Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hi guys

Just a quick question, does anyone know how much approximately power loss is there from the engine to the rear-wheels in a Skyline??

I got told it is about 80% but is this general for all rwdrive cars??

It seems that alot of the guys here have their car dyno and just wondering what was the reading for the engine output compare to the rw output.

The reason I ask is that i went for a spin in my car (R33 GTST) with a G-tech meter and got a pretty low hp reading. It was only like 170 hp at the rear wheels which in kilowatts is about 120 if my calculation is right.

That's in a car with me and one passnger, runing 11psi with catback exhaust.

Any input??

Cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/19525-power-lost-from-engine-to-wheels/
Share on other sites

With those G-Techs it's important to get the weight and other factors correct. But even so, they aren't that accurate. A dyno is the only sure way, but even still...different dynos on different days will give different results.

I have heard that the power lost from the engine to wheels is about 15% on a RWD car. On an AWD it's a bit more, like 20% or even more. There has always been a lot of debate about this. Whether it's a certain %, and if so what %? Or is it a fixed amount of power and not a %? I don't really know if anyone really knows? :)

The reason I say it is low Dan is because if (my theory haha) a stock GTST has 185kw at the engine and if there is a 80% power lost through drivetrain etc. There should be still 148 rwkw right?!?! 185X.80=148 or am I mean to minus the 148 to 185?? That's mean it is only 37kw@rw!!

That's is why I think it is abit low I was hoping that my car would have maybe close to 190 kw at the engine hehe

Cheers

:)

But how many skylines actually have that amount of power? Brand new, yeah. But after a few years, things don't work as well, rotating parts don't spin as fast and make as much power...etc.

Hiep: Nah, I'm pretty sure that a RWD loses no more than 15%. Some people say AWD lose more like 25%.

Damn I want a chaser!! How much are they? $50k? Too much!!!

Well when I first had my EVO4 dynoed on an AWD dyno, it only put 123kW@wheels on 11psi. Then on 16psi is pumped out 155kW@wheels. Seeing that a standard EVO4 is supposed to have 206kW@engine, which I'm pretty sure mine didn't...it's still a huge power loss. For RWD cars, I'm not sure. But again it depends on temperature as well, cos at the time it was at the beginning of the year and the weather was still pretty hot. I'm sure a few more kW could be had on cooler weather.

The 'rule-of-thumb' is around 30%.

EVOIV, the G-Tech is supposed to be remarkably accurate. But it has to be set up properly.

I had a run up on AVO's DTS dyno. This dyno is supposedly capable of calculating fwkw from rwkw.

My R32 GTS4 (RB20DET 4WD) ran:

115 4wkw

145 rwkw

175 fwkw (calculated from rwkw)

Do the calculations of loss yourselves.

I still think 20% to 30% is a little too big.

Hiep: At one stage my car had 206kW@4wheels, but that power was recorded on a dyno (at the wheels). To record power at the engine, you would need to take the engine out I believe?

If I account for a 30% loss, that makes it around 290kW@engine. Almost 400hp.

In a recent motor mag:

Dyno Dynamics Dyno:

*Ford Falcon XR8 5.4 V8:

260kW @ fly, 193rwkW, 24.6% power loss

*Holden Monaro CV8 5.7 Gen 3 V8:

235kW @ fly, 189rwkW, 19.6% power loss

*HSV GTS Coupe, Gen 3 V8:

300kW @ fly, 222rwkW, 26% power loss

*HSV Clubsport Gen 3 V8:

260kW @ fly, 196rwkW, 24.6% power loss

*FPV Falcon GT 5.4 V8:

290kW @ fly, 225rwkW, 22.4% power loss

*Ford Falcon XR6 4.0 inline six turbo:

240kW @ fly, 185rwkW, 25% power loss.

Consider a RWD car loss between 20 - 25%.

Quote:

Hmm...interesting figures there.

It's kinda weird cos one time I saw a figure of an R34GTR that was dynoed as RWD and AWD and the readouts were the same!???

This should be true, as i understand. GTRs are basically RWD until they detect rear slip (on a dyno there shouldn't be any), at which point a power is apportioned to the front wheels. So the difference should be negligible between RWD and AWD for a GTR.

Hey Skylineakt - did you get any 0 - 100kmh or 1/4 mile figures from the G-Tech. Would be interesting to know what they are cos it will give a good idea of whether your car is performing ok.

I believe you have to wiegh your car before using the G-Tech. Don't just use the factory wieght figures. You have to consider driver and a passenger if any and the amount of fuel should be similar when u wiegh it and test it on the G-Tech.

25-30% .. that is why when you work out the power/weight ratio of say a modified skyline to any of these "top" aussie cars, the skyline still comes out on top.. on the street its pretty much the same I've found. Its all about the weight, and the aussie cars just keep getting heavier and heavier.

Ronin: interesting figures.. thanx for those.. so much heresay.. unless its all measured in a proper testing environment (e.g. same dyno) its hard to compare apples with apples.

Skylineakt: There is talk of a dyno day in melbourne with the VIC SAU crew. Al said he'd try bringing some vehicle scales so we can do some interesting calculations as well as receive dyno figures. Get along and find out for sure - it should be within the next couple of weeks.

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • Hi...a bit a "development" on the brakes. I spoke to the guys where i get brakes from...and they are saying that 296mm EBC are for R34 GT-T. I then went to their site: https://www.ebcbrakes.com/vehicle/uk-row/NISSAN/Skyline (R34)/ and search for my car(R34 GT 1998 - it has GTT brakes) and it show me this USR1229 number and they are rly 296mm rotors... So now iam rly confused... The rotors i have now on the car are 310mm asi shown... So where is the problem? Does the whole EBC got it wrong or my calipers are just...idk know what?  
    • Oh What the hell, I used to get a "are you sure you want to reply, this thread is XX months old" message. Maybe a software update remove that. My bad.
    • This is a recipe for disaster* Note: Disaster is relative. The thing that often gets lost in threads like this is what is considered acceptable poke and compromise between what one person considers 'good' looks and what someone else does. The quoted specs would sit absurdly outside the guards with the spacers mentioned and need  REALLY thin tyres and a LOT of camber AND rolling the guards to fit. Some people love this. Some people consider this a ruined car. One thing is for certain though, rolling the guards is pretty much mandatory for any 'good' fitment (of either variety). It is often the difference between any fitment remotely close to the guards. "Not to mention the rears were like a mm from hitting the coilovers." I have a question though - This spec is VERY close to what I was planning to buy relative to the inboard suspension - I have an offset measuring tool on the way to confirm it. When you say "like a mm" do you mean literally 1mm? Or 2mm? Cause that's enough clearance for me in the rear :p I actually found the more limiting factor ISNT the coilover but the actual suspension arms. Did you take a look at how close those were?
    • @GTSBoy yeah sorry i know thery are known for colors bud those DBA are too in colors 🙂 Green will be good enough for me  
    • That's my life. Past-Duncan has a lot to answer for
×
×
  • Create New...