Ok, I've had a good look at the brochure and the data and noticed a few interesting things:
1. Ford obviously wanted to go one better than the STI so gave the RS an extra 5ps so that its the full 300 bhp rather than the STI's 300 ps which is 296 bhp!
2. On overboost the RS produces 440nm which is just over 224bhp, which is nice.
3. The CO2 emissions figure of 225 is excellent for such a powerful and heavy car. The corresponding mpg figure of 30.1 mpg is also excellent both helped by its FWD format reducing weight and transmission losses. This puts the RS in 2nd highest tax bracket (unlike the STI) and should also make the RS cheaper to buy as it is subject to a lower VRT rate.
4. MPG figures were measured using 95RON. Why? 98 RON would give more mpg. I wonder is this car set up to run on 95 ron?
5. There is no mention of the car making extensive use of aluminium in the suspension or elsewhere although the rear suspension is described as using a cast iron knuckle. I wonder if this is why there is no figures given for the RS's weight?
6. The 35 profile tyres are far too low for Irish roads in a car which does not have adaptive damping.
7. The performance figures are impressive, especially the in-gear figures. The problem is that I can't find a test which has figured the STI from 31mph to 62 mph which equates to 50kph to 100 kph so without a comparison these figures are a bit meaningless.
The REVO knuckle suspension is a type of pivot joint. Ford are not the first to market with this type of Mc Pearson strut suspension set up as Renault already use a version of this to stunning effect in the Renaultsport Megan. Like the Renaultsport Megan the RS uses the REVO Knuckle in conjunction with a trick front diff. and clever ECU programming to limit torque steer. On paper at least, the RS should be able to handle the power without corrupting the steering. I will be interested to read how it drives in the real world outside the control of Ford's PR machine!
Frawls