The Best Thing About the Focus RS?

"Burrito de EJ25" (alexcarrillo01)
02/12/2015 at 02:49 • Filed to: None

It's seeing what Subaru does in response.

Sorry, I just feel nothing for the Ford. I am glad it might force Subaru to finally ditch that ancient EJ for the FA20 in the WRX and up the power, though. Competition rules.

DISCUSSION (28)

Garrett Davis > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 02:51

Says the guy with "EJ25" in his name.

I agree though. Even though I'm a huge fan of the RS, I just love it when a game changer like this comes in to shake up the market.

ly2v8-Brian > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 02:52

Well it already accomplished looking better, but that was an easy task.

Burrito de EJ25 > Garrett Davis
02/12/2015 at 02:52

I'll miss the boxer rumble when it's gone. Curse yee equal length headers!

TheD0k_2many toys 2little time > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 02:54

Meh...

Im livin that DSM lyfe yo

SlickMcRick > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 03:14

Maybe they'll bring the hatch back!

(wishful thinking)

Doge_Supreme drives a BRZ > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 03:32

I'm pretty sure Subaru was already planning on ditching the EJ25, this just might speed up the process. Also it may make them rethink not releasing a hatch for the new gen.

DipodomysDeserti > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 06:24

Subaru already ditched the EJ25 in the WRX. Just not in the STI. The Focus RS won't cause Subaru to do anything.

samssun > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 07:28

It'll be disappointing if the STI downgrades to a 2 liter. That'll mean lower limits for the DI injectors, less exhaust flow to spool however big a turbo you add, and more stress at whatever power level you want. A version of the FA bored to 2.5 would make a much better competitor to the Ecoboost 2.3.

William Byrd > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 07:38

They're too busy making their mainstream cars look (and apparently sell) like Toyotas.

They literally had a beige Legacy sedan on the turntable at the DC auto show. Their feature car, was a beige Legacy.

I hope you're right, but I'm not sure they are focused on beating the RS.

Tareim - V8 powered > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 07:48

plenty of aftermarket UEL headers to get it back

Nobi > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 07:57

Maybe they'll build a boxer 4 that doesn't spit head gaskets out?

I kid, but honestly it'll be interesting to see what everyone else does in response to it. I'm sure Subaru will turn the wick up some on the WRX, but if the RS is a sales success here, you know other automakers (VW, Toyota, Mazda, the so far vaporware SRT-4 Dart) will want in on it too.

jkm7680 > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 08:04

Now, fix the interior plastics and we can talk.

BmanUltima's car still hasn't been fixed yet, he'll get on it tomorrow, honest. > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 08:58

Now we just need to see what Mitsubishi's response is.

Oh wait.

Mustafaluigi > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 11:03

They already did that? I'm confused by your post.

RobG-ADV > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 13:26

I'm also glad to see the Focus RS for that same reason. Maybe Subaru will stop resting on its laurels and do something. AND BRING BACK THE 5-DOOR as well.

You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much > Burrito de EJ25
02/12/2015 at 13:37

But equal length headers with a twin scroll turbo equals quicker spool for better low end and better throttle response. Most of the Group N Subaru's run equal length headers. I'm OK with this.

Burrito de EJ25 > Mustafaluigi
02/12/2015 at 22:57

I'm excited to see what Subaru does with the STI in response to the more powerful Focus RS.

Burrito de EJ25 > You can tell a Finn but you can't tell him much
02/12/2015 at 22:59

I understand the practical reasons for ditching the UELs. The rumble is the WRX's song. I'll miss it when it's gone.

Burrito de EJ25 > jkm7680
02/12/2015 at 23:00

They already did.

Mustafaluigi > Burrito de EJ25
02/13/2015 at 08:43

Ah, I believe it was your wording, made it sound like you thought the EJ was still in the WRX. Re-read it and it makes sense now.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > Burrito de EJ25
03/10/2015 at 16:32

Ummmm

2015 WRX has the FA20DIT with ~268hp Has for a year now, before the Ford was announced.

WRX STI still uses the EJ257 with ~300-305hp.

But the STI still doesn't have torque vectoring on either axle, and still costs a boat-load of money, as if the drivetrain wasn't already 10 years old.

Plus the sedan body-style is getting a bit boring. The rear seats aren't that accommodating, yet the car has the weight of the rear doors and door frames in the body, more than a 2+2 coupe would. Neither does it have the utility and versatility of a rear hatch.

2015 WRX/STI is roughly the same size as the 2005-2009 Legacy GT. I had one of those... and the trunk portal was much smaller than the trunk capacity, and a limiting factor. At least then it was a choice to get a wagon version of the Legacy GT or Outback 2.5XT.

Now, no such luck, and Subaru has all but said "Nah." to a turbocharged WRX-powered XV Crosstrek 5-door that would actually be both fun and versatile.

Burrito de EJ25 > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
03/10/2015 at 20:39

Yeah. I'm saying I want that new engine in the STI with a considerable bump in power.

random001 > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
04/11/2015 at 12:19

As a poi t of order, the reason there's no torque hectoring in the STi is because it has limited slip diffs, which are a better way to do the same thing. Brake torque vectoring is a cheap way to simulate limited slip diffs.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > random001
04/12/2015 at 01:50

Torque vectoring and limited slip torque biasing are different.

Torque biasing reacts to low traction and re-directs torque to the other tire with traction.

Torque vectoring is pro-active during a turn, usually activated with a yaw sensor, to accelerate the outside rear compared to the inside rear tire, to actively push the car into the turn to overcome understeer, without inducing loss of traction for over-steer.

random001 > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
04/12/2015 at 17:18

I didn't say they were the same, I said they were different ways of achieving the same goal, which is to help rotate a car that is experiencing loss of traction.

Torque vectoring is (at least in implementation) activated to apply the brake to the slipping wheel to redirect torque to keep consistent rotation. Limited slip differentials apply the same goal, help the car rotate properly based on available traction to limit wheel slide (over or under steer). It's cheaper to add torque vectoring, since it's a couple of sensors and a computer haning off the ABS system, than to implement a full limited slip diff system, especially in AWD

The point is that the STi doesn't need no stinking torque vectoring, because multiple limited slip diffs and a computer controlled center differ is still superior.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > random001
04/13/2015 at 12:17

WRONG.

The goal of torque biasing limited slip differentials is to shift torque to a wheel with traction, when the other wheel at the end of that axle has less traction.

It has nothing to do with 'rotating a car'

Torque vectoring does pro-actively with yaw by design. Torque biasing is not intended toward that goal, even if it might be a secondary, reactive effect.

Cheap brake-application torque controls, either reacting to loss of traction (torque biasing), or actively trying to modify the vehicles cornering dynamics (torque vectoring, without loss of traction on the inside wheel) are the easy way out.

But it doesn't change the nature of the DIFFERENCE between torque biasing and proactive torque vectoring, to two different goals.

A torsen limited slip differential mechanically uses significant speed differential of axle rotation rates to bias torque toward the slower-rotating axle shaft, it doesn't pro-actively accelerate the outside (faster-rotating) wheel while cornering, if the inside wheel still has traction.

random001 > BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast.
04/13/2015 at 12:26

Both systems are designed to keep traction on a vehicle that is turning. The fact that one is also effective when a vehicle is slipping in a straight line is merely a bonus. In this instance, maintaining traction is the goal, which if I remember anything about physics will help to rotate a car by, I don't know, maintaining traction?

What you are trying to do is tell me that limited slip diffs do not help a car to corner better, which is, how did you put it? WRONG. Both systems help a car corner, they go about it differently yes, but the intended outcome is the same. Christ, get off your stick man.

BoxerFanatic, troublesome iconoclast. > random001
04/13/2015 at 12:46

I own a car with a torsen differential, a Miata which corners quite well, and I have owned two AWD subarus. I have tens of thousands of miles of personal experience with these systems.

A torsen torque-biasing differential is agnostic to cornering. It prevents traction loss which can maintain traction during a corner, or in a straight line, regardless.

Maintaining traction prevents loss of control, prevents over-steer, and may help the car stay stable, but that is in no way the same thing as torque vectoring, which is pro-active for inputting additional cornering force and yaw input to counteract understeer, and not intended for preservation of traction.

Torque-biasing is intended in some cases, to actually *prevent* yaw... when accelerating in a straight line, if one tire loses traction, it could cause un-controlled oversteer, where a torsen would prevent that, and maintain torque to the other rear wheel, keeping the car straight.

A torque-biasing torsen differential does not accelerate the outboard rear tire to reduce understeer, which is what torque vectoring definitively does by applying more torque to that wheel than the inboard rear tire.

The intended outcome is NOT the same, and what you are saying is inaccurate, which is why I continually correct you. You continue to fail to understand the difference, if you assert that the outcome or the goal is the same, because it is different by definition and intended effect.

Get off your mis-understanding.