Skip to main content

2016 Ford Focus RS vs. 2015 Subaru WRX STI vs 2016 VW Golf R - A Closer Look




This picture is a little misleading. Unfortunately, this isn't a post about a race on a frozen lake or a snow covered rally stage involving the three hottest AWD hot hatches (the WRX STI only a hatch in spirit). This is about the highly anticipated test recently posted by Car & Driver.

First things first, I wish C&D would stop testing 30-50 mph and 50-70 mph in top gear for manual performance cars. They are hugely (almost exclusively) influenced by gearing and are completely irrelevant. I could see them being relevant in a more mainstream class (say, comparing a base Focus manual to a base Cruze manual) because an average buyer may not want to shift. But there is no way the buyer of any of these cars is going to wait over 7 seconds to go from 30-50 or approximately 6 seconds to go from 50-70? Worse yet, why would anyone floor a small 4 cyl turbo in an overdrive gear and lug the engine outside of boost? Now with the rant out of the way, let’s look at numbers.


2016 +Ford Ford Focus RS 2016 +VW Golf R 2016 Subaru WRX STI
0-60 mph 4.6 s 5.1 s 4.7 s
0-100 mph 12.2 s 11.8 s 12.0 s
0-110 mph 14.4 s 15.3 s 16.0 s
1/4 mile 13.4 s @ 105 mph 13.6 s @ 105 mph 13.4 s @ 104 mph
5-60 mph (street start) 5.7 s 6.1 s 6.7 s


The acceleration numbers, at first, might make it seem like the RS is overrated or the other two are underrated. However, a closer look shows all is good in the 350 hp Focus. For one, I think the torque vectoring AWD system of the RS is probably working against it in that regard. If I remember correctly, there are three clutch packs that the other two don't have; one to proportion the power to the rear axle and one for each rear wheel. These probably result in higher drivetrain losses than the other two.

As far as the STI goes, the RS and the STI have almost the exact same weight. The RS gets to 110 mph 1.6 seconds sooner and a 5-60 mph street start is a full second faster. So, despite the two being tied in the ¼ mile, I highly doubt the two make the same amount of hp. The STI appears to have a huge launch advantage that's skewing the numbers. It beats the R to 60 mph, for example, yet the R not only catches up, but beats it to 110 mph and the R is quicker in the 5-60 mph street start.

As far as the R goes, two numbers are curious – the 0-100 mph run and 1/4 mile trap speed. The quicker 0-100 mph time in the Golf and the identical 1/4 mile trap speed are very likely due to gearing in my opinion. The top of 3rd gear in the RS is 93 mph whereas the R is 81 mph so both cars are in 4th gear but most of the 90-100 mph run happens in the RS at the bottom of 4th gear – some 800 rpm short of peak power - where in the R, it happens in the middle, right in the meat of boost and power. The 100-110 mph runs confirm that. The R takes 3.5 seconds to do this 10 mph whereas the RS takes 2.2 seconds, less than two thirds the time. I think the RS loses in 90-100 mph due to shifting but quickly makes up for it and builds an almost 1 second lead by 110 mph.



2016 Ford Focus RS 2016 VW Golf R 2016 Subaru WRX STI
Braking 70-0 mph 158 ft 156 ft 159 ft
200-ft skidpad lat. g 0.98 g 0.95 g 0.90 g
610 ft slalom 43.6 mph 43.5 mph 42.4 mph


As far as handling goes, the STI is clearly behind. It's basically a three-way tie in braking between the three but the STI falls behind in ultimate grip (skidpad) and transitional handling (slalom). Moreover, Car & Driver found it to fall far behind in ride and comfort so it seems to beat up its occupants for no gain on the track. Meanwhile the R and RS are basically tied in slalom/transition but, based on the review and as expected due to the more capable AWD system, the RS takes a clear lead in handling balance (under power) with its ability to rotate and its lead in ultimate grip (skidpad). The reviewers even went as far as saying: “Dynamically, the RS is in a different league than the others, maybe even playing a different sport. It’s far more exciting than the staid Golf and much more polished than the brutish STI.” Car & Driver unfortunately doesn’t have a test to demonstrate the advantage of the better AWD system. Motor Trend’s figure eight does to an extent but a steady state 300 ft skidpad doesn’t.

On the livability front, back seat space and trunk are a little bit bigger in the Golf so R is the most practical. However, I'm very surprised to see the R actually score slightly less than the RS in the engine NVH category. VW has long made one of the smoothest 4 cyl turbo in a compact and the more mature exterior styling would suggest a car much quieter.

Overall, the STI is more and more looking outdated, first by its own little sister - the WRX - and now by the competition. There is no reason to get it, IMO, unless you're a die-hard Subaru fan. I'm surprised, though, that they didn't find the power useful in turns. I know someone at our local track with a new STI and he says he can use the throttle to make it rotate. With that said, it's clearly outclassed by both cars in this test. The last gen STI felt much tauter than the last gen WRX and didn't overheat its brakes but, based on reviews, the current WRX is a huge step forward where the STI is a smaller step forward so it might be less worth it. Add in the fact that both have good AWD systems, albeit less so in the WRX, and the advantage to an STI almost diminishes so it really comes down to RS vs R.

The R's biggest problem, like the STI, is the excellent GTI. The last gen R felt extremely close (on road) to a last gen GTI and I suspect the new ones are equally improved relative to each other. You could never justify to me the extra cost of an R based on a test drive where the car isn't driven too hard. I would love to drive the two back-to-back on a track to see if you have to wait appreciably longer in the GTI vs the R to get back on power mid corner. With that said, if you live in the great white north and especially in a hilly region, AWD can be the difference between being stuck at the bottom (RWD) or top (FWD) of a hill in a bad storm. Ask me how I know..

I think there are only two reasons to get the R over the RS - styling and interior quality. If you look at the RS and think you'd be too embarrassed to be seen in it, get the R. If you sit in it and can't stand the thought of paying that much money for the interior, get the R. Otherwise, the RS very nearly matches the R in livability and offers the most capability and fun. It's a clear winner to me.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Michelin Pilot Super Sports vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 - Street Review

I've been a huge fan of Michelin PSS tires and exclusively bought them for the Mustang over the last four years. So how did I end up here? This year, I was hugely interested in trying an "R-comp" tire. I had my eyes set on Bridgestone Potenza RE-71R's for two simple reasons: price and reputation. They seem like they're easily the most affordable (from a big brand) R-comp tire and combine that with a reputation for having tons of grip, it was an easy top contender. I had my concerns, though. For one, I'm told and have read that they are an autox tire, not really designed for high speed, pressure, and temps associated with open track. For another, the Mustang is a heavy car (as far as track cars are concerned) being roughly 3,800 lb. (including driver), which will amplify the unwanted open track loads. Combine that with the fact that I drive a good amount on the street during the summer, and I was very worried that they wouldn't last more than a handful of…

Michelin PSS vs Firestone Indy 500 - Track Review

A couple of weeks ago, I posted my first impressions of Michelin's PSS vs Firestone Firehawk Indy 500 tires. I've run PSS's for several years on the Boss, but I'm trying the Indy 500's for the first time. In short, I was worried about the narrower tires (I was running 285/35/18 PSS but could only find the Indy 500 in 275/35/18) and tread squirm, but I was happy with them up to that point just driving on the street. I had the chance to drive on them for three track days now. So what were they like? After my first session, they made an impression that basically persisted for the rest of track sessions on them. Phenomenal, unmatched value. Now, if value is something that stands out above all else, it typically means the compromise between qualities you want and those you don't is less than ideal, but the value is attractive. This is no different. I'll start with the bad, which really boil down to two: ultimate grip and grip longevity.

Grip is noticeably lowe…

Watch The Best Valentine's Day Inspiration: Wife & Husband Track Battle

Wife (R32) vs husband (Mk1 Golf) playing a bit of tag at Atlantic Motorsport Park in Shubie, NS. Both cars are turbocharged, both built by them for them to enjoy on a track. Oh, and the R32 shoots flames on the overrun. Every. Single. Time. This is the best couples bonding activity I've ever seen.



Follow Ram's Eye The Track Guy on Facebook and Instagram!





View this post on Instagram


A post shared by Mike R (@ramseyethetrackguy) on Oct 18, 2018 at 5:03pm PDT

2014 BMW 335i xDrive M Sport Review

Post-refresh 2015 F30 3-series pictured. 
Which is better, an F30 3-series or an E46? The F30 has certainly taken its fair share of heat. But if you thought I was going to say the E46, you'd be dead wrong. The F30 3-series is better. Far better. It is quicker, faster, safer, more practical, more efficient, more refined, quieter.. the list goes on. A lot of reviews and people I talk to consider the F30 to be an abomination. Frankly, I don't see it. You'd have to be mad to think the E46 is better. Completely out to lunch. I don't know who in their right mind would prefer the E46..  Trouble is, since when were people buying sports cars in their right minds? Here, lies the real problem.

"Raw rather than refined in its noises, pounding ride, heavy clutch, 50 grand and cloth seats?"
".. and not at all shy about its performance compromises. It always acts like the automotive jock it is, every mile of every day."
"Raw and quite loud.. And sometimes ru…

Dad's Supercar - A great mid-engine build

I came across this home build on a forum (Cobaltss.net) and thought it was really cool. It's a mid-engine build with an engine out of a Cobalt SS (appears to be an LSJ) with a dry sump oiling system. The goal, according to the page, is to have 450 hp on gas to drive to the strip and switch to methanol, change injectors and tune and run with ~ 1,000 hp.






Rear suspension:


Front suspension:



Check it out the (little) details on the build here: Dad's Home-built mid-engine Supercar


Snow/Ice Rallycross in the Rabbit

FWD cars don't win the WRC anymore and they haven't in decades. In fact, all two wheel drive (2WD) cars have been rendered entirely obsolete on the world stage by the original legendary Audi Quattro. That's because 4 driven wheels are obviously far better at putting power down than just 2 and when you are on a loose surface such as mud, gravel, or snow, traction is in SERIOUS short supply. Thankfully, I'm not on the world rally stage or competing for the world title, so I'm happy with my little FWD rallycross car (for now anyway...).

I have already been to one event this season (which is my first rallycross season) in this car. You can read more about it here where I nearly caught air going over one of the bumps. Last time was on gravel, though. This time, it was a snow covered course and what I didn't know was that snow wasn't covering gravel. It was covering ice. What could possibly go wrong?

In what I seriously fear will turn into a tradition, I once ag…

Contact Me

Name

Email *

Message *