Just to put my two cents in, I tried again today on Rt. 9, which is a LONG STRAIGHT back road running through the country, and holdin her to the wood, she topped out at 135. Keep in mind that in Delaware, today was a nice day. Fairly cool air, low humidity, and very little wind. I'm agreeing with the people waving the BS flag until I see some video.
can anyone tell me thetop speed?
- Thread starter nemitz
- Start date
do you all take out the speed gov when you buy the cars? or does SVT do that? cause stock cars are supposed to top out at ~135ish(depends on car), thats when the fuel gets cut out cause of the governor(speed limiter).
As far as I know there is no speed limiter on the SVTF's, what you get out of the car is the true top speed.
For some reason some people take the rev limiter in 5th as the speed limiter of the car. I have no idea why, maybe because everyone says they top out at like 135 and that is how fast you go right before you hit the rev limiter, but yea, this car does not have a speed limiter...the more power you have backing it the faster it will go.
nate84
New Member
I had plenty of road but my svtf wouldn't pull after 135.
Nope, not all.
One can perform a simple calculation to see what a vehicle theoretical top speed is, based on tire size (rotating circumference), rpm, and final gearing. For the SVT Focus, speed at 7200 rpms is 138.6 mph in 5th gear, and 169.3mph at 7200 in 6th. Now, bear in mind, that does not include wind drag or any other friction forces outside of the vehicle itself. The SVTF probably has enough HP to reach the top ed of 5th, but the top end of 6th? Probaby not.
Is it possible to attain a top speed of 169 mph? probably not...the wind drag at those speed would be enormous. And yes, weight does play a SMALL part in top speed, because weight in a variable in determining the friction forces between the tires and the road, which uses some HP. But the rolling resistance is minor when compared to the wind resistance (especially at those speeds, where you will be experiencing some lift on the car)
I say 160 is BS, but I havent tried.
Is it possible to attain a top speed of 169 mph? probably not...the wind drag at those speed would be enormous. And yes, weight does play a SMALL part in top speed, because weight in a variable in determining the friction forces between the tires and the road, which uses some HP. But the rolling resistance is minor when compared to the wind resistance (especially at those speeds, where you will be experiencing some lift on the car)
I say 160 is BS, but I havent tried.
Last edited:
Mine is completly stock and i took it up to 135 mph before i shifted into 6th. Once into 6th, it just wouldn't pull anymore. I had the throttle floored for 5 to 10 seconds more before i decided that it wasn't going to go any faster and i let off. it was a flat road and there was no wind at all. My guess is that with a few mods that you can get 6th to pull a bit, but not much more.
yeah, your right, focus is dead on balls accurate, least it was for me at 140 with two friends in the car, one was hooked up to a GPS that was reading speed..
Took a pic of my speedo reading 150 at night on my camera phone, trying to find it out..
Took a pic of my speedo reading 150 at night on my camera phone, trying to find it out..
You have to get up over 100 before you start losing mph compared to that of the speedo.
Anyone who thinks that weight will not affect top speed is an idiot!
Try this, go out alone and find your cars top speed, then find three or four of the fattest people you can and put them in your car, then fill up your fuel tank and fill your luggage space with all the heavy stuff you can find then go try to hit the same speed you reached when you were alone in the car.
I gaurantee you will not.
It is very simple "Weight equals horsepower" years ago Hot Rod magazine performed an experiment with an old Caddy, they started with a stock car and then simply began removing weight from it by unbolting and cutting off parts until they were down to a bare frame.
What they found was that removing 100 lbs was equal to adding 10 useable horespower.
Why else do you think race cars are built lighter than street cars.
So think about it, if you put four 200 lb. people in your car you are effectively cutting your usable horsepower by 50%.
Try this, go out alone and find your cars top speed, then find three or four of the fattest people you can and put them in your car, then fill up your fuel tank and fill your luggage space with all the heavy stuff you can find then go try to hit the same speed you reached when you were alone in the car.
I gaurantee you will not.
It is very simple "Weight equals horsepower" years ago Hot Rod magazine performed an experiment with an old Caddy, they started with a stock car and then simply began removing weight from it by unbolting and cutting off parts until they were down to a bare frame.
What they found was that removing 100 lbs was equal to adding 10 useable horespower.
Why else do you think race cars are built lighter than street cars.
So think about it, if you put four 200 lb. people in your car you are effectively cutting your usable horsepower by 50%.
your right, weight is important in quartermile times and in acceleration. but what AZ was saying is that it doesnt matter as much when your goin balls out top speed. its tire resistance and AIR resistance that play the biggest role. this whole discussion is gettin old. lets all agree that the average top speed is in fifth gear at or around 135. no bad if i do say so myself! :beer:
Its funny to see people who don't know what they are talking about calling other people idiots.
You are obviously confusing acceleration with speed. Race cars are made lighter to improve RATES of change in speed and direction. That of course leads to increased speeds at points on a race track, but all race tracks limit the length of straightaways. The more weight you have, the longer time/distance it will take to reach any speed but it will have little effect on the highest speed the car is capable of when no time/distance limits are involved. If this thread was about how fast an SVTF could go in x miles or x seconds, then weight would be a very big deal. But the topic is: how fast an SVTF can go... period. For that, weight makes no significant difference.
Heavy will take longer to reach a certain speed but have almost no effect on the ultimate top speed. The article you spoke of focused on speed attained in a set distance or time, not the ultimate speed.
It is very elementry physics. The only effect weight has on a car's top speed involves the increased rolling resistance of the tires. And that can be virtually eliminated with tire pressure increases or narrower/harder tires. I guess you could put so much weight in a car that the suspension would colapse or the tires would burst or the clutch would burn out getting rolling but I don't think that was the point you were trying to make. Piling a few friends in your car probably has a better chance of increasing your top speed than reducing it (assuming you pump the tires up to keep the contact patch the same size or smaller) because lowering the car could reduce aero drag underneath it. Adding 600 lbs wouldn't reduce your top speed by even a mile per hour.
You are obviously confusing acceleration with speed. Race cars are made lighter to improve RATES of change in speed and direction. That of course leads to increased speeds at points on a race track, but all race tracks limit the length of straightaways. The more weight you have, the longer time/distance it will take to reach any speed but it will have little effect on the highest speed the car is capable of when no time/distance limits are involved. If this thread was about how fast an SVTF could go in x miles or x seconds, then weight would be a very big deal. But the topic is: how fast an SVTF can go... period. For that, weight makes no significant difference.
Heavy will take longer to reach a certain speed but have almost no effect on the ultimate top speed. The article you spoke of focused on speed attained in a set distance or time, not the ultimate speed.
It is very elementry physics. The only effect weight has on a car's top speed involves the increased rolling resistance of the tires. And that can be virtually eliminated with tire pressure increases or narrower/harder tires. I guess you could put so much weight in a car that the suspension would colapse or the tires would burst or the clutch would burn out getting rolling but I don't think that was the point you were trying to make. Piling a few friends in your car probably has a better chance of increasing your top speed than reducing it (assuming you pump the tires up to keep the contact patch the same size or smaller) because lowering the car could reduce aero drag underneath it. Adding 600 lbs wouldn't reduce your top speed by even a mile per hour.
AZ , I see you disagreeing with Steve on this subject but I don't see you attempting his experiment to prove yourself correct.
I know from personal experience that weight will cost you top speed.
Years ago I owned a 1971 Buick Skylark with a 350 in it, if I was alone in the car it would do about 120 mph.
One night I had four other people in the car and it would NOT exceed 100 mph,period,end of story.
I have owned many fast cars in my 20 years of driving including a 1969 Skylark with a 450 hp 455, My latest toy is the SVT.
Until you actually go out and try this for yourself you will never know the truth.
The other way to prove this would be to do the reverse and gut your car of all unnecessary weight and see if you gain top speed.
With less weight you will have more free hp to pull the weight you have.
The Focus SVT top speed is limited by hp,weight and wind resistance, which is why the car tops out in fifth gear, the solutions are either more hp,less weight or no wind resitance which we all know is not going to happen.
This is a very simple experiment....I dare you to try it.
Last edited:
SVTfocusdriver, your experience does not prove anything about this topic.
How much extra air pressure did you put in the tires when you added 4 people? I assume you read the need to add enogh air to ensure there is no more sidewall flex than when unloaded.
Was the weight more on the back wheels? I've seen cars that nose up pretty badly with weak rear springs. Major aero drag change.
Was it an automatic? If it was and the TC wasn't locked, its apples and oranges.
And remember, it takes a lot longer to reach a top speed with extra weight, so the engine is more likely to be hotter and produce less power, particularly on an older car.
The simple fact that it will take much longer/farther to get to the top speed guarantees you won't have the same road slope situation you did when lighter because you need a lot more of the road.
You can dare all you want, but I'm not in 3rd grade and don't feel any need to force feed reality to someone who doesn't want it. ;-)
Anecdotal observations don't trump physics.
How much extra air pressure did you put in the tires when you added 4 people? I assume you read the need to add enogh air to ensure there is no more sidewall flex than when unloaded.
Was the weight more on the back wheels? I've seen cars that nose up pretty badly with weak rear springs. Major aero drag change.
Was it an automatic? If it was and the TC wasn't locked, its apples and oranges.
And remember, it takes a lot longer to reach a top speed with extra weight, so the engine is more likely to be hotter and produce less power, particularly on an older car.
The simple fact that it will take much longer/farther to get to the top speed guarantees you won't have the same road slope situation you did when lighter because you need a lot more of the road.
You can dare all you want, but I'm not in 3rd grade and don't feel any need to force feed reality to someone who doesn't want it. ;-)
Anecdotal observations don't trump physics.
O.K. , I can see that arguing with you is pointless.
You are the supreme holder of all knowledge and understanding.
I am a lowly moron who must bow down before your incredible wealth of knowledge.
But you still have not attempted the experiment, Have you?
Scared to try it? Afraid your little house of physics cards will come crashing down around you?
What you are saying is that if you were able to isolate the drivers seating area and fill the rest of the interior and luggage space with solid steel thereby increasing the cars weight by say 2000 pounds that the car would still go 135 mph?
My 1969 Skylark came stock with a 230 hp 350 4bbl in it and that car would do about 120 mph.
I built and installed a 450 hp 455 in it and left the same rear axle, tires and drivetrain in it.
Now, without benefit of a speedo that exceeded 120 I do know that with the new motor the needle would simply pass 120 and disappear into the bottom of the speedo to what I gussed was about 140 or 145 judging by the engine rpm.
So the car weighed the same but had much more power which produced much more acceleration and more top speed.
I will gaurantee you that if I had done the opposite and installed an old low hp six cylinder with say 150 hp the car would never have reached 120 mph.
This is from real world physics not theorectical physics.
Stay up there on your high horse all you want but you are wrong and I think your ego will simply not allow you to admit it.
You are the supreme holder of all knowledge and understanding.
I am a lowly moron who must bow down before your incredible wealth of knowledge.
But you still have not attempted the experiment, Have you?
Scared to try it? Afraid your little house of physics cards will come crashing down around you?
What you are saying is that if you were able to isolate the drivers seating area and fill the rest of the interior and luggage space with solid steel thereby increasing the cars weight by say 2000 pounds that the car would still go 135 mph?
My 1969 Skylark came stock with a 230 hp 350 4bbl in it and that car would do about 120 mph.
I built and installed a 450 hp 455 in it and left the same rear axle, tires and drivetrain in it.
Now, without benefit of a speedo that exceeded 120 I do know that with the new motor the needle would simply pass 120 and disappear into the bottom of the speedo to what I gussed was about 140 or 145 judging by the engine rpm.
So the car weighed the same but had much more power which produced much more acceleration and more top speed.
I will gaurantee you that if I had done the opposite and installed an old low hp six cylinder with say 150 hp the car would never have reached 120 mph.
This is from real world physics not theorectical physics.
Stay up there on your high horse all you want but you are wrong and I think your ego will simply not allow you to admit it.
No, I'm not on a high horse. But the people calling others idiots might be.
You don't have to be afraid to not do something. I can see no reason to try an experiment jsut because someone dares me.
For example, what if I told you I heard someone jumped off a cliff and held his arms a certain way and floated softly to the ground.
Would you be a chicken or arrogant if you didn't try it yourself to prove me wrong?
If you want to convince me that weight alone makes a difference in top speed, answer my questions. If you didn't pump the tires up a bunch in the Buick or make sure the wind was blowing the same way or the road was the same slope, your example doesn't mean anything.
I can understand if you don't care enough to answer the questions but then I hope you understand why I don't care enough to spend hours on some experiment to try to disprove something that has been studied and proven long before I was born. If I said the earth was flat, I wouldn't lose sleep over you refusing to walk around it to prove its a sphere. And you refusing wouldn't mean the world was flat. Nor would it mean you were on a high horse.
I won't rule out that there could be some other side effect of adding weight that is not avoidable and that I have forgotten, but your experiment wouldn't bring that out.
Since your experience CLEARLY does not prove/disprove what I have been saying (you didn't adjust tire pressure, measure wind, slope, make sure the aero didn't change), let me suggest an experiment for you:
Do a top speed run in your car. Do not stop when it seems to be topped out but continue for at least a mile further. Get airspeed as well as radar measurement of the speeds. Record the top speeds. Do the same thing going the other direction. Stop and measure the contact patch sizes of the tires. Also note the angle (front to back) of how the car sits. Then add 200 lbs as close to the middle of the car as possible. Move things around until the angle of the car is the same as before. Adjust the tire pressure to give you the same contact patch size as before. Then do the same two way run. You will need more road than before. You will have to some way make sure the slope of the road is the same as the shorter section you used for the original runs. You may have to do this run twice because the contact patch size may change. Report back the top speeds of all runs.
I hope you can see why real world tests have flaws and loop holes big enough to drive a truck through.
I have no problem agreeing that adding weight to a car can lower the top speed. BUT if it does, its from a side effect of the weight and not the weight itself. It would be from aero changes, or tire contact patch changes or even loss of power from running full throttle for a longer period. All of which can be compensated for with out changing the HP rating of the car.
You mention again that adding HP or reducing it would change the top speed. Yes, but that's not the topic. Adding weight does not change the HP.
You don't have to be afraid to not do something. I can see no reason to try an experiment jsut because someone dares me.
For example, what if I told you I heard someone jumped off a cliff and held his arms a certain way and floated softly to the ground.
Would you be a chicken or arrogant if you didn't try it yourself to prove me wrong?
If you want to convince me that weight alone makes a difference in top speed, answer my questions. If you didn't pump the tires up a bunch in the Buick or make sure the wind was blowing the same way or the road was the same slope, your example doesn't mean anything.
I can understand if you don't care enough to answer the questions but then I hope you understand why I don't care enough to spend hours on some experiment to try to disprove something that has been studied and proven long before I was born. If I said the earth was flat, I wouldn't lose sleep over you refusing to walk around it to prove its a sphere. And you refusing wouldn't mean the world was flat. Nor would it mean you were on a high horse.
I won't rule out that there could be some other side effect of adding weight that is not avoidable and that I have forgotten, but your experiment wouldn't bring that out.
Since your experience CLEARLY does not prove/disprove what I have been saying (you didn't adjust tire pressure, measure wind, slope, make sure the aero didn't change), let me suggest an experiment for you:
Do a top speed run in your car. Do not stop when it seems to be topped out but continue for at least a mile further. Get airspeed as well as radar measurement of the speeds. Record the top speeds. Do the same thing going the other direction. Stop and measure the contact patch sizes of the tires. Also note the angle (front to back) of how the car sits. Then add 200 lbs as close to the middle of the car as possible. Move things around until the angle of the car is the same as before. Adjust the tire pressure to give you the same contact patch size as before. Then do the same two way run. You will need more road than before. You will have to some way make sure the slope of the road is the same as the shorter section you used for the original runs. You may have to do this run twice because the contact patch size may change. Report back the top speeds of all runs.
I hope you can see why real world tests have flaws and loop holes big enough to drive a truck through.
I have no problem agreeing that adding weight to a car can lower the top speed. BUT if it does, its from a side effect of the weight and not the weight itself. It would be from aero changes, or tire contact patch changes or even loss of power from running full throttle for a longer period. All of which can be compensated for with out changing the HP rating of the car.
You mention again that adding HP or reducing it would change the top speed. Yes, but that's not the topic. Adding weight does not change the HP.
...you beat me to it...
well said AZ...you almost sound like an engineer, the way you described the test procedure. But you forgot to mention air temp, altititude, humidity, etc... to make sure the car is capable of producing the same hp as previously, given the ambient conditions of the latter test.
I hope this is not the way this board acts all the time. I just bought my 04 SVTF and subscribed to this forum hoping to learn things from everyone here, not to be called an idiot becuase I dont agree with someone and their point of view.:shrug:
Users who are viewing this thread
