What type of car do you drive?

Status
Not open for further replies.


ravydavygravy said:
Do you like powerful cars or not? Make your mind up.

You say you would like a ST but scoff at the RS.
Click to expand...

Aren't they as different as chalk and cheese? Comparing apples to oranges? I mean one is 'lite' (the ST) and the other is very much 'full-fat' (RS). The RS is to my peepers way more powerful than the ST. One of the two 2016 RS's Focus cars for sale at Lookers Ford goes from 0-60 in 4.7 seconds. An ST-3 and an ST-2 Focus from the same year both do it in 6.5 seconds. An ST-Line does it in 8.9. The RS has a top speed of 165mph and has a bhp of 350. The ST-2 and ST-3's top speed and bhp is 154 and 250 and the ST-Line's top speed is only 130mph an the bhp figure is a massive...150bhp. So the RS is as good as 2 seconds quicker to 60mph than the ST-2 and ST-3 but is about 4 seconds quicker than the ST-Line. The RS goes a whole 11 mph faster than the ST-2 and ST-3 but a massive 35 mph faster than the ST-Line.

My 2014 1.0 EcoBoost Fiesta Titanium 5 from goes from 0-60 in the same time as the ST-Line despite only having 100 bhp - a whole 50 bhp less and has a slower top speed of 112 mph.

So I don't see how you can say I scoff at the RS but would want an ST. The ST is the Space Shuttle Discovery. The RS is the USS Enterprise. The ST's are much more manageable and easier to handle as a sportscar than the RS.
 
ShieldsBlackCat2015 said:
But those who buy it don't use it for 'everyday use'. They use it to cane it down the A1(M) or to race up your backside on Sunderland Road or some other main road in a heavily built up area. That's why so much of it's development clearly went into the power fronts like the engine and torque. You look at an RS and it shouts one thing and it ain't practicality. If you want a sporty car which marries practicality then I say get an ST. Looks just like a Titanium but has more power.
Click to expand...
You think they put so much into developing power to cain it along Sunderland road :)

You've made these same stupid assumptions time and time again on here. When will you learn. There's stupid driver fly about in any car, your holy grail mx5 and the devils Abarth included.
 
safcsafc said:
You think they put so much into developing power to cain it along Sunderland road :)
Click to expand...

You have deliberately put two unrelated topic together to discredit and devalue my point of view which you have done done and time again on here. FORD put so much of the power and performance into the development work of the RS. They certainly didn't think much about economy, did they. The RS does 36.7 mpg and the ST-2 and ST-3 41.5 mpg. The ST-Line does 51.4 mpg. The RS does about 5 miles shorter to the gallon than the ST-2 and ST-3 and the ST-Line goes near enough as makes no difference a massive 15 miles longer. You can see where the work went into with the RS.

It is the DRIVERS who can sometimes cane it (not 'cain' - that is a character in Emmerdale) up some urban main road or down some motorway.
 
ShieldsBlackCat2015 said:
Aren't they as different as chalk and cheese? Comparing apples to oranges? I mean one is 'lite' (the ST) and the other is very much 'full-fat' (RS). The RS is to my peepers way more powerful than the ST. One of the two 2016 RS's Focus cars for sale at Lookers Ford goes from 0-60 in 4.7 seconds. An ST-3 and an ST-2 Focus from the same year both do it in 6.5 seconds. An ST-Line does it in 8.9. The RS has a top speed of 165mph and has a bhp of 350. The ST-2 and ST-3's top speed and bhp is 154 and 250 and the ST-Line's top speed is only 130mph an the bhp figure is a massive...150bhp. So the RS is as good as 2 seconds quicker to 60mph than the ST-2 and ST-3 but is about 4 seconds quicker than the ST-Line. The RS goes a whole 11 mph faster than the ST-2 and ST-3 but a massive 35 mph faster than the ST-Line.

My 2014 1.0 EcoBoost Fiesta Titanium 5 from goes from 0-60 in the same time as the ST-Line despite only having 100 bhp - a whole 50 bhp less and has a slower top speed of 112 mph.

So I don't see how you can say I scoff at the RS but would want an ST. The ST is the Space Shuttle Discovery. The RS is the USS Enterprise. The ST's are much more manageable and easier to handle as a sportscar than the RS.
Click to expand...

U wot m8?

Are you saying you would prefer a ST to a RS?
 
ShieldsBlackCat2015 said:
You have deliberately put two unrelated topic together to discredit and devalue my point of view which you have done done and time again on here. FORD put so much of the power and performance into the development work of the RS. They certainly didn't think much about economy, did they. The RS does 36.7 mpg and the ST-2 and ST-3 41.5 mpg. The ST-Line does 51.4 mpg. The RS does about 5 miles shorter to the gallon than the ST-2 and ST-3 and the ST-Line goes near enough as makes no difference a massive 15 miles longer. You can see where the work went into with the RS.

It is the DRIVERS who can sometimes cane it (not 'cain' - that is a character in Emmerdale) up some urban main road or down some motorway.
Click to expand...

You don't buy a hot hatch based on economy though, you buy it to enjoy driving it
 
I drive two cars and it's quite funny the respect you get from other road users depending on which one I'm in. One is a big executive suv and the other a little korean run around.
 
I drive a 60 plate black BMW one series 118
It looks smart for work and has only done 39k so it'll probably do me for another five years or til it starts costing more than routine servicing etc
 
ShieldsBlackCat2015 said:
Aren't they as different as chalk and cheese? Comparing apples to oranges? I mean one is 'lite' (the ST) and the other is very much 'full-fat' (RS). The RS is to my peepers way more powerful than the ST. One of the two 2016 RS's Focus cars for sale at Lookers Ford goes from 0-60 in 4.7 seconds. An ST-3 and an ST-2 Focus from the same year both do it in 6.5 seconds. An ST-Line does it in 8.9. The RS has a top speed of 165mph and has a bhp of 350. The ST-2 and ST-3's top speed and bhp is 154 and 250 and the ST-Line's top speed is only 130mph an the bhp figure is a massive...150bhp. So the RS is as good as 2 seconds quicker to 60mph than the ST-2 and ST-3 but is about 4 seconds quicker than the ST-Line. The RS goes a whole 11 mph faster than the ST-2 and ST-3 but a massive 35 mph faster than the ST-Line.

My 2014 1.0 EcoBoost Fiesta Titanium 5 from goes from 0-60 in the same time as the ST-Line despite only having 100 bhp - a whole 50 bhp less and has a slower top speed of 112 mph.

So I don't see how you can say I scoff at the RS but would want an ST. The ST is the Space Shuttle Discovery. The RS is the USS Enterprise. The ST's are much more manageable and easier to handle as a sportscar than the RS.
Click to expand...

"have you ever kissed a girl son ?"
 
Morse said:
I understand what you're saying, but the X6, good though it is, just doesn't have the 'Holy shit, look at that!' factor!



It's weird how auto gearboxes never really caught on in Europe. For the average driver, you'd think they'd be very attractive like any other labour saving device.
I don't think the auto v manual licence rules help. People are unlikely to favour automatics when passing their test in one means they can't drive manuals.

I've always thought it a bit strange that you can jump straight from a manual into an automatic but not vice versa. Yes, they're easy to drive, but as a manual driver it's easy to get into trouble in an automatic. Going for the non-existent clutch and hitting the brake full force. Hitting the accelerator after you've forgotten to take it out of drive etc...

There's loads of videos from the US showing the results of hitting the 'gas' inadvertently in an automatic.
Click to expand...

I had to move someone's car for them a couple of months back. Even though I've driven an automatic before, it did take me a minute to work out how to get the fucker moving.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Back
Top