Focus RS at Lebanon Valley today

I saw my new hero at Lebanon Valley today. White Focus RS, still on the temp tags, running in the test and tune. I only got a chance to video one run because I was running around with my own problems, but it seemed to run pretty good: https://www.youtube.com/embed/PlO9Mm2behE

As a Fiesta ST owner, I know exactly where this boner came from. And if anyone is wondering, the RX-7 driver didn't have his neck brace on, and that's why the starting line official pushed him back. It's ok though, he oiled down the top end of the track on his next pass.

Wait what? He ran a 13.3 quarter out the dealer? That is silly... I am in lust.

I am Amaze.

singleslammer wrote: Wait what? He ran a 13.3 quarter out the dealer? That is silly... I am in lust.

According to the issue of Car and Driver I found in my bathroom, 1/4 mile is listed as 13.2 secs.

I'm glad that he didn't hit drift mode after the vht ran out at the 1000' mark

Nice. Be curious to see/hear more of that RX-7

captdownshift wrote: I'm glad that he didn't hit drift mode after the vht ran out at the 1000' mark

Funny, I've been to Lebanon valley many times, years ago. I don't think they know how to spell VHT, the track seemed to be prepped with used oil!

That looks just like mine eventually will once the build starts. Which is scheduled for next Friday, by the way.

WOW

I'm still following these cars closely, could be on the table in the future, however: trap of 102mph for a 350hp 3500 lb car is fishy. It's basically the same speed as the STI and Golf R which are down 50hp. The cars are dynoing around 250whp, usually with a single first 300whp run. So it seems the over boost isn't as consistent as promised. There's a theory on the focus forums that Ford slapped on a special USA tune to meet emissions.

In reply to turtl631:

If that "USA" tune turns out to be true, you can bet it won't be long before the tuning companies such as SCT, etc., will have have new base tunes out for it in pretty short order.

Heh 13.3 @ 102, exactly the best my GVR4 ever ran in the 1/4. Could it be destiny?

NickD wrote: Nice. Be curious to see/hear more of that RX-7

So I failed as a videographer, but I was too busy marveling at how fast it was. And then too busy watching the track get oiled down. You can just barely see the smoke cloud at the end of the video, but it was a pretty good spill.

Also, the AMX in the right lane was a gorgeous car.

https://www.youtube.com/embed/e5zirgbCQxk

I think RSs are awesome but they will never be as awesome as that RX-7 sounds in the video. The RS sounds like nothing, and then it runs a "meh" quarter mile. (Which is understandable, it's only a four cylinder, all stock four cylinders are "meh" at the dragstrip)

I think this thread is instrumental in helping me define just where my priorities lay.

turtl631 wrote: There's a theory on the focus forums that Ford slapped on a special USA tune to meet emissions.

That theory is bullE36 M3, plain and simple. The emissions test does not go anywhere near WOT.

Now, I can believe that the tunes are more considerate for detonation resistance with respect to heat soaking/temperature rise, and that US fuel is not as good as Euro fuel, and Ford rates their power at the overboost level which is only good for a certain period of time. So when C&D tested the RS versus a pair of 300hp models with similar weight and drivetrains, it was no surprise that they were all similar in quarter mile times. 350hp is "overboost" and you will exceed the timeframe/thermal limits inside of a single quarter mile run.

Armitage wrote: Heh [13.3 @ 102](http://armitage/galant/timeslip.jpg), exactly the best my GVR4 ever ran in the 1/4. Could it be destiny?

My FB ran a 13.6 at 102 on dried out old all-seasons, rubber made in this decade may have gotten it down to 13.2. And the RS was running against a bridge ported FB that was pushed away from the start line to prevent it from running.

COINCIDENCE... OR CONSPIRACY?

jpaturzo wrote:

NickD wrote: Nice. Be curious to see/hear more of that RX-7

So I failed as a videographer, but I was too busy marveling at how fast it was. And then too busy watching the track get oiled down. You can just barely see the smoke cloud at the end of the video, but it was a pretty good spill. Also, the AMX in the right lane was a gorgeous car. https://www.youtube.com/embed/e5zirgbCQxk

Wow, a 10.74 at 97mph. That means he was already coasting a good ways before the finish line. I've seen that AMC many times, as Lebanon Valley is the closest nice drag strip to where I live. ESTA Safety Park is closest but that place is an absolute dive

Knurled wrote:

turtl631 wrote: There's a theory on the focus forums that Ford slapped on a special USA tune to meet emissions.

That theory is bullE36 M3, plain and simple. The emissions test does not go anywhere near WOT. Now, I can believe that the tunes are more considerate for detonation resistance with respect to heat soaking/temperature rise, and that US fuel is not as good as Euro fuel, and Ford rates their power at the overboost level which is only good for a certain period of time. So when C&D tested the RS versus a pair of 300hp models with similar weight and drivetrains, it was no surprise that they were all similar in quarter mile times. 350hp is "overboost" and you will exceed the timeframe/thermal limits inside of a single quarter mile run.

That's not true, either. Fuel is an SAE spec- so they are the same. Just that Europe posts RON, the US is RON+MON/2. Which lowers our apparent octane.

What is more likely is that EU customers are more acceptable to run premium fuel, so the initial knock control is tuned to that. And that conditions in the US tend to be warmer, which increases the tendency to knock.

It's supposed to be on over boost for 20 seconds with full throttle application, so it should reset each time you shift and give the full rated over boost power. Whatever is going on, a 102mph trap is not impressive for the supposed specs of this car, and basically the same as the original Evo and STI we got in 2003/4. I get that this car isn't a drag race special but that's part of the equation. Especially when the Golf R, the only other turbo awd hatch in the states makes like 80 whp with a tune.

I think it's geared more for the low end; plus the frontal area is fairly large and blunt.

Does Europe have Ethanol in their fuel? If not, they have better fuel than us.

Also to save the rods, the folks with Ecoboost Motors are generally avoiding WOT below 2500rpm to avoid windowing the blocks.

There have been issues with blown ST motors due to high load, low rpm situations and some of the Mustang people have noted the same issue. Aftermarket tune or not, it seems to happen, though some tunes are better than others. Obviously the fuel quality and other variables are unknown in these situations, so there's always more to the story than what is reported on forums.

It's a heavy car and I suspect the boost scheduling is such that the power curve is a bit soft, limiting the power under the curve and ultimately it's overall speed. Time will tell as the cars get broken in, problems found and improvements implemented.

jstein77 wrote: That looks just like mine eventually will once the build starts. Which is scheduled for next Friday, by the way.

Mine is the same color, only I added a sunroof (since I couldn't get my ND due to our first born coming this year) and is on its way :)

I wonder how many white FoRS are being built?

jstein77 wrote: I think it's geared more for the low end; plus the frontal area is fairly large and blunt.

HP/weight has an EXTREMELY high correlation with trap speeds. It works fairly well independent of aerodynamics and launch ability.

The Chrysler engineers behind the "Ramchargers" in the 50s worked out the formulas by fitting empirical data to a curve, and the math still works today. MPH = 224(hp/weight)^1/3

Take the cube root of the hp/weight ratio, multiply the result by 224, that is the MPH to a surprisingly accurate degree.

(This is the formula that the online HP calculators use. It gives crank HP, not wheel HP, because Chrysler engineers gave zero E36 M3s about chassis dyno numbers)

17% more power for the same weight should result in a higher trap speed, period.

For funsies, my 2600lb-with-me-in-it RX-7 makes roughly 260hp by injector duty cycle back-calculation, plugging that into the formula gives 104mph trap speed. Its best has been a 103.7. 60-odd year old formula is still relevant

104mph trap is about right, the new RS is not light at 3525lbs. STi and Golf R's trapping similar numbers is not all that surprising, both engines are known to be underrated, and the STi is lighter by almost 200lbs.

Drag strips are the absolute worst case scenario for modern turbo engines, sitting idle for minutes without any airflow heat soaks the intake and intercooler. So its not surprising that some owners are not achieving the trap speeds during the middle of a hot summer.

The claims about overboost "not working" is likely due to heat soak and running poor octane fuel. The inconstant dyno runs are very likely due to improper testing; not enough airflow, not properly pre-conditioning for dyno run, not running properly in FWD with driveshaft removed. When tested correctly, the WHP measured is right in line with the advertised 350 BHP. Take a look, the power curve is certainly not "soft".

http://www.cobbtuning.com/ford-focus-rs-power-gains-and-development/