Ford Focus Forum, Ford Focus ST Forum, Ford Focus RS Forum - View Single Post - Weighed my car yesterday......
View Single Post
Old 11-05-2007, 10:17 PM   #46
Focus Enthusiast
pelotonracer2's Avatar
Join Date: Sep 2007
Fan#: 49917
Location: DFW area, TX
What I Drive: 2014 Ford Fiesta ST

Posts: 374
Points 3,015, Level 33
Points: 3,015, Level: 33 Points: 3,015, Level: 33 Points: 3,015, Level: 33
Level Up 77% Completed
Level up: 77% Level up: 77% Level up: 77%
Forum Activity 1%
Activity: 1% Activity: 1% Activity: 1%
FF Reputation: 17 pelotonracer2 Great Standing Member
Buy-Sell-Trade Rating: (0)
"HP doesn't really make the car go faster.. TQ does...Also, the gearing, is not great for a straight line event. Ford did not underrate the car. Mine dyno'd at 152.9whp and 132tq basically stock. Add in the ~15% drive train loss and it's actually closer to 180bhp and 155 tq. Doesn't the GTI also have a LSD?Stock dyno sheet of an 07"

"Also, a MSD coil is not needed. The stock coil pack works on cars pushing over 300whp..."

As far as torque v.s. horsepower, I disagree. A wide/long (high rpm) horsepower curve makes a vehicle "faster" (more usable top end). Torque is what gets the vehicle moving (ie: acceleration). Reducing weight will have the exact same effect as far as acceleration is concerned. That's because the actual torque at the wheels is the measurement of moving one pound (weight), in one foot (distance)per second (time). reducing weight has exactly the same effect as increasing torque!

A perfect example of a car like that with peaky horspower (and a peak hp at nearly 8000 rpm)) is a 255hp 3rd Gen Mazda RX-7. Torque is very low for the hp rating, but since a base or R1 model only weighes 2780 pounds, my R1 RX-7 ran many 13.40's and 13.50's bone stock. With everything else being the same, a fully loaded touring or R2 RX-7 weighed 180-200 pounds more and most ran 14.0-14.30 quartermile times and even had lower trap speeds. If I added a passenger to my R1 during a track run, it made a significant difference in my 1/4 mile times. Also, Honda's S2000 and NSX had good acceleration numbers despite having peaky powerbands. Both are also sub 3000 pound cars. Granted, a Ford Focus SVT is NOT as technilogically advanced but neither is a Mustand LX 5.0 which can be made to accelerate and handle with the best cars in the world (just ask Steve Saleen). Back in the "day" ('86-'87) I remember Shelby Omni GLH-S's beating the snot out of Mustangs and IROCS. care to guess why? First they weighed less than nothing and secondly their 3rd gear was incredible. Not very torquey engines but they seemed that way because they were very light (around 2500 pounds). Jeeez, I would wet myself if I could find one of those for sale stuffed away in a garage somewhere in prestine condition! Now THAT was a quick/fast little econobox (with much less stigma as a Dodge (cough... Neon) SRT-4!

A car can also be a major "dyno-queen" but not perform nearly as well out on the road. Just ask many of the 500-600hp Toyota Supra Turbo owners. Heck, my '04 Lingenfelter supercharged Corvette Z06 outran Supras that had verified 800hp dyno sheets! FWIW, my car also *only* dyno'd 520hp and 450pft to the rear wheels! Like I said, there are obviously alot of other variables involved...

However, you can't have one without the other (torque and horsepower are exactly the same at 5252rpm). As far as the GTI/SVT Focus comparison, an extra 450 pounds is alot to overcome with just 45-50 pft of torque difference between the two engine outputs, especially since power to weight ratio is about the same for the two cars. One reason the Lotus Elise with 190hp and even more so the Lotus Exige with a measly 220hp can keep up with a 400hp/400pft C6 Corvette with almost HALF the power/torque is it takes alot less power to propel a 2,000 pound car (even if the heavier one has nearly 200pft torque more. Gearing makes torque multiplication more of an equalizer, and I am rather unimpressed with the gear spacing on the SVT (1st gear is waaaaaayyyy too long and is probably a really big reason the car suffers in acceleration tests. I wish there was a way to fix that, but I haven't seen any modified gear ratios available for the transmission or a better transmission available. Perhaps there is a better final drive? I haven't seen one but that would certainly help. Also, the DSI switchover is quite unnerving on these cars in stock form. I don't have the dealer updated tune and my runner changover occurs at 6000 rpm and when it hits, it is quite abrupt. I'm sure a tune which not only lets it open sooner (say 5000 rpm) and having a much smoother transition will work wonders with the powerband.

As far as the stock coil pack, maybe it works on a 300whp car with a conventional spark plug with a decent gap, but not with how I am modifying the electrode (read my other posts in the SVT section). You need a little extra juice to jump the gap. The MSD coil seems to do that. Hence why there is much better flame front travel and a more complete burn. The biggest issue I experienced with the stock coil, bigger wires and modified plugs was with idle quality. You get the gap wide enough using the stock coil and drivability suffers. Oddly enough, the MSD must be doing something because I had a consistant 4-5hp/3-4pft gain from about 3000rpm all the way to 7200 on all three dyno runs. The stock coil with the modified plugs and bigger wires did nothing on the dyno and made for an irratic idle (more like a miss).

This is the reason I asked if anyone had any experience with the Brisk plugs that do not have a conventional electrode. My only experience with a completely open style plug design is with Bosch plugs which don't work in many cars (I've never had positive results with ANY of their plugs unless the car application/ignition was designed specifically for them.

Last edited by pelotonracer2; 11-06-2007 at 12:13 AM.
pelotonracer2 is offline  
    Reply With Quote