LS Focus ULP vs PULP performance

Lagom · 11-01-2006, 09:14 PM

I've been reading reports in various places about the 2.0 being just okay in performance as a manual (haven't really read anything saying it's really good, which is strange given 107kW is hardly stingy for power) and a bit disappointing as an auto. When I drove the manual briefly, I thought the performance was okay, but frankly it felt less energetic than a 1.8 Corolla off the line (the 1.8 manual Corollas with 100kW aren't too bad off the line as a manual when pushed).

Could these comments be a result of running the car on ULP as opposed to PULP. The European specs quote 107kW, which would be on 95RON, so I find it hard to believe that Aussie cars running 91RON would deliver 107kW (notice how the brochure mentions all specs are when running 95RON).

Anyone know what the power drop is with running 91RON? The compression ratio is 10.8:1 which is towards the higher end for a run of the mill NA engine.

dazza_1011 · 12-01-2006, 12:47 AM

the corolla is quite a bit lighter than the focus hence power to weight they are both very similar, my mate has a corolla with a sports exhaust say adding +5 odd kw havent raced off the mark but have raced from about 60-130 (on a track of course :p) and the focus was the clear winner. as far as fuel i only use bp ultimate so cant compare what it is like on regular unleaded. one thing with the focus on a cold night which i never really noticed in my previous car (a lancer) is it goes soooo much harder just like it has just had a shot of addrenalin. Does anyone know if i was to fit a pod filter would i get this even in normal temperatures if so is there any out that look like the stock box or fit in the stock box, how much ?? where from ?? and also how does this affect the warranty???

zetec · 12-01-2006, 12:59 AM

I've driven many a manual and auto LS Focus, and the auto LS simply blows away my manual LR (from experience over numerous highway onramps and straights with two of us comparing) and the manual feels even stronger. I'm yet to be disappointed by the new 2.0, it's light years ahead of my own LR 2.0. May well be many Dealers running their cars on regular to save money, hence test drives may well make a big difference.

They rated quite highly against a 2.3 SP23 from memory, they laid down a very good accel time in the low 8 second barrier from memory... where's my Motor mag!!

New2Focus · 12-01-2006, 09:40 PM

I've only ever used PULP (95) in my LS, so can't comment on the difference. However, it does seem that there are a variety of comments from roadtesters, and one report I read recently ('Adelaide Review', I think) had a 0-100 time of 10.9 for a manual, which seems way out of whack - poor technique/measurement, or maybe the ULP.

It is strange that some commentators only give half-hearted comments about performance, even when their own figures indicate it to be at the front of the pack. My theory, having lived with the LS for a few months, is that it doesn't feel fast. I think that's in part because there are very few subtle cues that you're flying - no real vibrations through throttle, steering, gearstick or seat, and an engine that spins out without harshness. Sometimes, when overtaking something, I think "this isn't particularly quick", but a glance at the speedo or at the specks in the rear vision mirror indicate otherwise.

I can appreciate the age-old comments given by motoring writers about many well-sorted and genuinely quick cars - 'chassis could handle more power'. [I wonder will the XR5 feel as fast as it is?]

On other matters, I'll be interested to read responses to Dazza's questions. Has anyone objectively tested these filters?

Lagom · 12-01-2006, 10:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by dazza_1011

the corolla is quite a bit lighter than the focus hence power to weight they are both very similar

That's a fair point too, about 100kg - I forgot to mention that in my post. Actually the Corolla would be one of the few cars I can recall that actually became lighter with a new release. Mind you, it only lost around 20kg.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zetec

May well be many Dealers running their cars on regular to save money, hence test drives may well make a big difference.

I have a feeling you might be right on this one. Would be interested to find out the power difference between say 98RON & 91RON. Given the reasonably high compression ratio, surely there'd be some benefit in advancing ignition timing with a higher octane fuel.

Thanks for the replies.

Lagom · 12-01-2006, 10:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by New2Focus

I've only ever used PULP (95) in my LS, so can't comment on the difference. However, it does seem that there are a variety of comments from roadtesters, and one report I read recently ('Adelaide Review', I think) had a 0-100 time of 10.9 for a manual, which seems way out of whack - poor technique/measurement, or maybe the ULP.

ULP, gentlish launch technique, timing method (can make differences of around 0.2s on a 0-100km/h), load in the car, slower changes, extra gearchange prior to 100km/h, etc. You can squeeze a bit of time out of the car with various techniques, but they're not exactly kind.

Eg. some cars are geared to hit 100km/h just before or on the rev limiter, but given that Australian magazines base their acceleration timings on the 400m run, in some cases they might squeeze a 2-3 gearshift in prior to 100km/h, which can cost up to a few tenths on a 0-100km/h run, but be optimal for a 400m run. I'm not sure what the Focus' gearing is, this may not be relevant.

Quote:

Originally Posted by New2Focus

I can appreciate the age-old comments given by motoring writers about many well-sorted and genuinely quick cars - 'chassis could handle more power'. [I wonder will the XR5 feel as fast as it is?]

Having driven the S40 T5, I suspect you'll feel the push in the back in the XR5, especially given the S40's a more refined vehicle (you're not paying more for nothing).

You notice having 320Nm from 1500rpm, it's great. The gearbox is smooth as too

Fast Eddie · 13-01-2006, 04:24 PM

I can only find 2 tests that WHEELS have done on the LR Focus. First was Feb'03 when they tested a 5spd LX. Standing 400m in 17.7 @ 128km/h and 80-120km/h using 3rd/4th gear 8.2 and 11.5 seconds respectively.

The second was May'04 also a 5spd LX. Standing 400m in 17.3 @ 130km/h and 80-120km/h using 3rd/4th/5th gears were 7.8/10.7 and 14.5 seconds respectively.

Can't find any tests using a MKI Auto as they had slightly more torque than the manual.

I've only found one test for the MKII. A ZETEC Auto. Standing 400m in 17.2 @ 130km/h and 80-120km/h time of respectable 6.8 seconds. The ambient temperature was a cool 5 C and the other 2 tests were 20 C temperatures. I've read quite a few comments that the Focus seems to go better the lower the temperature i.e. at night.

0-100 time of 10.9 is what the WHEELS Journo recorded in the MKI LX 5spd back in February '03 too btw.

From what I understand, the journo's record the 80-120 times as it is indicative of experiencing a 'typical' overtaking manouvre.

They don't mention the type of fuel they use, either nor the what the journo revved the engine too! Hope this info helps.

Zetec, the SP23 recorded 0-100km/h in 9.1sec. Is this the figure you're trying to recollect?? This test was at an even colder 4 C ambient.

Lagom · 13-01-2006, 08:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie

Zetec, the SP23 recorded 0-100km/h in 9.1sec. Is this the figure you're trying to recollect?? This test was at an even colder 4 C ambient.

When you think about it, how relevant is performance at 4C for most Aussies?

I'd prefer that testing be done around 15C if possible - that's basically the ISA, International Standard Atmosphere condition at sea level.

New2Focus · 13-01-2006, 10:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Lagom

Having driven the S40 T5, I suspect you'll feel the push in the back in the XR5, especially given the S40's a more refined vehicle (you're not paying more for nothing).

You notice having 320Nm from 1500rpm, it's great. The gearbox is smooth as too

On that tangent, I also see that Volvo are planning an Australian launch of their baby C30 next year, using the (Focus/3) 2.0 and the - yes - 2.5 T5. Price: who knows? Given it's a Golf competitor, it would have to be around the GTi $40K mark - and therefore, the XR5 mark. This could be interesting. Decisions, decisions.

orsest170 · 13-01-2006, 10:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Fast Eddie

Zetec, the SP23 recorded 0-100km/h in 9.1sec. Is this the figure you're trying to recollect?? This test was at an even colder 4 C ambient.

Let me try to put an end to this speculation.

The 9.1 sec 0-100km/h (and 16.7sec 0-400m) for the SP23 was recorded during a hatch shootout conducted by Wheels about 5 months ago involving AUTOMATIC cars. In the same test, the Zetec recorded a 10.0 sec 0-100 and 17.2 sec 0-400m.

Incidentally, the comparison was won by the Golf FSI and the Zetec was a very close second, with the SP23 in third.

The manual versions are appreciably faster. Wheels recorded an 8.3 sec 0-100 and a 15.9 sec 0-400m for the SP23 but have not tested a manual Zetec. Motor magazine has tested the manual Zetec and recorded an 8.98 sec 0-100 and a 16.43 0-400m.

Interestingly, Motor Magazine's times for the manual SP23 are significantly slower than Wheels. Motor only managed an 8.73 and a 16.25 for the SP23. There are so any variables involved when recording acceleration times that it is difficult read too much into these times anyway.

At any rate, the SP23 is a quicker car, and well it might be, as it has a 2.3l donk, is 50kg lighter, has 8 more kW and an extra 18 Nm of torque.

Lagom · 14-01-2006, 10:43 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by New2Focus

On that tangent, I also see that Volvo are planning an Australian launch of their baby C30 next year, using the (Focus/3) 2.0 and the - yes - 2.5 T5. Price: who knows? Given it's a Golf competitor, it would have to be around the GTi $40K mark - and therefore, the XR5 mark. This could be interesting. Decisions, decisions.

The S40 T5 AWD is now $54,950 - the price dropped by $5k earlier this year, with the addition of AWD, heated seats, and a 12 speaker Dolby PLII Surround system - so really an improvement of about $9k in value.

A C30 probably would be priced mid to high 40s, IMHO - there is an element of boutique appeal about it, I suspect. The Volvo badge is a little more prestigious than the VW one and Volvo would put more fruit into the car than VW. In addition, the costs involved with bringing a car from Belgium are somewhat higher than sourcing cars from South Africa (re. Golf).

Didn't realise they were planning to use the Ford Duratec 2.0 engine - that'd be the first application of it in a Volvo. Volvo only use the Duratec 1.6 & 1.8 petrol engines and the Ford-PSA 2.0 turbodiesel. Lower end S40/V50s use the 103kW 2.4 5 cylinder, vs the 125kW engine we have here.