Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

I always assumed that rwkw = rear wheel kw, rwhp = rear wheel hp

kw = flywheel kw, hp = flywheel hp.

Now all the dyno sheets on SAU read in RWKW.

This means rear wheel horse power, right ?

Lets say I got 220rwkw. It means I got 220kw at the rear wheels.

Or 220*1.34=294rwhp and 294*1.1(drive train loss coefficient. 10% is low, but anyway.) = 323hp at the flywheel(crank)

Are my calculations correct ?

Edited by robots
I always assumed that rwkw = rear wheel kw, rwhp = rear wheel hp

kw = flywheel kw, hp = flywheel hp.

Now all the dyno sheets on SAU read in RWKW.

This means rear wheel horse power, right ?

Lets say I got 220rwkw. It means I got 220kw at the rear wheels.

Or 220*1.34=294rwhp and 294*1.1(drive train loss coefficient. 10% is low, but anyway.) = 323hp at the flywheel(crank)

Are my calculations correct ?

I'd say it would be closer to 365-370 engine hp

One thing I don't understand is than. Lets you got hks2530 turbo. 320hp turbo. And you get 210-220rwkw from it. Which equates to around 340hp. So is there a mistake in the calculations or happy dyno ?

Yeah, 15-25% so say 20% average unless your a Holden or a Ford then the factory will make it more like 30-40%.......lol. The 307kw Holdens don't dyno test at 307kw [that figure is a little optimistic].

Depends on your gearbox, diff and/or CV's, wheel bearings, clutch anything that produces friction and heat in the drive train. The more heat the greater the power loss between crank and wheels.

I use 20% for driveline loss and 0.746 for hp to KW.

So 350hp engine = 280 hp at wheels = 209 kw at wheels.

350hp x 0.8 x 0.746 = 209 rwkw.

In your case that's 220rwkw/0.746 = 295rwhp or 275kw at engine or 369hp at engine. BUT that 20% drivetrain loss becomes less as you get more power with the same driveline. So 369hp might be a tad high. Isn't this a metric society? So you have about 275kw and likely 450Nm of torque maybe a touch more.

Isnt the 20-30% drivetrain loss for a standard car?

206kw flywheel skyline - 25% drivetrain loss = 154.5rwkw which is about right is a drivetrain loss of about 50kw

If the drivetrain doesnt change and all you do is increase engine kw the drivetrain loss figure shouldnt rise very much.

A 300rwkw skyline with an upgraded clutch and flywheel wont change the drivetrain loss much

Therefore 300rwkw + drivetrain loss of 50kw (generous) is only 350 engine kw

If calculate a 300rwkw car at 25% your way off, its a 25kw difference and it grows as the numbers become bigger

I always assumed that rwkw = rear wheel kw, rwhp = rear wheel hp

kw = flywheel kw, hp = flywheel hp.

Now all the dyno sheets on SAU read in RWKW.

This means rear wheel horse power, right ?

:banana::huh::):huh::P:huh::blink::huh::blink::huh:

edit.. I had more emoticons to make my point but..

THE FOLLOWING ERROR(S) WERE FOUND

You have posted a message with more emoticons that this board allows. Please reduce the number of emoticons you've added to the message

lol... owned by zee germans of old

Edited by GTST

Isn't AWKW in a GTR pretty much the same as RWKW. As under normal driving conditions while accelerating, most of the power goes to the rear wheels anyway? So say if a R32 GTR makes 250kw in AWD it will make like 255kw in RWD? However i suppose with engine power there would be a bit of a difference as you would lose a bit more power through an AWD drivetrain with an extra diff/transfer case etc. compared to RWD.

So therefore it would be a bit more at the engine when comparing a 300RWKW car and a 300AWKW car. I think it will be just stabs in the dark to guess how much extra power those components take away in power loss through heat and noise.

Edited by PM-R33

At the end of the day unless you put it on an engine dyno its only estimated, its what is read at the wheels that counts.

An easier conversion from horse power to kilowatts is that 100hp = 75kw, its not exact i know but its easier to do a quick conversion with those figures.

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

    • I thought Australia got rid of the "drag dodgy fuel up to 91 RON with ethanol", which is why all E10 advertise as "up to 94 RON" ? Anyway I put E10/91 in the missus' Mazda because she empties the tank weekly, when all my cars get 98RON. tl;dr - turbo - 98 RON, if you can't afford that, sell it and get a commuter car (or tune your car for 91, which no one does).
    • Yeah i found that alot of parts can be wrong or "very" hard to get the real right one. I already bought some brakes years ago on me "old" GT calipers and they were wrong too 😄  I told them too. Even send them pictures...but they said "EBC catalogue has them on my car... So i dont know what their answer will be. I call monday them and let them know that they are really not on my car. If they were they would be already on a car...
    • Welcome to Skyline ownership. Yes, it is entirely possible parts websites get things wrong. There's a whole world of inaccuracies out there when it comes to R34 stuff (and probably 33 and 32). Lots of things that are 'just bolt on, entirely interchangable' aren't. Even between S1 and S2 R34's. Yes they have a GTT item supposedly being 296mm. This is incorrect. I would call whoever you got them from and return them and let them know the GTT actually uses 310mm rotors. Depending on where you got them from your experience and success will obviously vary.
    • 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.
×
×
  • Create New...