Ford Focus RS v Mustang EcoBoost 2016 Comparison

There's no substitute for cubic capacity ... or is there? Downsizing is not a dirty word. It's happening, there's no escaping it and there's no turning back.

To meet the ever-increasingly stringent emissions targets set by Europe and North America, car manufacturers around the globe are being forced to bench the big-capacity gas-guzzlers of the past in favour of smaller, lighter and more economical powerplants.

Once the domain of big V8 engines, the high-performance segment is not immune and it too is tipping on its head with smaller, more efficient and in most cases turbocharged alternatives.

So is it black arm-bands for us petrol-heads? To find out, I'm driving two of the hottest performance cars going around at the moment and, believe it or not, they're both powered by small-capacity four-cylinder engines.

The examples I'm referring to are the Ford Focus RS and the Ford Mustang EcoBoost and they both share the same 2.3-litre turbocharged four-cylinder petrol engine, albeit in slightly different states of tune and completely different configurations.

And they could not be any further apart in look and feel. As they say, there's more than one way to bake a cake and these cars couldn't fit the euphemism any more perfectly.

With its transverse engine layout and significantly lighter, smaller five-door body, the menacing all-wheel drive RS hot hatch is the polar opposite to the timeless Mustang muscle-car with its classic, front/longitudinally-mounted engine configuration driving the rear wheels.

The RS epitomises the modern hot hatch and is ballistically fast. It's just a pleasure to drive and is all the car anyone would ever need. It's particularly suited to the racetrack but still practical enough as an everyday driver.

The Mustang is a sleek grand tourer and with that long bonnet and set-back glasshouse, it epitomises style. It looks fast standing still and only a very keen eye can spot the subtle difference from it and its V8-powered GT counterpart.

It may be less practical with only two doors but otherwise it's easier to live with day-to-day thanks to better ride quality than both the RS and the Mustang GT.

So there's a tick for the four-pot in the versatility box, so let's call it 15-Love over the V8.

Power for the people
But what about the power I hear you say? There's nothing quite like a V8 and I tend to agree. The power delivery of a bent eight is usually very seamless and the throttle response instantaneous, but are we -- myself included -- hung up on past glories and letting the fear of change cloud our judgement on the new world order?

It's kinda like 'the older I get, the faster I was' type of deal. It wasn't that long ago that 185kW 5.0-litre V8s were a big deal. With outputs of 233kW/432Nm, the Mustang EcoBoost is 50-odd kiloWatts up the road now and the 257kW/440Nm Focus RS a further 25 or so with half the number of cylinders, less than half the capacity and burning much less juice.

Yes, I know 300kW is more the norm now for V8s, but the outright power argument from these engines is now much less compelling. Indeed, to drive these cars without knowing what they were and perhaps with ear plugs in, it would be a battle to pick what actual powerplant you were pedalling -- V8 or four-pot screamer.

So that makes it 30-0 to the four-pot, which in RS guise is less than 50kW and only 90Nm short of the Mustang's 306kW/530Nm 5.0-litre V8.

Turbo tech to the fore
How do such relatively small engines achieve such high outputs? Turbocharging, that's how! EcoBoost is Ford's fancy terminology for the Blue Ovals direct-injection turbo technology and, like every turbo system before it, it achieves its efficiency by forcing the air/fuel mixture into the engine by a turbine that's powered by exhaust gases that previously would go to waste, thus producing more power virtually for free.

The extra power then enables the engine to be downsized while still achieving similar torque and power numbers to a larger-capacity, naturally-aspirated engine -- and therein lies its brilliance.

So what about the dreaded turbo lag? Surely having to wait to burn the gas to then force the air in has the inevitable delay in response? The simple answer is no. The technology has been around for more than 40 years now and it’s been almost perfected by smarter electronic ignition and fuel-injection control systems that virtually eliminate turbo lag.

Both the Focus RS and Mustang EcoBoost effortlessly cruise in tall gears at just 1500rpm and, when you apply the boot to overtake, the turbocharged torque makes the transaction a breeze, free of any noticeable lag and, in the case of the giant-killing Focus, somewhat rapid!

There are other advantages to downsizing too, like weight, or less of it. To make any vehicle perform better, just add lightness and the omission of a big lump of V8 in the front of the Mustang really does increase turn-in response and feel.

So that'd make it 40-0 in favour of EcoBoost.

Sound. Ah yes, the glaringly obvious omission in this article thus far. As demonstrated by the backlash Formula 1 received after it replaced the gloriously loud V8 screamers with the muffled sewing machine note of turbo sixes, sound has a big influence on a car's appeal.

Four cylinders can indeed sound good though, and the Focus RS is no exception. It sounds tremendous with its distinctive crackle and pop on engine overrun.

The Mustang in contrast, sounds terrible. It's almost like the Ford engineers went out of their way to deliberately make its engine and exhaust noise -- or lack of it – bad. If they wanted it to sound like a broken washing machine, then they nailed it.

Making the Mustang EcoBoost even more disappointing is the Focus RS, which proves just how good this Ford turbo four can sound.

That said, I'm afraid that regardless of the effort put in by any car-maker – including Porsche, whose brilliant new turbo flat-four in the latest Boxster and Cayman sounds epic -- every four-pot will forever be at a distinct disadvantage to anything with eight cylinders or more. And the Mustang GT sounds great, in the way a proper V8 should.

So the V8 strikes back with a point for all-important sound, and we'll give it another point for price too – given that at $57,490 plus on-roads it's less than $12K more than the Mustang EcoBoost and just $6500 more than the Focus RS – making it 40-30.

Aussies seem to agree, given the vast majority of Mustang sales, which were enough to make it Australia's top-selling sports car this year, were V8s.

Cold, hard numbers or emotion?
Bringing the game to deuce though is acceleration, because despite weighing the most at a beefy 1739kg (73kg more than the 1666kg EcoBoost and a whole 164kg more than the 1575kg Focus RS), the Mustang V8 can hit 100km/h in just over five seconds – almost a second quicker than the four and just a few tenths slower than the fiercest Focus ever.

I'll leave that up to the individual, but next time you're on the lookout to purchase a performance car, face the fact: you're buying one because you want one, not because you need one, so discount price and practicality. What parameters will influence your emotive decision the most? Style? Sound? Handling? Outright performance?

Will the number of cylinders and cubic-capacity even feature at all? Perhaps the decision won't be between a V8 or a turbocharged four, but indeed which four-pot -- the ballistic hot hatch or the performance grand tourer?

At the end of the day, cars just don't get slower. Quite the opposite, in fact, and if downsizing keeps producing examples like these two fast Fords, then maybe it's time for the V8 lover in me to change my tune...


Price: $50,990 (plus on-road costs)
Engine: 2.3-litre four-cylinder turbo-petrol
Outputs: 257kW/440Nm (470Nm overboost)
Transmission: Six-speed manual

Fuel: 8.1L/100km (ADR combined)
CO2: 190g/km (ADR combined)
Safety rating: N/A

2016 Ford Mustang EcoBoost Fastback pricing and specifications:

Price: $45,990 (plus on-road costs)

Engine: 2.3-litre four-cylinder turbo-petrol
Output: 233kW/432Nm
Transmission: Six-speed manual

Fuel: 8.5L/100km (ADR Combined)
CO2: 196g/km (ADR Combined)
Safety rating: N/A