pretty sure the s3 was trying to race there, the driver must have been crap though, pretty sure a stock s3 would keep up with a focus st slightly tuned up, my focus st is running a tad under 300 bhp and just beats an s3 in a straight line, round bends the heavy engine in the st makes in handle like a turd, but I can live with that. fisherdaz1 youre a retard! round the bends a focus st will be worse than an mx5 so how will it keep up with a porsche or m3?! lshlshlsh is right and youre talking ass
Well, i love the ST, hell i've got a tuned one but it doesn't look like the S3 was actually trying in this video. And its crap anyway because we don't what they are both tuned to, the S3 might have 250 and the ST could have 280 for all we know.
Nope I dont have an ST, I did have the 2.0T Ford RS and that poor build quality was enough to put me off of Ford for a long time!!!...I actually now have an E46 M3 CLS...that is after the RS, and R32 Golf and a 25AE GTI Golf (337 edition for the Yanks)...
So what car do you own? (and this does not include invisible cars or the ones you own on 'need for speed'!)
You keep going on about how you own an E46 M3 CSL. Well done you! Why do you seem to think that's so amazing? Thats the old one, the 2003-2004 model. I took down 2 of those on B roads when my Focus ST was standard, and the ST isn't exactly the fastest car in the world! It would probably be best if you went and got something to be arrogant about before you started looking down on other people. Come back when you've got something that cost 6 figures, because an old M3 isn't anything special.
If it was the new one then i would agree. However, other than not being front wheel drive (which i will admit, is better) how is your car better than the new RS, or indeed the ST for that matter?
Please read my comments again. I stated TWICE that I have an M3, yet did not mention that it was special or amazing, etc. thus there seems to be a distinct lack of correlation between your defamatory statement of arrogance and the truth of an obvious lack of it on my part.
Also i think your 'slightly' lying to claim a standard ST took down ANY M3 (CLS or not).
ST = 225bhp 0-60 6.8
E46 M3 = 343bhp 0-60 5.1
But then again I guess factual information seems to be of irrelevance to you...
It's funny how because you're being challenged that the 0-60 time for the ST has gone up 0.3 of a second to previous comments you made. And what have 0-60 times got to do with anything? I wasn't saying i've ever had any form of M3 in a straight line, i told you quite clearly it was on B roads. And how can you call me arrogant after the way you were taking the piss out of someone for the cars that they had owned. . .twice. You talk the talk mate, but that's definitely as far as it goes.
The .3 difference is down to variances from differing sources,unfortunately I cant replicate stats for every car from memory..how about you?
You surely cant believe and ST could out-handle an M3. ST has worse traction, is FWD and with that tank-engine is nose-heavy (and thus unbalanced) a feck.
I am aware that the Nurbugring is a very straight track, but you are aware that a CSL goes round it over 1 minute faster than an ST (7.50-8.51). Even a standard E46 M3 gets round it 30 seconds quicker
I also hope you are aware that a MK5 Golf GTI with 500cc less, 25 bhp less and a lot less torque does it in near exact same time as the ST. I know you are going to be biased towards the ST, but I think this emphasises that the handling of your car is not something to be shouting aboutquite the opposite in-fact
The ST is a good value, but for a 2.5T and considering the weight of it, its underpowered, unbalanced and would be spanked by an 8p S3.
I wasn't talking about smooth race tracks which i never go on. I was talking about B roads. Facts and figures are all well and good, but i can only go on what happened. But if it will make you feel better, lets just say they weren't trying. And its of no relevance to me now what a standard ST can or can't do anyway. I believe the CSL has 365 NM torque? Mountune ST, 400NM (probably a bit more off the page). On a track no, but in the real world, i'd give you one hell of a run.
If you think 35nm (or so) of torque is going to make up for a circa 100bhp difference, then you should of brought a diesel. I dont see how such statistical figures would not give an indication of the truth on track or road. Neither car are specific track cars, so to race them on a road or track would be of next to no difference, the results will maintain. At the end of the day a mapped ST will beat a lot of cars on the road, but an M3 is definately not one of them, unless the driver is v.bad!
The ST was vastly underpowered from the factory when you consider a generic map (and uprated FMIC) will give you about 70bhp more...BUT VAG cars are also the same. A 1.8T (A3/Golf) gains 70bhp from a map (150-220) and the same applies with this S3. An 8p S3 will reach about 340bhp with a remap and full exhaust system.
TBH a tuned ST is a weapon to be respected, but honestly (unless the driver is bad) against an equally tuned 8p S3 or an E46 (or E96) M3 it really really does not stand a chance.
I would happily test that theory, because down a B road i've seen all sorts of things happen. And i can assure you there is a very large difference between racing on a track and on the road. I've seen little MX5s keep up with your top speck porsches. So i wouldn't count an ST out because of a 1.4 second 0-60 difference. And you've got to remember an ST when tuned is around 150kg lighter than an M3. So with a suspension upgrade and a lighter exhaust i wouldn't be so sure if i were you.
The exhaust will make very minimal difference with regards to weight.
The only way an MX5 could keep up with say a GT3 is if the Porsche driver is that bad, and I mean really bad...again the same applies if your ST were to race an M3 or S3. Both of these cars are faster, handle better, are better balanced and would win...track or otherwise. If this logic were not universally applicalble, then we would all be beaten by a lesser car.
Bad comment, the focus RS costs £25k the TT rs will be £45k, so your comment is utter bullshit isnt it? Are you a fucking moron, or just badly informed. TBH you should go and kill yourself. CUNT
It is a FACT that the ST is massively underpowered when compared to other cars using the 2.5T Volvo lump...including against their own RS. At any point did I state a price tag, you illiterate mug!!!
Any just for your misinformed information the TT-RS costs under £40k.
It is well known that Ford always extract less power from engines than their competitors...and yet again they have done the same with the ST.
So go and learn your facts little boy...before mouthing off behind a keyboard!
some people on here say some really stupid shit! who ever heard of a damn fwd gallardo!!! btw im calling bullshit on the results of this "race" a modded s3 vs a modded st s3 ftw
Which mods on every car?? I dont think the S3 was modded if you beated that way, look at my vids, I raced a Focus ST with Dreamscience, and I had APR ECU reprogramation nd air intake, and we kept exactly the same,till now i have abtter time in quarter mile for about .1 second faster... I also raced with a S3, and from a DIG, is IMPOSSIBLE to keep up with it, but from a roll, like in this video, its easier, but still, the S3 keeps pulling harder because the KO4, they get until 20 KM/H.
oh c'mon...why are you discussing about factory specs? the headline says both were modified. tell me: which engine has more potential? a 4-cylinder-2.0litre-turbo or a 5-cylinder-2.5litre-turbo? at that point it's obviously not mattering, what the factory specs are... btw: the focus' engine is the same as the 300bhp-volvo-engine which should proof that it has enough potential to beat a S3
Actually its not! Ever wondered why a remap only makes the ST 280bhp or so..
I wonder what has more potential an S3 with a newer, faster, lighter and more efficient TFSI or an old heavy volvo lump!!! Not to mention the 4WD issue!!!
the S3 is 2WDriven most of the time. only if the front wheels don't have enough traction, the visco clutch enables 4WD! so it's quite worthless because it's a rolling start.
nevertheless i'm thinking that a 5-cylinder-turbo-engine has at least the same potential as a 4-cylinder-TFSI!
I never said it was 50/50 4WD, it is from factory 100/0 to 70/30 (but can be adjusted relatively easily). Face the facts...
1) It is the hadex in the centre of the diff that is responsible for the 4wd system NOT the clutch.
2) When you drop a gear and floor it, due to the amount of power, the haldex (4WD) system WILL kick in to prevent the front wheels from slipping. This means it WILL work in a straight line.
3)The Haldex system will also work when you push the car into corners hard.
4) The ST is permanantly FWD and is nowhere near as good handling as the S3. Not to mention the ST had all its weight at the front due to the tank of an engine.
5) The ST/Volvo lump is very old and does NOT have anywhere near as much potential. The turbo on it is small and is integrated so far into the engine that it is near impossible to change!!! The TFSI is very new and more efficient, thats why a simple generic remap will push the car to 310bhp, but the ST can only manage 280)
If you still think the ST has more potential than an S3, then obviously your only looking at the engine size. Very simple answer, look at any evo... 2.0T, are you going to try to tell me that the ST tank has more potential than that too...
S3 is lighter, faster, more tunable, better balanced, better handling, etc. etc.
It is dependant upon how much you want to spend...but being realistic, the S3 is more tuneable, is it not...?! My post was to justify that without spending obscene amounts of cash the S3 is the better and more tuneable engine.
Face what...? Yes the ST 'appeared' to lose in this video, but if you read through my posts, I was simply trying to explain that when both cars are standard and even when both are mapped, the S3 will kill it!!! (Not to mention the handling ability of the S3).
the engine of the S3 is the best engine ever! that's why even the lamborghini gallardo has a 2.0TFSI and 4WD...
i don't know, if there's a corresponding saying in english...but it seems like the german saying that i know ("there's nothing that is able to compensate cylinder capacity - but more cylinder capacity") is not true; at least according to your reasoning.
and too, it's not true that 4WD has most of its advantages below 100km/h. that's because there are considerably less frictional losses, if there have to be driven 4 wheels and a haldex clutch, than in a car that is only 2 wheel driven.
oh, and did i ever tell you how much i love irony?!
If you want to bring supercars into the equation, then why does the fastest production car have 4WD and not FWD!
I said 4WD is more advantageous than FWD when flooring it at 100km/h (60 mph) and with just under 300bhp, as with FWD the wheels will just spin...I know this as I have a FWD car with the same power as the ST.
At any point did I say it has most of its advantages below 100km/h...??? Oh, did I tell you how much I love stupidity?!
i didn't say that FWD is the best. i'm sorry but the fastest supercars do not have 4WD. the fastest have RWD just because of the reason i told you. there are more frictional losses in the power train, if 4 wheels are driven.
so sometimes even FWD cars can be faster because at a specific speed in 4WD cars the frictional losses slowly become bigger than the advantage of traction.
i already told you to forget it..the debate is over. you're always absolutely right!
READ the posts, nobody said it was the best engine ever, its just a much better one than the ST (Volvo) one.
So nothing can beat cylinder capacity? then why are smaller modern NA engines more powerful the older counterparts? because they are more EFFICIENT. Of course if your spending obscene amounts of money on the engine then the ST has the advantage, but if you had that much money you wouldnt have a Ford!!!
By the way, some Gallardo's DO have 4WD...but remind me again how many have FWD...
you know your stuff, the s3 is the quickest car in its class (factory spec) the only car that would give it a good challenge is the megane R26 around a track. I haven't checked the times as yet but no other car in the class is worth mentioning if it is also stock.
HA HA, I get negative comments because I am right!!!???!!!
Look 'bro' An ST engine is shite...it is simply an old volvo engine (B5254T3).
An ST has a T3 turbo, an S3 has a K04...Not to mention the S3 has 4WD (granted only 70/30, but still its not 100/0!!!), where as you suffer from immense understear and wheelspin!!!
So you only have FWD, a smaller turbo AND heavier car due to the old Volvo tank engine...basically from stand still or around ay town or track, you will be totally spanked!!!
Dont get me wrong, ST's are quite quick...BUT you have to consider you have a factory 0-60 of 6.5 seconds where as the S3 does it in 5.5 AND has better traction due to 4WD...So even before a remap, your still slower...
I think s3 started in 3rd gear u wasnt. :) but its not my point, in the audi there were 4 passsenger atleast, and the only mod was hes rear lamp dude, and u know it. There wasnt any mod on the s3. Only with a stage 1 s3 got 310Hp. U should named your video focus st passed s3, NOT vs!
my dad has the st and i don't no how many times iv been in the car and some s3 is trying to blow him of he fuckin left them standing
jamesriley5 6 months ago
s3 is a fantastic car
theoriginalmoneyman 1 year ago
Both cars look slow as fuck to me
uptheduffagain 1 year ago
The only mod on the s3 was a panted rear lamp man! LOL
norb088 1 year ago
The S3 can't have been racing; we're not kids.
Ndlelex 1 year ago
That audi got its ass kicked, it was clearly a race... listen to that thing go, when the ST passes it
InSerTRSA 1 year ago
hahahplaymobil s3... ugly as hell destroys the whole nice white car..
dominoc5 1 year ago
ST rules! All Focus are great. Unfortunately here in Argentina doesn't arrive the ST or RS...
senderist 1 year ago
pretty sure the s3 was trying to race there, the driver must have been crap though, pretty sure a stock s3 would keep up with a focus st slightly tuned up, my focus st is running a tad under 300 bhp and just beats an s3 in a straight line, round bends the heavy engine in the st makes in handle like a turd, but I can live with that. fisherdaz1 youre a retard! round the bends a focus st will be worse than an mx5 so how will it keep up with a porsche or m3?! lshlshlsh is right and youre talking ass
scolesy 2 years ago
S3 wasnt even racing lol
mikethebeast1012 2 years ago
next time race a S3 that knows its racing.... lol
modded yugo can beat your ST.
compare @the same level of mods.
3smike 2 years ago
FUCKIN WANKERS
OXOCUBE54321 2 years ago
Well, i love the ST, hell i've got a tuned one but it doesn't look like the S3 was actually trying in this video. And its crap anyway because we don't what they are both tuned to, the S3 might have 250 and the ST could have 280 for all we know.
Fisherdaz1 2 years ago
oh.. and ST is faster right ? HAHAHAH
m1rchegfn 2 years ago 3
angeblich
DerBububu 2 years ago
Just to prove how underpowered the 2.5T ST is @ 225bhp....Anyone seen the 2.5T Audi TT RS @340bhp....
Even the new Focus RS is 'only' 300bhp.
Bottom line is the ST is a poor car!!!
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago
haha just coz you aint got one mardy bum
nathanlakin 2 years ago
Nope I dont have an ST, I did have the 2.0T Ford RS and that poor build quality was enough to put me off of Ford for a long time!!!...I actually now have an E46 M3 CLS...that is after the RS, and R32 Golf and a 25AE GTI Golf (337 edition for the Yanks)...
So what car do you own? (and this does not include invisible cars or the ones you own on 'need for speed'!)
LSHLSHLSH 2 years ago
You keep going on about how you own an E46 M3 CSL. Well done you! Why do you seem to think that's so amazing? Thats the old one, the 2003-2004 model. I took down 2 of those on B roads when my Focus ST was standard, and the ST isn't exactly the fastest car in the world! It would probably be best if you went and got something to be arrogant about before you started looking down on other people. Come back when you've got something that cost 6 figures, because an old M3 isn't anything special.
Fisherdaz1 2 years ago
its is still much better tha a focus st and even the focus rs
cbr600rrtugaboy 2 years ago 4
If it was the new one then i would agree. However, other than not being front wheel drive (which i will admit, is better) how is your car better than the new RS, or indeed the ST for that matter?
Fisherdaz1 2 years ago
Please read my comments again. I stated TWICE that I have an M3, yet did not mention that it was special or amazing, etc. thus there seems to be a distinct lack of correlation between your defamatory statement of arrogance and the truth of an obvious lack of it on my part.
Also i think your 'slightly' lying to claim a standard ST took down ANY M3 (CLS or not).
ST = 225bhp 0-60 6.8
E46 M3 = 343bhp 0-60 5.1
But then again I guess factual information seems to be of irrelevance to you...
LSHLSHLSH 2 years ago
It's funny how because you're being challenged that the 0-60 time for the ST has gone up 0.3 of a second to previous comments you made. And what have 0-60 times got to do with anything? I wasn't saying i've ever had any form of M3 in a straight line, i told you quite clearly it was on B roads. And how can you call me arrogant after the way you were taking the piss out of someone for the cars that they had owned. . .twice. You talk the talk mate, but that's definitely as far as it goes.
Fisherdaz1 2 years ago
The .3 difference is down to variances from differing sources,unfortunately I cant replicate stats for every car from memory..how about you?
You surely cant believe and ST could out-handle an M3. ST has worse traction, is FWD and with that tank-engine is nose-heavy (and thus unbalanced) a feck.
I am aware that the Nurbugring is a very straight track, but you are aware that a CSL goes round it over 1 minute faster than an ST (7.50-8.51). Even a standard E46 M3 gets round it 30 seconds quicker
LSHLSHLSH 2 years ago
I also hope you are aware that a MK5 Golf GTI with 500cc less, 25 bhp less and a lot less torque does it in near exact same time as the ST. I know you are going to be biased towards the ST, but I think this emphasises that the handling of your car is not something to be shouting aboutquite the opposite in-fact
The ST is a good value, but for a 2.5T and considering the weight of it, its underpowered, unbalanced and would be spanked by an 8p S3.
Now what was that about talking the talk?!
LSHLSHLSH 2 years ago
I wasn't talking about smooth race tracks which i never go on. I was talking about B roads. Facts and figures are all well and good, but i can only go on what happened. But if it will make you feel better, lets just say they weren't trying. And its of no relevance to me now what a standard ST can or can't do anyway. I believe the CSL has 365 NM torque? Mountune ST, 400NM (probably a bit more off the page). On a track no, but in the real world, i'd give you one hell of a run.
Fisherdaz1 2 years ago
If you think 35nm (or so) of torque is going to make up for a circa 100bhp difference, then you should of brought a diesel. I dont see how such statistical figures would not give an indication of the truth on track or road. Neither car are specific track cars, so to race them on a road or track would be of next to no difference, the results will maintain. At the end of the day a mapped ST will beat a lot of cars on the road, but an M3 is definately not one of them, unless the driver is v.bad!
LSHLSHLSH 2 years ago
The ST was vastly underpowered from the factory when you consider a generic map (and uprated FMIC) will give you about 70bhp more...BUT VAG cars are also the same. A 1.8T (A3/Golf) gains 70bhp from a map (150-220) and the same applies with this S3. An 8p S3 will reach about 340bhp with a remap and full exhaust system.
TBH a tuned ST is a weapon to be respected, but honestly (unless the driver is bad) against an equally tuned 8p S3 or an E46 (or E96) M3 it really really does not stand a chance.
LSHLSHLSH 2 years ago
I would happily test that theory, because down a B road i've seen all sorts of things happen. And i can assure you there is a very large difference between racing on a track and on the road. I've seen little MX5s keep up with your top speck porsches. So i wouldn't count an ST out because of a 1.4 second 0-60 difference. And you've got to remember an ST when tuned is around 150kg lighter than an M3. So with a suspension upgrade and a lighter exhaust i wouldn't be so sure if i were you.
Fisherdaz1 2 years ago
The exhaust will make very minimal difference with regards to weight.
The only way an MX5 could keep up with say a GT3 is if the Porsche driver is that bad, and I mean really bad...again the same applies if your ST were to race an M3 or S3. Both of these cars are faster, handle better, are better balanced and would win...track or otherwise. If this logic were not universally applicalble, then we would all be beaten by a lesser car.
I am sure, I am beyond sure...I am certain!
LSHLSHLSH 2 years ago
Bad comment, the focus RS costs £25k the TT rs will be £45k, so your comment is utter bullshit isnt it? Are you a fucking moron, or just badly informed. TBH you should go and kill yourself. CUNT
tn21beer 2 years ago
It is a FACT that the ST is massively underpowered when compared to other cars using the 2.5T Volvo lump...including against their own RS. At any point did I state a price tag, you illiterate mug!!!
Any just for your misinformed information the TT-RS costs under £40k.
It is well known that Ford always extract less power from engines than their competitors...and yet again they have done the same with the ST.
So go and learn your facts little boy...before mouthing off behind a keyboard!
LSHLSHLSH 2 years ago
Rofl, keyboard hero, you win at internet. Im guessing you dont even have a fucking car. Faggot.
tn21beer 2 years ago
Still playing the big pretender and mouthing off are we despite the fact you have been shown for the MUG you are...
What a total joker, your just a silly keyboard-warrior and you 'sir' are OWNED!!!
LSHLSHLSH 2 years ago
Trade in the bus pass and get a car. Then you can comment.
tn21beer 2 years ago
No swearing? where has the distinct lack of vocabulary gone...I guess that has been replaced with self-humiliation!
I tell you what, I will find a video of my old 25AE Golf beating my friends Type-R...just for you...
LSHLSHLSH 2 years ago
Golf... enough said. Hahaha. End of.
tn21beer 2 years ago 3
Just to remind, you had a 1.1 Fiesta up to 18 months ago...your choice of cars to own next were:
306 1.4/1.6
saxo vtr
punto elx 1.2 16v
Fiesta zetec 1.25 16v
and you think my old 1.8T 20v 25AE Anniversary Golf with a hybrid is a joke! P.S. my current car is an E46 M3 CSL...
Go home little boy...go home!
LSHLSHLSH 2 years ago
More over WTF do you know about owning or tuning anything with power...you car list circa 18months ago (at the time of owning a 1.1 Fiesta) was:
306 1.4/1.6
saxo vtr
punto elx 1.2 16v
Fiesta zetec 1.25 16v
looking at your other video's im guessing you now aspire to Type-R's...
Go and watch video's that are more relevant to your level and understanding...!!!
what a 'ricer', what a novice, what an absolute joker!!!
LSHLSHLSH 2 years ago
das a audi not a focus ugly guy
itsacrises 3 years ago 3
The volvo 2.5 5 cylinder engine is very good for tuning
paashaasede 3 years ago
how the hell was this a race?
bbbd 3 years ago 8
some people on here say some really stupid shit! who ever heard of a damn fwd gallardo!!! btw im calling bullshit on the results of this "race" a modded s3 vs a modded st s3 ftw
DJRandySky 3 years ago 4
Load of bollocks. There's too many of these 'vs' videos on youtube. Just because you drive past a car does not mean you beat them in a race.
It says that both cars are modified, but what are they? I bet he doesn't even know the guy in the S3...
BigBadCrazyDave 3 years ago 6
Bel video di merda... Vai in pista per vedere chi corre e chi no.
AndreaLaika 3 years ago
This comment has received too many negative votes show
Go on the ST's just bought myself 1 and im loving it. it tore the bag outa tht s3 no point sayin it wasnt a fair race etc.
lighter700 3 years ago
Which mods on every car?? I dont think the S3 was modded if you beated that way, look at my vids, I raced a Focus ST with Dreamscience, and I had APR ECU reprogramation nd air intake, and we kept exactly the same,till now i have abtter time in quarter mile for about .1 second faster... I also raced with a S3, and from a DIG, is IMPOSSIBLE to keep up with it, but from a roll, like in this video, its easier, but still, the S3 keeps pulling harder because the KO4, they get until 20 KM/H.
jocker190 3 years ago
audi a3 haha ugly
american19772007 3 years ago
oh c'mon...why are you discussing about factory specs? the headline says both were modified. tell me: which engine has more potential? a 4-cylinder-2.0litre-turbo or a 5-cylinder-2.5litre-turbo? at that point it's obviously not mattering, what the factory specs are... btw: the focus' engine is the same as the 300bhp-volvo-engine which should proof that it has enough potential to beat a S3
newbjay 3 years ago
Actually its not! Ever wondered why a remap only makes the ST 280bhp or so..
I wonder what has more potential an S3 with a newer, faster, lighter and more efficient TFSI or an old heavy volvo lump!!! Not to mention the 4WD issue!!!
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago
omg... do you know, what you're saying?
the S3 is 2WDriven most of the time. only if the front wheels don't have enough traction, the visco clutch enables 4WD! so it's quite worthless because it's a rolling start.
nevertheless i'm thinking that a 5-cylinder-turbo-engine has at least the same potential as a 4-cylinder-TFSI!
newbjay 3 years ago
I cant believe it is so hard to comprehend!!!
I never said it was 50/50 4WD, it is from factory 100/0 to 70/30 (but can be adjusted relatively easily). Face the facts...
1) It is the hadex in the centre of the diff that is responsible for the 4wd system NOT the clutch.
2) When you drop a gear and floor it, due to the amount of power, the haldex (4WD) system WILL kick in to prevent the front wheels from slipping. This means it WILL work in a straight line.
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago 2
3)The Haldex system will also work when you push the car into corners hard.
4) The ST is permanantly FWD and is nowhere near as good handling as the S3. Not to mention the ST had all its weight at the front due to the tank of an engine.
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago 2
5) The ST/Volvo lump is very old and does NOT have anywhere near as much potential. The turbo on it is small and is integrated so far into the engine that it is near impossible to change!!! The TFSI is very new and more efficient, thats why a simple generic remap will push the car to 310bhp, but the ST can only manage 280)
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago
If you still think the ST has more potential than an S3, then obviously your only looking at the engine size. Very simple answer, look at any evo... 2.0T, are you going to try to tell me that the ST tank has more potential than that too...
S3 is lighter, faster, more tunable, better balanced, better handling, etc. etc.
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago 2
The potential of the car is as big as the size of your wallet.
Don't forget that most powerfull EVO's run 2.3 stroker kit.
In this video the ST was faster car ... face it.
Tadejchek 3 years ago
It is dependant upon how much you want to spend...but being realistic, the S3 is more tuneable, is it not...?! My post was to justify that without spending obscene amounts of cash the S3 is the better and more tuneable engine.
Face what...? Yes the ST 'appeared' to lose in this video, but if you read through my posts, I was simply trying to explain that when both cars are standard and even when both are mapped, the S3 will kill it!!! (Not to mention the handling ability of the S3).
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago
simply forget it! let's end the debate!
the engine of the S3 is the best engine ever! that's why even the lamborghini gallardo has a 2.0TFSI and 4WD...
i don't know, if there's a corresponding saying in english...but it seems like the german saying that i know ("there's nothing that is able to compensate cylinder capacity - but more cylinder capacity") is not true; at least according to your reasoning.
newbjay 3 years ago
and too, it's not true that 4WD has most of its advantages below 100km/h. that's because there are considerably less frictional losses, if there have to be driven 4 wheels and a haldex clutch, than in a car that is only 2 wheel driven.
oh, and did i ever tell you how much i love irony?!
newbjay 3 years ago
If you want to bring supercars into the equation, then why does the fastest production car have 4WD and not FWD!
I said 4WD is more advantageous than FWD when flooring it at 100km/h (60 mph) and with just under 300bhp, as with FWD the wheels will just spin...I know this as I have a FWD car with the same power as the ST.
At any point did I say it has most of its advantages below 100km/h...??? Oh, did I tell you how much I love stupidity?!
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago
i didn't say that FWD is the best. i'm sorry but the fastest supercars do not have 4WD. the fastest have RWD just because of the reason i told you. there are more frictional losses in the power train, if 4 wheels are driven.
so sometimes even FWD cars can be faster because at a specific speed in 4WD cars the frictional losses slowly become bigger than the advantage of traction.
i already told you to forget it..the debate is over. you're always absolutely right!
newbjay 3 years ago
READ the posts, nobody said it was the best engine ever, its just a much better one than the ST (Volvo) one.
So nothing can beat cylinder capacity? then why are smaller modern NA engines more powerful the older counterparts? because they are more EFFICIENT. Of course if your spending obscene amounts of money on the engine then the ST has the advantage, but if you had that much money you wouldnt have a Ford!!!
By the way, some Gallardo's DO have 4WD...but remind me again how many have FWD...
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago
I whooped an Focus ST & Civic Type R in an S3 with ease.
boulda10 3 years ago
It's got more power, and costs 30% more, what do you expect?
CharlesHopper 3 years ago
wel they wernt tryin wanka
adolmes 3 years ago
If that ST is standard...NOT A CHANCE it could keep anywhere near...
ST=225bhp FWD
S3=260bhp 4WD
Just a remap pushes the S£ to over 310bhp...where as the ST can only reach 280 because it has an old Volvo engine with a pi55 weak turbo!!!
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago
Bro, you obviously have no idea what you are talking about!
My ST with stock Turbo pushes about 310Hp!!
Dyno proved @ 196Kw at the wheels!!!!
Thanks to FRC software!
DoomSA 3 years ago
who cares!!
Civic R will smash em both
TypeDoubleR 3 years ago
Er...VERY SIMPLY...no it wont!!!
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago
you know your stuff, the s3 is the quickest car in its class (factory spec) the only car that would give it a good challenge is the megane R26 around a track. I haven't checked the times as yet but no other car in the class is worth mentioning if it is also stock.
CRANKLE86 3 years ago
HA HA, I get negative comments because I am right!!!???!!!
Look 'bro' An ST engine is shite...it is simply an old volvo engine (B5254T3).
An ST has a T3 turbo, an S3 has a K04...Not to mention the S3 has 4WD (granted only 70/30, but still its not 100/0!!!), where as you suffer from immense understear and wheelspin!!!
So you only have FWD, a smaller turbo AND heavier car due to the old Volvo tank engine...basically from stand still or around ay town or track, you will be totally spanked!!!
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago
K20A Type R vtec motherfucker!
Respect that shit.
TypeDoubleR 3 years ago
I do, but I dont think it can manage against a 4wd S3 with over 320bhp from just a remap...
Slight problem with a type-R it has F*All torque...but a nice engine none the less...
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago
my focus before it was remapped beat a S3 so they can't be that good. and the standard turbo can push over 300bhp so it can't be that weak
cockyboochek 3 years ago
Simple, the S3 driver was bad!!!
Dont get me wrong, ST's are quite quick...BUT you have to consider you have a factory 0-60 of 6.5 seconds where as the S3 does it in 5.5 AND has better traction due to 4WD...So even before a remap, your still slower...
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago
I would also like to see this 'race' around ANY corners...
LSHLSHLSH 3 years ago
@LSHLSHLSH
He said in the title that it's modified...
Also, Quattro/4WD is actually a hindrance in a straight line.
Zildjian285 1 year ago
@LSHLSHLSH
Not every Audi is a 4 Wheel Drive,a few of them are front driven
Baienziichter 1 year ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@LSHLSHLSH
Not every Audi S3 is a 4 Wheel Drive,a few of them are front driven
Baienziichter 1 year ago
@LSHLSHLSH you should know S3 is quattro, not AWD so its basically FWD too
eeeedse 1 year ago
@LSHLSHLSH 4wd has a lot of drivetrain loss so at the wheels the ST could easily have more power. Along with the Audi weighing much more.
dawsonJ20 5 months ago
ahahahaha audi loose
Breakerstyle86 4 years ago
oh please that S3 is stock
jaredGTI 4 years ago
ST is the best ;)
BB8582 4 years ago
Do u wanna dice the ST and lose AGAIN!!!
(smokkelwp)
DoomSA 4 years ago
Stupid trokke he?
Slinky511nx7 4 years ago
Another one bites the dust... hehe
EvolutionBunny 4 years ago
O.k. yeah ST 275's car is really fast so I could see him doing that, good one :D
vuilbaard101 4 years ago
What's been done to the Focus? and the S3?
You sure the S3 was racing? If it was then awesome! But it just looks too easy :?
You on the ST Owners Forum?
vuilbaard101 4 years ago
Yes I am on the ST forum. My nick is GT-500.
But it was ST 275's ST.
The S3's twin Zhorsts where as big as the MPS3's.
He did race, you can hear how high the S3 boosts when we pass him and he went over the yellow line.
DoomSA 4 years ago
@DoomSA
I think s3 started in 3rd gear u wasnt. :) but its not my point, in the audi there were 4 passsenger atleast, and the only mod was hes rear lamp dude, and u know it. There wasnt any mod on the s3. Only with a stage 1 s3 got 310Hp. U should named your video focus st passed s3, NOT vs!
norb088 1 year ago