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

    • 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.
    • Nah, that is hella wrong. If I do a simple linear between 150°C (0.407v) and 50°C (2.98v) I get the formula Temperature = -38.8651*voltage + 165.8181 It is perfectly correct at 50 and 150, but it is as much as 20° out in the region of 110°C, because the actual data is significantly non-linear there. It is no more than 4° out down at the lowest temperatures, but is is seriously shit almost everywhere. I cannot believe that the instruction is to do a 2 point linear fit. I would say the method I used previously would have to be better.
×
×
  • Create New...