Fordmods Logo

kw / rwkw 

 

Page 3 of 5 [ 73 posts ] Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

 
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:44 am 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Posts: 1656

Joined: 22nd Jun 2005

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

unclewoja wrote:
30% Drive train losses is a rule of thumb that was out dated 20 years ago. It probably worked then, but not now.

In the last 20 years, the power output per litre of engine capacity has increased. A 4.0L engine 20 years ago might have put out 120kW.

Also, drive trains have become more efficient in the last 20 years aswell, so less losses through the drive train. 20 years ago, that 4.0L engine might have lost, for the sake of example, 40kW through the drive train giving you a 33% loss and 80kW @ the rear wheels.

Now, with a more modern Falcon, you're producing approx 160kW but you might only lose 30kW through the drive train. So you lose 18.75% and get 130kW @ the wheels.

If you want more info, read this link Of particular interest is this paragraph

"The worst scenario case for a rear drive setup is on the order of 12.5% in 4th gear, not the 20 -25% often published. If 25% was being lost in the drive train, the oil would boil in the differential housing in short order and aluminum transmission cases would fatigue and break from the temperatures generated. On a 200 hp engine, something on the order of 37,000 watts would have to be dissipated out of the transmission and differential housings. Obviously, this is not the case."

The main reason why the 30% loss calculation is so commonly used is because men have C**k. And to calculate your engine power by dividing rear wheel power by 0.7, you get a calculated power output that is higher than reality which makes all our C**k feel bigger and more masculine. I hate to say it, but it's the truth.

Also, the power output of 157kW that Ford quote us is wrong. It's different now, but for decades, car companies have been quoting power figures higher than what the typical engine actually puts out. If you get over 150kW out of a brand new, stock standard I6, you're doing good. Tack on 250,000km onto that engine and you'll get nowhere near that 157kW that you think you have. This is another reason why people calculate larger that actual power train losses. If your XR6 puts out 130kW @ the wheels, then based on a 12.5% power loss, you've only got 149kW @ the flywheel. It'd be nice to factor in a 33% loss which gives you 194kW, but the reality is, no factory EF/EL XR6 has EVER put out 194 FWKW!

So boys and girls, (well, not really girls) it's time to look down at your penis' and realise that it's not responsible for 15kW more fly wheel power than you actually have. Instead of talking up your engine for more than it is, put your money where your mouth is so that when you say "I have 200 flywheel kW" you actually mean it.



hi

LOL , im not upping my C**k size oops i mean my Kwattt size of my car

but hey its good to hear other pwoples input , which i can see we are heading for another debate

like i said its not gospal that its 33% losses but that what people are using and others use less

OK UNCLE if i use the say BA falcon standard 6 cylinder auto or manual version something with less than 50000kms Ford is quoting from there catalogue XT,XR6 Future, fiarmont and ghai engine size 3984 comp ratio 9.7:1 max power 182kw@5000rpm and max torque 380Nm@3250rpm , how many Kwatts at the rear wheels will u see on dyno dynamics dyno if u ran this car up ??? using ur method of calculation which u posted !!!!



ANYONE WILLING TO DONATE THERE BA FALCON 6 CYLINDER TO BE THE TEST VEHICLE on a chassis dyno WILL RUN THE CAR IN A FEW WAYS SO WE CAN COMPARE THE RESULTS ................................................................

F R E E o f C H A R G E after hours
i will attach a copy of the catalogue, so im not making up any figures

 

 

Attachments:
File comment: Facon specifications and option catalog printed by FORD MOTOR COMAPANY
Ford_catalog_Bhp_1.JPG
Ford_catalog_Bhp_1.JPG [ 48.81 KiB | Viewed 62 times ]

 

_________________

FS [VIC]: WorkShop CleanOut - Assorted Parts Some New & Chassis Dyno http://www.fordmods.com/ford-parts-for-sale-f17/fs-workshop-cleanout-assorted-parts-some-new-chassis-dyno-t123623.html

Last edited by FPV_GTp on Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:54 am, edited 1 time in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:54 am 
Technical Contributor
Offline
User avatar

Age: 32

Posts: 3097

Joined: 5th Nov 2004

Gallery: 29 images

Ride: VU SS

Location: Ivanhoe
NSW, Australia

How the f**k is there even an argument here? Theres no definite way to convert rwkw to fwkw.

Chassis dynos are too inaccurate, and cars vary too much. There are too many variables.

FPV_GTp I can't even understand what your saying, a little bit of spelling and grammar wouldn't go astray.

 

_________________

EF Fairmont now Sold!
Guides: Polishing|Modifications |Manual Conversion

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 11:55 am 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Posts: 1656

Joined: 22nd Jun 2005

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

voxace wrote:
How the f**k is there even an argument here? Theres no definite way to convert rwkw to fwkw.

Chassis dynos are too inaccurate, and cars vary too much. There are too many variables.

FPV_GTp I can't even understand what your saying, a little bit of spelling and grammar wouldn't go astray.


well read from the start i must be typing in chiness fmd

高ã￾„

ç§￾ã￾¯ã‚³ãƒ³ãƒœurエンジンã￾®internalsã￾«ã￾‹ã￾‹ã‚￾ã￾£ã￾¦ã￾„ã￾ªã￾„ã￾Œã€￾ã￾￾ã‚Œã￾¯é›»æº￾切れã￾«é–¢ã￾—ã￾¦åˆ¥ã￾®å•￾é¡Œã￾§ã￾‚ã‚‹

æ￾￾失%ã￾®ã￾®ãƒžã‚¸ãƒƒã‚¯ãƒŠãƒ³ãƒ￾ーç§￾ã￾¯ã￾￾ã‚Œã￾Œã￾§ã￾‚ã‚‹ã￾Œã‚￾ã￾‹ã‚‰ã￾ªã￾‹ã￾£ã￾Ÿã‚Šã€￾覚ã￾ˆã￾¦ã￾„ã‚‹ã‚‚ã￾®ã￾Œå￾„車ã￾®çµ„å￾ˆã￾›ã￾®ã￾Ÿã‚￾無作法無作法ã￾‹ã￾©ã￾®ä½￾ã￾‹ã￾™ã￾¹ã￾¦æ•°ç„¡ä½œæ³•ç„¡ä½œæ³•ã￾«é–¢é€£ä»˜ã￾‘ã‚‹ã￾“ã￾¨ã‚’ã￾‹ã€‚ ã￾™ã￾¹ã￾¦ã￾¯ç§￾é￾”ç§￾を作らã￾ªã￾„ç§￾ã￾Œã￾™ã￾¹ã￾¦ã￾§ã￾‚ã‚‹1を使用ã￾™ã‚‹ãƒ€ãƒ ã￾®äº‹ã‚’ä¿¡ã￾˜ã‚‹ã￾‹ã￾ ã‚Œã￾Œã€￾ç§￾別ã￾®dynoã￾®è¨Žè«–ã‚’ã￾“ã￾“ã￾«ã‚‚ã￾Ÿã‚‰ã￾—ã￾Ÿã￾„ã￾¨æ€￾ã‚￾ã￾ªã￾„ã￾“ã‚Œã￾§ã￾‚る公正1ã￾¤ã￾®dynoã￾®è£½é€ æ¥­è€…ã￾‹ã‚‰åˆ¥ã￾®ã‚‚ã￾®ã￾«ã￾™ã￾¹ã￾¦ã￾®å¼•ç”¨ã￾®ç•°ã￾ªã￾£ã￾Ÿæ￾￾失をã￾￾ã￾“ã￾«ç¤ºã￾™ã￾Ÿã‚￾ã￾«ã￾￾ã￾†å¤‰ã‚￾ã‚‹


ã￾¡ã‚‡ã￾†ã￾©æœ›ã￾¾ã‚Œã‚‹ã‚®ãƒ¤ãƒœãƒƒã‚¯ã‚¹ã€￾diffã￾®ã‚¿ã‚¤ãƒ¤ç­‰ã￾®ç„¡ä½œæ³•ç„¡ä½œæ³•çŸ¥ã‚Šã￾ªã￾•ã￾„

後部車輪ã￾®é¦¬åŠ›ã￾‹ã‚‰ãƒ•ãƒ©ã‚¤ãƒ›ã‚¤ãƒ¼ãƒ«ã￾®é¦¬åŠ›ã￾«å¤‰ã￾ˆã‚‹æ–¹æ³•ã‚’知りã￾Ÿã￾„ã￾¨æ€￾ã￾„ã￾“ã￾®ç³¸ã‚’whosã￾®dynoã￾¨ã￾—ã￾¦ã‚‚らã‚￾ã￾ªã￾‹ã￾£ã￾Ÿä½•ã‚‚始ã‚￾ã￾Ÿç´³å£«!!!馬力を測定ã￾™ã‚‹ã￾®ã￾«ä½¿ç”¨ã￾™ã‚‹!


sorry thats in japaness
cheers

ps : arguement ???????

 

_________________

FS [VIC]: WorkShop CleanOut - Assorted Parts Some New & Chassis Dyno http://www.fordmods.com/ford-parts-for-sale-f17/fs-workshop-cleanout-assorted-parts-some-new-chassis-dyno-t123623.html

Last edited by FPV_GTp on Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:06 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:02 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Posts: 1656

Joined: 22nd Jun 2005

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

v8capri wrote:
i know a standard version of my model makes 145 rw kw, that car is rated at 210 kw so that is 70 kw loss
so i beleieve my driveline is 70 kw loss
the driveline i have is
zf 6 speed, heavier than standard flywheel
b/warner 3.45 gears
235/45/17's on alloy wheels.

FYI the ba 220 kw engine auto made 175 rw kw on a brand new DD dyno



145 divided by 2 = 72.5

145 plus 72.5 = 217.5 kwatts

100 - (145 divided by 217.5 multiplied by 100 ) = 33 % LOSS

am i wrong or am i right


cheers

 

_________________

FS [VIC]: WorkShop CleanOut - Assorted Parts Some New & Chassis Dyno http://www.fordmods.com/ford-parts-for-sale-f17/fs-workshop-cleanout-assorted-parts-some-new-chassis-dyno-t123623.html

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:06 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Age: 35

Posts: 533

Joined: 12th Jan 2005

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

voxace wrote:
How the f**k is there even an argument here? Theres no definite way to convert rwkw to fwkw.

Chassis dynos are too inaccurate, and cars vary too much. There are too many variables.

FPV_GTp I can't even understand what your saying, a little bit of spelling and grammar wouldn't go astray.


I agree with you on the spelling/grammar.

FPV_GTp - There is no reason what so ever to post in big, bold, caps all the time. It's rude and unneccessary and I for one don't even read posts that are formatted like that.
Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:06 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Age: 36

Posts: 9453

Joined: 9th Nov 2004

Gallery: 4 images

Ride: Fordrunner 5.0 Turbo

Location: Wollongong
NSW, Australia

If chassis dyno's used the principle of water break or electic break (like engine dyno's) instead of weight's and tensions they would be a much more reliable source of information. You can't quote the power figures they make and then predict 1/4 mile times. They are only a tuning tool. That's it.

I know 2 guys with VL turbo's. One is pumping around 400hp at the wheels and the other was around 350hp at the wheels. Don't know which dyno but it may have been the same or different for each car.

VL 1 runs a 10.5 (speed unknown) while VL 2 runs an 11.7@125mph. VL1 had a clean run while VL2 was breaking up the whole way down the track as soon as it came onto boost, but it did not break up on the dyno. So there chassis dyno's are ovverated. They make a half decent tuning tool but they make a better C**k measurement device.

Oh and to the guy that said stock VL's have 175kw. More like 152 or there abouts.
Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:15 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Posts: 1656

Joined: 22nd Jun 2005

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

unclewoja wrote:
voxace wrote:
How the f**k is there even an argument here? Theres no definite way to convert rwkw to fwkw.

Chassis dynos are too inaccurate, and cars vary too much. There are too many variables.

FPV_GTp I can't even understand what your saying, a little bit of spelling and grammar wouldn't go astray.


I agree with you on the spelling/grammar.

FPV_GTp - There is no reason what so ever to post in big, bold, caps all the time. It's rude and unneccessary and I for one don't even read posts that are formatted like that.


thanks guys

im not here to inpress u or anyone else for that matter , when u guys wanna correct my spelling and grammer so be it , as i siad read from the start and the bald large and caps is for a purpose so people can read not just jump the gun

cheers


ps : no further discussion on the topic as im full aware , if u have nothing better to add to the convo and for that charactor to use ( f**k ) mmmmmmmmm is ok amazing manners and if my memory serves me right the word C**k is bigger than urs , yes i did use it to in resposne to
ur thread

and remember the guy who started the thread was just asking a simple question a conversion factor

cheers guys

 

_________________

FS [VIC]: WorkShop CleanOut - Assorted Parts Some New & Chassis Dyno http://www.fordmods.com/ford-parts-for-sale-f17/fs-workshop-cleanout-assorted-parts-some-new-chassis-dyno-t123623.html

Last edited by FPV_GTp on Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:22 pm, edited 2 times in total.

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:18 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Age: 35

Posts: 533

Joined: 12th Jan 2005

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

FPV_GTp wrote:
145 divided by 2 = 72.5

145 plus 72.5 = 217.5 kwatts

100 - (145 divided by 217.5 multiplied by 100 ) = 33 % LOSS

am i wrong or am i right


cheers


You're right! But you're making the assumption that the published power figure of an engine is accurate.The only way to get a true drive train loss figure is to dyno the engine, then dyno the car and compare.

Add to this the fact that a chassis dyno is innacurate and it throws the whole 33% loss into question. I know my previous car pulled 85kW on one dyno and 92kW on another. That's a big difference. If you work on the 85kW figure, this translates to 126kW @ the fly with 33% loss, but if you use 126kW @ the fly to calculate the losses on the dyno that gave me 92 kW, you get only 27% loss.

I know for a fact that the published figure of the engine was 106kW and the only mod this car had was a K&N air filter which was 'supposed' to give 10 kW more power over the standard paper one. So, taking that as gospel, 116kW, you get drive train losses of 27% and 21% on different dynos.

Now, if V8capri's engine isn't actually putting out 210kW, let's say 200kW, and the dyno reading was under-reading by 10 kW, you get a drive train loss of 22.5%. Vastly different from your 33% and it is entirely reasonable for an engine to put out 5% less power than published and a dyno to read 7% out... see above exapmle.... approx 8% difference between dynos.
Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:26 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline
User avatar

Age: 35

Posts: 516

Joined: 20th Dec 2004

Gallery: 4 images

Ride: EL Manual

Location: S.E. Melbourne
VIC, Australia

Look you can't just measure a car on the dyno and work out it's transmission losses. Especially Auto transmissions, not only do you have the problem of characterising where on its performance curve the TC is operating. But transmission oil viscosity also has a huge part to play. Manuals are more consistant (and have lower losses overall) but they still vary.

The best way would be to measure the engine on an engine dyno with controlled air intake temp/pressure, oil and water temps and flowrates, then mount the engine in the car and test it again with the same controlled inputs. And you would have to hold it at peak power for a while to average inputs, not just the once off ramp of a 'shootout'
Even then it would only be accurate (perhaps) for that car.

By the way here is the SAE definition of power as measured by a dyno:


TSAE J1349 = cfSAE J1349 x TEngine

cfSAE J1349 = 1.18 x [(99 / PDry Barometric) x {(TAmb + 273) / 298}0.5] – 0.18

PDry Barometric = [ PBarometric – (RH x Pvapour @ TAmb)]

TEngine = [( TDyno + TDyno Windage ) / (1 - floss / 100 )] – f HPPC Gain

Where:
TDyno is torque measured directly from the dynamometer (Nm)
TDyno Windage is dynamometer and flywheel zero load torque losses (Nm)
floss is the transmission torque loss under load (%)
f HPPC Gain is the efficiency gain of the HPPC (Nm),
TEngine is the estimated engine torque (Nm)
P is the barometric pressure measured in the dynamometer cell (mbar)
PDry Barometric is the dry pressure component of the barometric pressure (kPa)
PBarometric is the measured barometric pressure (kPa)
RH is the measured relative humidity (%)
Pvapour @ Tamb is the vapour pressure at ambient temperature (kPa)
TAmb is the air intake temperature (ï‚°C)

 

_________________

Manual EL Gli.
Mods: Crow Stg3, Chiptorque Dynotune. Lukey Exhaust. DBA slotted rotors, EBC Pads. Whiteline Low Susp. EL GT Swaybars, ROH Envy 17 x235 wheels. Vehicle Datalogger Display V2.0,

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:30 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Age: 35

Posts: 533

Joined: 12th Jan 2005

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

FPV_GTp wrote:
and remember the guy who started the thread was just asking a simple question a conversion factor

cheers guys


I know that.... but one conversion factor relates to a gearbox life of only a few hundred kilometres, and another conversion factor is realistic.

The right angle gearboxes I sell are approx 97% efficient. They employ spiral bevel gears and part of the 3% loss includes the power being absorbed by the oil pump.

A gearbox transmitting 200 HP will take approx 2 HP to run with no load, approx 6 HP to run @ full load. Even with this small amount of power, being transformed into heat (don't forget that oil pump is probably taking 1hp of that so 5 HP is being transformed into heat), the gearboxes would heat up to well over 120C with no oil cooling and quickly cook the oil in a matter of hours. And we're talking 300kG of gearbox and 20L of oil. If 3.75kW (5HP) has this sort of effect on this gearbox, I'd hate to think what 4 times the power transformed into heat would do to a gearbox weighting 1/3 the weight with no oil cooling.
Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Tue Nov 08, 2005 12:32 pm 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Posts: 1656

Joined: 22nd Jun 2005

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

unclewoja wrote:
FPV_GTp wrote:
145 divided by 2 = 72.5

145 plus 72.5 = 217.5 kwatts

100 - (145 divided by 217.5 multiplied by 100 ) = 33 % LOSS

am i wrong or am i right


cheers


You're right! But you're making the assumption that the published power figure of an engine is accurate.The only way to get a true drive train loss figure is to dyno the engine, then dyno the car and compare.

Add to this the fact that a chassis dyno is innacurate and it throws the whole 33% loss into question. I know my previous car pulled 85kW on one dyno and 92kW on another. That's a big difference. If you work on the 85kW figure, this translates to 126kW @ the fly with 33% loss, but if you use 126kW @ the fly to calculate the losses on the dyno that gave me 92 kW, you get only 27% loss.

I know for a fact that the published figure of the engine was 106kW and the only mod this car had was a K&N air filter which was 'supposed' to give 10 kW more power over the standard paper one. So, taking that as gospel, 116kW, you get drive train losses of 27% and 21% on different dynos.

Now, if V8capri's engine isn't actually putting out 210kW, let's say 200kW, and the dyno reading was under-reading by 10 kW, you get a drive train loss of 22.5%. Vastly different from your 33% and it is entirely reasonable for an engine to put out 5% less power than published and a dyno to read 7% out... see above exapmle.... approx 8% difference between dynos.



hi

ok, i'm not being nasty here , i have just given one example and i'm not saying 33 % is correct , we have had a dyno figure discrepancy thread decussions before , and like i said i will not agrue here we all have opnions

 

_________________

FS [VIC]: WorkShop CleanOut - Assorted Parts Some New & Chassis Dyno http://www.fordmods.com/ford-parts-for-sale-f17/fs-workshop-cleanout-assorted-parts-some-new-chassis-dyno-t123623.html

Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: ERROR CORRECTION 10/11/2005
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:05 am 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Posts: 1656

Joined: 22nd Jun 2005

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

hi


corrected on the 10th/11/2005 , i made a error here guys and i applogize for the error so i stand corrected here and have looked up my dyno results and confirm the Kwatts of a standard VL commadore , thank you to the gentleman who pickup the error cheers

Quoted from my electrspec software - VL commadore

normally aspirated kilowatts 114 DIN @ 5200 rpm ( 9.2:1 comp/ratio )
Torque 247 DIN @ 3600 rpm

turbocharged ....... kilowatts 150 DIN @ 5200 rpm ( 7.8:1 comp/ratio )
torque 296 DIN @ 3200

the figures i had looked up of the dyno database and i over quoted it , but have corrected it now and ask the same question as i did before

if a commadore turbo stock stand from the factory on 7 psi produces 102.7 kwatts at the rare wheels which is approx 154 kwatts at the flywheel
the losses are approximatelty 50 kwattts drive tran losses

now lets boost the car higher say 14psi and the tune is done and now the car produces 220 kwatts at the rear wheels !!!! follow !!!!! why have the lossses increased ????

the losses have doubled ???? same drivetran !!!!! :idea: WHY ????

same car same engine , gearbox diff tyres and so on ????

why have the losses increased ???????

 

_________________

FS [VIC]: WorkShop CleanOut - Assorted Parts Some New & Chassis Dyno http://www.fordmods.com/ford-parts-for-sale-f17/fs-workshop-cleanout-assorted-parts-some-new-chassis-dyno-t123623.html

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:20 am 
Fordmods Addict
Offline
User avatar

Age: 31

Posts: 7958

Joined: 1st Jun 2005

Gallery: 13 images

Ride: Falcon

Power: 237 rwkw

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

FPV_GTp wrote:
now lets boost the car higher say 14psi and the tune is done and now the car produces 220 kwatts at the rear wheels !!!! follow !!!!! why have the lossses increased ????

How do you know the losses have increased?
You have no flywheel power figure to compare the 'at wheels' dyno figure with.
And to calculate your original 7psi boost, flywheel power figure, you have used an, at best, rough guide equation.

As said by unclewoja and spork, there is NO WAY to figure out the EXACT drivetrain loss without dynoing the engine on an engine dyno, in controlled conditions, and then dynoing engine in the car on a chassis dyno with the same conditions.

And even saying 'said model car has x drivetrain loss' won't give you an EXACT power at fly figure from a chassis dyno.
Manufacturing tolerances in numerous drivetrain components could see changes in loss.

There is no way you can take into account all the varying factors concerning drivetrain loss, and provide a definititive 'Flywheel' power figure from a power figure taken at wheels on a chassis dyno.

 

_________________

ED XR8 Sprint - S-Trim, V500, 249rwkw
BF MKII F6 Tornado - 237rwkw

Top
 Profile  
 
 
 Post subject: same less greater
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:33 am 
Getting Side Ways
Offline

Posts: 1656

Joined: 22nd Jun 2005

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

hi


if i base it of the standard commmadore which i have the factory specs from and the one i ran on my dyno the losses basically fall in the bracket of 33%

im just curious here ???

are the losses less or greater or no change at all then ???


yes i havent run the engine with the greater boost on a engine dyno but base it on the conversion factor and it indictaes the losses ??


yes i know we willl debate whether the factor is 10% 20% 30% 40% ???

 

_________________

FS [VIC]: WorkShop CleanOut - Assorted Parts Some New & Chassis Dyno http://www.fordmods.com/ford-parts-for-sale-f17/fs-workshop-cleanout-assorted-parts-some-new-chassis-dyno-t123623.html

Top
 Profile  
 
 
Posted: Wed Nov 09, 2005 10:48 am 
Fordmods Addict
Offline
User avatar

Age: 31

Posts: 7958

Joined: 1st Jun 2005

Gallery: 13 images

Ride: Falcon

Power: 237 rwkw

Location: Melbourne
VIC, Australia

There's no debate over what the factor of driveline loss is.
The debate is over the fact that, realistically, without taking the engine out of the car, the actual driveline losses cannot be measured.
There is no way to say whether driveline losses will increase, decrease, stay the same, or ride a merry-go-round to never never land.

The ONLY way to do it, and it's very rough, and more for d**k-in-hand bragging then anything else, is to measure the stock cars output at wheels, figure the percentage (or set power figure, depending on what you believe is right, personally I'm not knowledgable enough to comment on it) of loss from the factory rated engine output (hope that it's near accurate) and apply this same factor to the modifed car's power at wheels figure.

Customer can then go around telling his mates, "maaaaate my foilly sick VL Turbos is making 300killer watts at da flywheeel!"
:D :lol:

 

_________________

ED XR8 Sprint - S-Trim, V500, 249rwkw
BF MKII F6 Tornado - 237rwkw

Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:
Sort by  
 Page 3 of 5  [ 73 posts ]  Go to page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5  Next

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 16 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

 

 

It is currently Mon Dec 18, 2017 2:37 am All times are UTC + 11 hours

 

 

(c)2014 Total Web Solutions Australia - Australian Web Hosting and Domain Names