Ecoboost 2.3 disagrees. Imagine if Mazda & Ford reunited for an all-Ecoboost Miata lineup: 1.6T base, 2.0T S, 2.3T Mazdaspeed.

Engineering a car to do 1000/1200hp and 250hp all day every day without breaking a sweat was a great feat. Adding more power and mph isn’t as revolutionary, but if they want another throw-crazy-resources-at-defying-physics problem, how about weight? Getting this drivetrain into something that weighs 2900lbs instead of…

But whatever wizardry they apply to RWD TC still just approaches the limit of those two tires with say 70% of the weight on them. It still leaves two wide tires with probably a thousand pounds over them using zero percent of their potential — imagine the same wizardry applied there.

It’s a mid-engine Focus powered by the Ecoboost 3.5TT.

Interesting, I thought the electric motors sent at least some power up front. When you’re in 1000hp+ territory, you really need all four helping out.

Please explain how 1500hp, 3500lbs, and 2.8 to 60 is faster than 1000hp, 4000lbs, and 2.5 to 60. Given Koenigsegg’s crazy torque vectoring on past cars, I’d be curious whether it’s gearing limitations or not enough power going to the front that limits the launch.

PS vs. HP: pedantic nerds turning the Veyron's 1000+ horsepower (of any type) into 987 by translating too literally.

“megawatt of power” vs. “British horsepower unit that no one will think of”. Come on now. Even in communist countries like Europe, horsepower is the unit that everyone thinks of.

That is a very nice Chrysler Pacifica. I like the weight loss and rear view, but the SRX’s grille looked nicer to me.

You’re showing a 4wd Land Rover pulling a 1wd (broken diff?) Dodge

Put snow chains on it or I’m ubsunscribing.

It won’t sell a quarter million units, but capping it at a few thousand necessarily makes it high cost and therefore high price. The WRX sold something like 35k units last year, and that’s with an ancient platform, engine, and interior. Go for 15-25k units instead of 6k and your costs drop dramatically.

The 5.0 Mustang comes in under 33k. The only way I see the RS costing that much to make is if the economies of scale are terrible, but bringing the price under 35k and selling in quantity instead of as a low volume special edition should solve that.

I don’t disagree with any of the qualities of the RS, and it grabs my attention more than the Mustang, but it’s still hard to justify such a premium over a 435hp 5.0. I’d much rather see it priced under 35k and sold in volume.

Jalopniks don’t have 40k. And, the only reason it’ll cost that much is that they’re making it as a low volume “exclusive” model.

They’re suing him, and regardless of what CA’s awful laws say, we have something called “jury nullification” specifically to override ridiculous outcomes.

The fact that it drives around in public with windows for the public to see through.

Which is precisely why we have something called “jury nullification”.

Two Ecoboost 2.7s whose stroke was reduced slightly and bore kept the same? That would have pretty monstrous potential.

If that were the case, they would show an operating profit, and then an investment that converted free cash into a non-cash asset. Instead, they have expenses far in excess of income, and start with an operating loss before any capital/investment is considered.