Ford Focus RS Forum banner
61 - 72 of 72 Posts

·
Registered
2017 Black RS
Joined
·
920 Posts
Hopefully there's a new Ford RDU that is a direct (or at least straight-forward) replacement that can handle more power. I know no one has tried to find that limit yet... but I fear someone will once they start playing around with Nutron's product.

The way I figure it, if the RDU gets a static amount of power, and a stock RS puts around 270hp to the ground, you would need to increase the RDU power by 115% to maintain the front/rear bias... unless I'm misunderstanding something.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
747 Posts
Audi VW and Mercedes’ A35/45 use torque vectoring as per the Focus RS all very similar to each other just seems the software simply allows more to be input in the German cars.

Basically they just copied a cracking idea in the Focus RS; even the A45 engine layout was revised after the Focus RS launch to again mimic the Ford for example the turbo on the A45 was at the front pre Focus launch after launch turbo layout as the focus and their engine was modified to mimic the setup of the Ford just with an extra 60-70hp more.

But in the UK their was is a price difference of £15-£25k more for the German cars than the RS so you’d expect with time and development and the huge price difference you’d get a more refined product.
 

·
Registered
2016 Ford Focus RS
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter · #63 ·
Thanks for the link, but I didn't hear anything new in that video. The focus does the same stuff.
Lol in a FAR less sophisticated way. The “chassis control module” is not even close to the same level of quality or performance. Watch some videos of RS3’s making well over 1000whp with minimal wheel spin. Now take a 550whp RS and watch yourself light the front wheels on fire before it finally hooks. Ford really kicked the system in the nuts with its entry level torque vectoring system.
 

·
Registered
2016 Ford Focus RS
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter · #64 ·
Hopefully there's a new Ford RDU that is a direct (or at least straight-forward) replacement that can handle more power. I know no one has tried to find that limit yet... but I fear someone will once they start playing around with Nutron's product.

The way I figure it, if the RDU gets a static amount of power, and a stock RS puts around 270hp to the ground, you would need to increase the RDU power by 115% to maintain the front/rear bias... unless I'm misunderstanding something.
You want to eliminate the “overdriven” rear, send power to the rear 100% of the time and base the system control on 3 inputs. Wheel speed, steering angle, throttle %. Then increase the speed at which the clutches can release and engage. That’s the meal ticket.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Lol in a FAR less sophisticated way. The “chassis control module” is not even close to the same level of quality or performance. Watch some videos of RS3’s making well over 1000whp with minimal wheel spin. Now take a 550whp RS and watch yourself light the front wheels on fire before it finally hooks. Ford really kicked the system in the nuts with its entry level torque vectoring system.
Lol. I think you bought into their marketing hype. It might very well be better, but you have no good reason to believe it. Both RDUs transfer the same amount of torque pretty much (see previous links I gave. I dont know if you missed it). If the 1000hp Audi doesnt spin its front tires its cause the computer is cutting power or slipping its clutches. Besides, any 1000 hp RS3 was on the previous haldex single clutch rear end which was probably swapped out in the build.

Also, The audi torque vectoring rear end also overdrives the rear guaranteed even if they don't mention it in the marketing. If it didn't do that, then it wouldn't work properly because the rear tires would drag through turns at small turn angles. This is because there is no rear differential which allows the outside wheel to travel farther than the inside wheels when going around a turn. The front differential rotates at the average speed between the outside and inside front wheels, while these torque vectoring rear ends can't compensate in that way. All similar systems including the originator of the concept- honda's SH-AWD have overdriven rear ends.

It must be easy being an upscale brand. All you have to do is mark up the price and people will automatically believe its better.
 

·
Registered
2016 Ford Focus RS
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter · #66 ·
Lol. I think you bought into their marketing hype. It might very well be better, but you have no good reason to believe it. Both RDUs transfer the same amount of torque pretty much (see previous links I gave. I dont know if you missed it). If the 1000hp Audi doesnt spin its front tires its cause the computer is cutting power or slipping its clutches. Besides, any 1000 hp RS3 was on the previous haldex single clutch rear end which was probably swapped out in the build.

Also, The audi torque vectoring rear end also overdrives the rear guaranteed even if they don't mention it in the marketing. If it didn't do that, then it wouldn't work properly because the rear tires would drag through turns at small turn angles. This is because there is no rear differential which allows the outside wheel to travel farther than the inside wheels when going around a turn. The front differential rotates at the average speed between the outside and inside front wheels, while these torque vectoring rear ends can't compensate in that way. All similar systems including the originator of the concept- honda's SH-AWD have overdriven rear ends.

It must be easy being an upscale brand. All you have to do is mark up the price and people will automatically believe its better.
Torque vectoring is torque vectoring, the BASE system is almost always going to be the same, no arguments there. But where the systems differ here is that Audi utilizes many more inputs and a has a much more sophisticated computer control system. Which is absolutely key in the performance of the system. It’s easy to see just by reading the literature on both cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
119 Posts
Torque vectoring is torque vectoring, the BASE system is almost always going to be the same, no arguments there. But where the systems differ here is that Audi utilizes many more inputs and a has a much more sophisticated computer control system. Which is absolutely key in the performance of the system. It’s easy to see just by reading the literature on both cars.
Torque vectoring is torque vectoring, the BASE system is almost always going to be the same, no arguments there. But where the systems differ here is that Audi utilizes many more inputs and a has a much more sophisticated computer control system. Which is absolutely key in the performance of the system. It’s easy to see just by reading the literature on both cars.
Dude, the focus takes the same inputs- steering angle, wheel speeds, accelerometer data, throttle position, etc. And the video you linked doesn't say anything special about its computer control system.

Anyways, at this point I'm pretty sure I'm just talking to an Audi salesman. You got me. good one.
 

·
Registered
2016 Ford Focus RS
Joined
·
31 Posts
Discussion Starter · #68 ·
Dude, the focus takes the same inputs- steering angle, wheel speeds, accelerometer data, throttle position, etc. And the video you linked doesn't say anything special about its computer control system.

Anyways, at this point I'm pretty sure I'm just talking to an Audi salesman. You got me. good one.
facepalm
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
226 Posts
I mean the RS does literally every single thing in the same way that that video mentions, and there are no 1000hp audis putting down power with that awd system, since the car is not out yet, older versions have a completely different awd system.
Maybe the car will come out and it will somehow blow our awd out of the water, maybe it's programmed better, maybe it's not, no reason to believe either way, but as of now it's just marketing hyping the exact same things our car already has, utilizing the same inputs our cars already use.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
1,177 Posts
lol yeah man, I stopped really counting at $85k but I know it’s in the 90’s because I had shops do the build for warranty purposes. However, I could have went with a bigger turbo or a 2.5L build for well over 700whp, but even 550whp is useless on these cars. Even with an LSD upfront and rear diff tune the fronts still spin like it’s a FWD. So to go with anything more than this is pretty much a waste.
Also, we stopped at 586 because I already had the record by a good amount. Adam said we had over 600 if I wanted it but ultimately I wanted to retain some reliability.
I’m not sure you do have the record. Pretty hard to prove given dyno readings being different and all.
I’d have to say I’m pretty sure mine would give it a run if not best it as I have similar build but with direct port meth injection and very wild head porting. I’m under u numbers wise but mine was dyno in awd not fwd on a lower reading dyno.
Great build and super Awsome car but I would t be selling it as the highest hp with that turbo.
In fact I think mexrs has us both beat with his build or at least should.
 

·
Premium Member
Joined
·
365 Posts
@586_RS what boost pressure you running
 
61 - 72 of 72 Posts
Top