Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Hey guys,

just wondering if anyone knows a rough % figure of the power lost through the drivetrain? Eg my R33 came with 187kw @the fly, so minus the figure it had roughly "x" @the wheels.

Also do the GTRs suffer more as they are AWD or less?

Thanx in advanced :)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/228493-power-loss-through-drivetrain/
Share on other sites

to answer one of your questions....i think the % power loss is something like 20-30%.....not quiet sure on that maybe someone can elaborate
Yes i was going to say about 30%

and yes GTR's fm suffer a little bit more but not heaps

i would say more like 20-25% for gtst and about 25-30% for a GTR
FWD ~15%

RWD ~25%

4WD ~35%+

See, depends who you ask :ermm:

Ive been told to roughly take 60rwkw off for manual and 70-80rwkw for an auto by a few different people so i tend to use this rough guide, how accurate it is who knows! Percentages have never sat too well with me....

Ive been told to roughly take 60rwkw off for manual and 70-80rwkw for an auto by a few different people so i tend to use this rough guide, how accurate it is who knows! Percentages have never sat too well with me....

that can't be right bud.....you definitely have to look at percentages otherwise a car with 100kw at the flywheel would have about 20kw at the wheels

I would say Dale would have the most idea, thats my more better engrish

yeah those figures make more sense Dale & Steve

that can't be right bud.....you definitely have to look at percentages otherwise a car with 100kw at the flywheel would have about 20kw at the wheels

yeah those figures make more sense Dale & Steve

It's only when engines start putting out decent numbers that i question the 25% loss rule.....Take for instance a 400rwkw engine +25% driveline loss = 500fwkw thats 100rwkw loss through the driveline i would think 60rwkw more realistic. Just my opinion of course.

It's only when engines start putting out decent numbers that i question the 25% loss rule.....Take for instance a 400rwkw engine +25% driveline loss = 500fwkw thats 100rwkw loss through the driveline i would think 60rwkw more realistic. Just my opinion of course.

yeah fair enough

Rather than re-write it all again, here is a comment that sums it up quite well from another thread.

Before everyone gets way off the mark here..

Drive train losses remain static, they do not change, give or take a hp or two, due to better oils etc..

Don't follow the % rule, its wrong, and % losses calculated by coast down calcualtions are incorrect..

best way to explain this is like so, roughly a RWD car will loose about 25ish hp, as your only driving a couple of gears in the box, at 1 to 1 ratio, and the diff gears, so, if your car is making 200hp to begin with, you could say roughly, your making is 230 at the fly wheel, if you then mod the motor, but alter nothing in the driveline, and it now makes 400 at the wheels, its only going to make 430 at the fly wheel, not 460 for example if you where to use the % rule..

Automatic, and 4wd losses are higher, due to the nature in which they operate, but again the figures remain pretty constant, better oils, or driveline components alter this, but again the figure doesn't really move a heck of a lot, it remainds pretty constant, unless of course something is broken, and there is greater friction..

the 60kw figure quoted before im pretty sure is the loss you'll see from a gt-r in 4wd mode, as 60kw is a LOT of power loss for a manual RWD car..

also, a large portion of the driveline loss you see on rolling road dynos, is from the tyres, stuff like over/under inflation of the tyres, weight in the car, and tyre wrap around on the roller affect the figures, so if you dyno your car one day with the tyres at 36psi, then a week later they've gone down to 20psi, you will see less power, as the tyre is wraping around the roller more, more wrap, more friction, more friction the more power needed to over come it, so a lower reading will be seen, hub dynos eliminate this, which is why you will always see a slighly higher reading, and in some cases a bigger reading by comparision to a roller, as you eliminate wheel spin on the roller..

If you took the 25-30% rule and apply this to a high KW car, the loss of power is huge, now convert that into Joules (most power loss is converted to heat, and a small portion into noise) and you have a car that will change the climate for anyone within a few blocks.

In a GTR its not only the added weight of the drive chain and all 8 clutch plates in the transfer case, extra tailshaft, diff centre, drive shafts, brake rotors, wheels etc, but friction between all these individual components, also heat and energy being dispersed in many little directions by vibration can also cause loss of power. Remember the more power you have the more friction is created between components like gearsets etc. A GTR we had on the dyno had 270AWkw and then 330rwkw. So there's 60kilowats just in the removal of the front driveline, remove the rear driveline to get flywheel kilowatts and your probably looking at another 35-40kw+++

Edited by Ryanrb25

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

    • Even with the piston at TDC there was room for it to drop, but I don't think it can drop fully into the cylinder, the problem you have is that you need something pushing against the valve to hold it up so you have enough room to put the new stem seal on and the spring etc.  I used compressed air only because putting rope in the cylinder seemed a bit risky to me, I know people have done it countless times before like this. Overall it's a pain in the ass job. Honestly you'd probably be better off taking the head off because the risk of dropping something in the engine and the finicky-ness of it all is very stressful. If you are going to attempt it though i 10000% recommend a 36050 valve spring/keeper tool. I had both the traditional lever type and after doing 1 cylinder it was absolute pain to get those valve keepers in place, even with 2 people. That 36050 is amazing, you do have to push hard to get them in place but it works perfectly almost every time. Back to my actual issue I think my engine is just tired and old and the rings have gone bad. The comp numbers (cold, no oil) were: Cyl 1 -129psi Cyl 2 - 133psi Cyl 3 - 138psi Cyl 4 - 137psi Cyl 5 - 157psi Cyl 6 - 142psi   Cylinder 5 and 6 having the most carbon on them.
    • Who did you have do the installation? I actually know someone who is VERY familiar with the AVS gear. The main point of contact though would be your installer.   Where are you based in NZ?
    • Look, realistically, those are some fairly chunky connectors and wires so it is a reasonably fair bet that that loom was involved in the redirection of the fuel pump and/or ECU/ignition power for the immobiliser. It's also fair to be that the new immobiliser is essentially the same thing as the old one, and so it probably needs the same stuff done to make it do what it has to do. Given that you are talking about a car that no-one else here is familiar with (I mean your exact car) and an alarm that I've never heard of before and so probably not many others are familiar with, and that some wire monkey has been messing with it out of our sight, it seems reasonable that the wire monkey should be fixing this.
    • Wheel alignment immediately. Not "when I get around to it". And further to what Duncan said - you cannot just put camber arms on and shorten them. You will introduce bump steer far in excess of what the car had with stock arms. You need adjustable tension arms and they need to be shortened also. The simplest approach is to shorten them the same % as the stock ones. This will not be correct or optimal, but it will be better than any other guess. The correct way to set the lengths of both arms is to use a properly built/set up bump steer gauge and trial and error the adjustments until you hit the camber you need and want and have minimum bump steer in the range of motion that the wheel is expected to travel. And what Duncan said about toe is also very true. And you cannot change the camber arm without also affecting toe. So when you have adjustable arms on the back of a Skyline, the car either needs to go to a talented wheel aligner (not your local tyre shop dropout), or you need to be able to do this stuff yourself at home. Guess which approach I have taken? I have built my own gear for camber, toe and bump steer measurement and I do all this on the flattest bit of concrete I have, with some shims under the tyres on one side to level the car.
    • Thought I would get some advice from others on this situation.    Relevant info: R33 GTS25t Link G4x ECU Walbro 255LPH w/ OEM FP Relay (No relay mod) Scenario: I accidentally messed up my old AVS S5 (rev.1) at the start of the year and the cars been immobilised. Also the siren BBU has completely failed; so I decided to upgrade it.  I got a newer AVS S5 (rev.2?) installed on Friday. The guy removed the old one and its immobilisers. Tried to start it; the car cranks but doesnt start.  The new one was installed and all the alarm functions seem to be working as they should; still wouldn't start Went to bed; got up on Friday morning and decided to have a look into the no start problem. Found the car completely dead.  Charged the battery; plugged it back in and found the brake lights were stuck on.  Unplugging the brake pedal switch the lights turn off. Plug it back in and theyre stuck on again. I tested the switch (continuity test and resistance); all looks good (0-1kohm).  On talking to AVS; found its because of the rubber stopper on the brake pedal; sure enough the middle of it is missing so have ordered a new one. One of those wear items; which was confusing what was going on However when I try unplugging the STOP Light fuses (under the dash and under the hood) the brake light still stays on. Should those fuses not cut the brake light circuit?  I then checked the ECU; FP Speed Error.  Testing the pump again; I can hear the relay clicking every time I switch it to ON. I unplugged the pump and put the multimeter across the plug. No continuity; im seeing 0.6V (ECU signal?) and when it switches the relay I think its like 20mA or 200mA). Not seeing 12.4V / 7-9A. As far as I know; the Fuel Pump was wired through one of the immobiliser relays on the old alarm.  He pulled some thick gauged harness out with the old alarm wiring; which looks to me like it was to bridge connections into the immobilisers? Before it got immobilised it was running just fine.  Im at a loss to why the FP is getting no voltage; I thought maybe the FP was faulty (even though I havent even done 50km on the new pump) but no voltage at the harness plug.  Questions: Could it be he didnt reconnect the fuel pump when testing it after the old alarm removal (before installing the new alarm)?  Is this a case of bridging to the brake lights instead of the fuel pump circuit? It's a bit beyond me as I dont do a lot with electrical; so have tried my best to diagnose what I think seems to make sense.  Seeking advice if theres for sure an issue with the alarm install to get him back here; or if I do infact, need an auto electrician to diagnose it. 
×
×
  • Create New...