mk1 focus rs vs st3

[ST170 Dan]

does anyone know how these cars compare in terms of specification, ie chassis, brakes, suspension. ive done a google search but can only find forum threads of people opinions - im after facts really. i know how the engines compare although i dont know which (if either) is better. anyone know how they compare? or know of a useful website?

[Stu]

What are you trying to achieve? They're completely different cars.

[ST170 Dan]

do you mean intended use? just leisure, poss track but more leisure. other than that just trying to ascertain which is better in spec, or at least how they compare.

[Stu]

I mean what are you trying to achieve with such a comparison? The spec on paper will have very little impact to how the car feels to you.

[massivewangers]

Speed-wise I don't think there is much in it, though I would think the big old 2.5 lump in the ST makes it pull a bit better at low revs, but I've not driven an RS to compare them directly.

 

A friend was recently looking and drove both. His view that was the RS was a lot more raw and aggressive, where as the ST was a bit softer and a better every day car. I would think most STs are better equiped than the RS was.

 

I'd like to drive an RS to see what it's like, but I found the ST to be very quiet and refined, effortless to drive really. A very good daily driver, easy to live with, but doesn't feel especially aggressive in standard form. Engine is impressive, and feels plenty stable and solid.

 

Only way you can tell which you prefer is by driving both..

[ST170 Dan]

I mean what are you trying to achieve with such a comparison? The spec on paper will have very little impact to how the car feels to you.

 

it would give you an indication of what you get for your money wouldnt it?

 

from what i gather i think the st is better equiped - the sat nav and bluetooth stereo are both things id find useful that arent available on the rs (although i realise these are options). does the volvo engine in the st make it a more reliable engine? ive been in an st and was impressed in how it went but have never been in an rs so i cant compare.

[Stu]

it would give you an indication of what you get for your money wouldnt it?

 

Sure, if you're playing car spec trumps. If you actually want to know what a car is like, you have to go sit in it and drive it. The Focus RS and Mk2 ST are completely different driving experiences.

[ST170 Dan]

it would give you an indication of what you get for your money wouldnt it?

 

Sure, if you're playing car spec trumps. If you actually want to know what a car is like, you have to go sit in it and drive it. The Focus RS and Mk2 ST are completely different driving experiences.

 

thats a fair point, its just food for thought that im after atm.

[massivewangers]

Just go and view a couple of RS' and see what you think. Looking at numbers and spec sheets won't tell you much.

[mutley]

id also say depends if you like mk1 or mk2 focus.. personally i think the mk2 focus interior is much nicer looking.

 

huge amount of options available to tune the ST. in terms of parts better off with an st, a lot of parts for the RS have now been deleted by ford. bu then the RS is going to hold its long term value a lot more than an st will

[Craig855S]

Spec wise I imagine the ST has a better everyday spec (interior and trim) but the RS may have a better driving spec (what with the diff and big brakes...although the ST may have brakes that are better than early nineties brembos..not sure)

 

the RS will hold its value better but then, itll cost a lot more to insure and possibly more to maintain... It's 6 and 2 3s really. Depends what you want from a car. A future classic or "just" a performance hatch

[ST170 Dan]

Spec wise I imagine the ST has a better everyday spec (interior and trim) but the RS may have a better driving spec (what with the diff and big brakes...although the ST may have brakes that are better than early nineties brembos..not sure)

the RS will hold its value better but then, itll cost a lot more to insure and possibly more to maintain... It's 6 and 2 3s really. Depends what you want from a car. A future classic or "just" a performance hatch

 

thats the kind of thing im trying to find out. ive just read that the rs has an ap racing clutch, that kind of thing.

[mutley]

the ST clutch is good for at least 260+bhp.. a lot are going for the mk2 RS clutch beyond that power just to make sure they are well covered.

 

you might want to consider asking these questions on focusstoc although im sure a lot would just say but the ST

[massivewangers]

thats the kind of thing im trying to find out. ive just read that the rs has an ap racing clutch, that kind of thing.

 

And?

 

Does that means it's better than the ST? The ST clutch does it's job just fine. The fact the RS has an AP clutch is lovely if you want to brag to your mates but, in reality, just means it's probably more expensive to replace.

 

As I and others said, comparing the name of the manufacturer of certain parts, or looking at numbers won't tell you much of use about the cars. Just drive both, see which you prefer, which suits your needs best, and go from there.

 

On the basis of this, you could say that because the MK1 RS has Brembo brakes, OZ wheels, Sparco seats, Sachs dampers and all sorts, that it's better than the MK2 RS with it's Volvo brakes, Ford wheels etc, but it clearly isn't.

[sortedgti2.0]

These are both great cars to drive, the ST has a more comfertible drive compaired to the Mk1 RS (my opinnion) i feel the rs can be harsh because of the sparco seats whereas the ST-3 has leather Recarros. I would also say that the ST is far better on a long drive on the motorway more space and comfort again. if i were to choose any of them id get the RS just for the badge.