to show initial turn in response.

    if the civic-r realy does handle better than the rsx i would like to see some stats, that would help me out in the other forum si vs svt. nobody wants to tell me the r stats in handling and braking(we got off in a tangent after deciding that the si sucks). still i would like to see skid pad and slalom for the r.
     
  25. supposedly the 0-60 is limited by the traction control that doesnt allow for much slippage off the line. so theoreticaly the best time ive seen of 7.2 sec could maybe be 6.9 or 7.0 if there were no tc, assuming optimum circumstances. that is pretty close to 6.7. maybe with slicks or shaved tires it could do it.

    true on the sweet handling.
     

Share This Page