Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

^ wow, possibly the most useless reply ever...

1) 206kw is the "stated" figure, ever noticed how many JDM cars have that as the power figure? heard of the 'gentlemen agreement'? That was the cap

2) GTR would be, i dunno, more 250-260kw at the fly

3) he was after AWKW!!!! not same bogus factory claim fly wheel number!!

to answer your question, i dunno :wub: but 180-190awkw sounds about right

^ wow, possibly the most useless reply ever...

1) 206kw is the "stated" figure, ever noticed how many JDM cars have that as the power figure? heard of the 'gentlemen agreement'? That was the cap

2) GTR would be, i dunno, more 250-260kw at the fly

3) he was after AWKW!!!! not same bogus factory claim fly wheel number!!

to answer your question, i dunno :wub: but 180-190awkw sounds about right

Actually no i haven't noticed that. i'll keep an eye out for that from now on tho.

I wasn't trying to make a useless reply. I posted what i thought was right. I obviously wasn't and i accept that.

thanks for all the stuff you put up there tho. i'll keep that in mind

30% drive train loss is too low as an AWD setup, or, awkw reading will have more power lost through the drive train than a rwd car would.

there is no way a car weighing around 1600kg, can do what it does with just 227kw's.

250-260kw's or more at the fly would be my guess.

It's basically saying that an extra turbo, extra displacement (plus a whole raft of better components than a NEO RB25DET) only gains 21kw's? Not likely...

Unless you want to rip the engine out and dyno that, you won't know what the factory specs are. Someone may have done this already, i dunno... but yeah, more lost through the AWD than RWD

.92 bar i think off memory

I thought its closer to .9 BAR on 34's and .85 bar on R33's, anyway .92 bar sounds about right :blink:

30% drive train loss is too low as an AWD setup, or, awkw reading will have more power lost through the drive train than a rwd car would.

Debatable, there are thread on here that have done a RWD then an AWD dyno and lost 1KW.

Others have noticed big differences but its usually different dyno/different day so its not comparable.

I think the 175AWKW for an R34 sounds about right, when shopping around I'd seen higher than that though for stock R34's.

I dyno'd a stock one when I was looking to buy mine a few years back and it made 178awkw's - so 175-180 is where they are at.

The funny thing is I know of 2 x NUR's that have been dyno'd stock and both have made under 160awkws..... So much for the ultimate.

The funny thing is I know of 2 x NUR's that have been dyno'd stock and both have made under 160awkws..... So much for the ultimate.

Sux to be those guys :rofl: All that extra money to make less power stock.

I dyno'd a stock one when I was looking to buy mine a few years back and it made 178awkw's - so 175-180 is where they are at.

I always thought 34 GTR's would make a little more than the above quoted figures....

Not sure if this is a useful comparison but a stock AUTO stagea s2 has 206kw at the flywheel (probably accurate in this case) and roughly 120awkw. They also weigh around 1658kg.

So thats a loss of about 86kw. The losses dont increase by much as you increase the power so working by percentage doesn't give an accurate enough result...

At a very rough guess, I'd say make that ~70kw drivetrain loss given the GTR is manual and a bit lighter (AFAIK the GTR's are about 1500kg or thereabouts - feel free to correct me).

I've also heard of them getting around ~180awkw completely stock so that would put it at about 250kw at the flywheel. anything around 240-250kw should be accurate enough in my opinion.

And just for the record, the "Gentlemans agreement" in japan seems to have finally been lifted since we now have cars in japan like the R35 GTR and others smashing the 206kw limit to pieces.

Edited by pixel8r

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

    • For once a good news  It needed to be adjusted by that one nut and it is ok  At least something was easy But thank you very much for help. But a small issue is now(gearbox) that when the car is stationary you can hear "clinking" from gearbox so some of the bearing is 100% not that happy... It goes away once you push clutch so it is 100% gearbox. Just if you know...what that bearing could be? It sounding like "spun bearing" but it is louder.
    • Yeah, that's fine**. But the numbers you came up with are just wrong. Try it for yourself. Put in any voltage from the possible range and see what result you get. You get nonsense. ** When I say "fine", I mean, it's still shit. The very simple linear formula (slope & intercept) is shit for a sensor with a non-linear response. This is the curve, from your data above. Look at the CURVE! It's only really linear between about 30 and 90 °C. And if you used only that range to define a curve, it would be great. But you would go more and more wrong as you went to higher temps. And that is why the slope & intercept found when you use 50 and 150 as the end points is so bad halfway between those points. The real curve is a long way below the linear curve which just zips straight between the end points, like this one. You could probably use the same slope and a lower intercept, to move that straight line down, and spread the error out. But you would 5-10°C off in a lot of places. You'd need to say what temperature range you really wanted to be most right - say, 100 to 130, and plop the line closest to teh real curve in that region, which would make it quite wrong down at the lower temperatures. Let me just say that HPTuners are not being realistic in only allowing for a simple linear curve. 
    • I feel I should re-iterate. The above picture is the only option available in the software and the blurb from HP Tuners I quoted earlier is the only way to add data to it and that's the description they offer as to how to figure it out. The only fields available is the blank box after (Input/ ) and the box right before = Output. Those are the only numbers that can be entered.
    • No, your formula is arse backwards. Mine is totally different to yours, and is the one I said was bang on at 50 and 150. I'll put your data into Excel (actually it already is, chart it and fit a linear fit to it, aiming to make it evenly wrong across the whole span. But not now. Other things to do first.
    • God damnit. The only option I actually have in the software is the one that is screenshotted. I am glad that I at least got it right... for those two points. Would it actually change anything if I chose/used 80C and 120C as the two points instead? My brain wants to imagine the formula put into HPtuners would be the same equation, otherwise none of this makes sense to me, unless: 1) The formula you put into VCM Scanner/HPTuners is always linear 2) The two points/input pairs are only arbitrary to choose (as the documentation implies) IF the actual scaling of the sensor is linear. then 3) If the scaling is not linear, the two points you choose matter a great deal, because the formula will draw a line between those two points only.
×
×
  • Create New...