Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

Roughly. I think Eric (person who worked on Gibson R32 GTR racecars and now builds Targa, road spec GTR's, etc) worked it out to be 35% loss when engine dyno was compared to roller dyno (was mentioned in a magazine, so don't know how accurate the info is) for R32GTR, R33GTR. Not sure what torque split was used, as I've noticed torque split affects the final kw output at wheels. More rearward bias = higher kw at wheels.

210kw x 1.35 = 283.5kw x 1.341 = 380hp at engine.

Edited by SKYPER
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/309903-atf-vs-atw/#findComment-5107909
Share on other sites

Roughly. I think Eric (person who worked on Gibson R32 GTR racecars and now builds Targa, road spec GTR's, etc) worked it out to be 35% loss when engine dyno was compared to roller dyno (was mentioned in a magazine, so don't know how accurate the info is) for R32GTR, R33GTR. Not sure what torque split was used, as I've noticed torque split affects the final kw output at wheels. More rearward bias = higher kw at wheels.

210kw x 1.35 = 283.5kw x 1.341 = 380hp at engine.

35 % loss is a fair chunk of power thats suprising , i think every car should be rated at the wheels , great info cheers

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/309903-atf-vs-atw/#findComment-5108112
Share on other sites

35% loss hummmmmmm

Looky here

EPSON001.jpg

Thats 299bhp ATF

convert that to kw its 220kw just give or take

as a rule of thumb ive always calculated transmission lose at 15% as its not a continual torque engine

At the wheels mine would be around 255bhp or 188kw

Ok same car same rollers same guy stock manifold pressure no mods

Untitled-11.jpg

255bhp 188kw ATF this time not wheels remember

Thats 217bhp ATW roughly 160kw ATW

Edited by jjskyline79
Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/309903-atf-vs-atw/#findComment-5108451
Share on other sites

The only way to do it is to dyno a large cross section of vehicles both at the wheels and on the engine brake. Then generate a generic table with error bounds attached.

If you take into acount, gearboxes, diff set ups, tyres, heat at the tyres, tyre pressure, power range, revs to achieve it, your doing better than me.

A car that revs to 12000rpm will create more friction, a 1000hp car will create more friction, your tyres with 50psi in them generally gives more power [one for the dyno queens to remember], different brands/types of tyres will dyno optimally at different times and heat ranges, a lock diff will absorb more energy early but may actually be better at higher revs because you are using both rear tyres equally and so it all goes around and around.

The only true way is to do both dyno runs with the same motor, even then you may not have the best tyre on for the job.

So any any equation or ROT applied is an approximation - end of story. But a ROT is OK to use as long as you accept the bounds it creates with a high and low pass.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/309903-atf-vs-atw/#findComment-5108559
Share on other sites

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 all,   long time listener, first time caller   i was wondering if anyone can help me identify a transistor on the climate control unit board that decided to fry itself   I've circled it in the attached photo   any help would be appreciated
    • I mean, I got two VASS engineers to refuse to cert my own coilovers stating those very laws. Appendix B makes it pretty clear what it considers 'Variable Suspension' to be. In my lived experience they can't certify something that isn't actually in the list as something that requires certification. In the VASS engineering checklist they have to complete (LS3/NCOP11) and sign on there is nothing there. All the references inside NCOP11 state that if it's variable by the driver that height needs to maintain 100mm while the car is in motion. It states the car is lowered lowering blocks and other types of things are acceptable. Dialling out a shock is about as 'user adjustable' as changing any other suspension component lol. I wanted to have it signed off to dissuade HWP and RWC testers to state the suspension is legal to avoid having this discussion with them. The real problem is that Police and RWC/Pink/Blue slip people will say it needs engineering, and the engineers will state it doesn't need engineering. It is hugely irritating when aforementioned people get all "i know the rules mate feck off" when they don't, and the actual engineers are pleasant as all hell and do know the rules. Cars failing RWC for things that aren't listed in the RWC requirements is another thing here entirely!
    • I don't. I mean, mine's not a GTR, but it is a 32 with a lot of GTR stuff on it. But regardless, I typically buy from local suppliers. Getting stuff from Japan is seldom worth the pain. Buying from RHDJapan usually ends up in the final total of your basket being about double what you thought it would be, after all the bullshit fees and such are added on.
    • The hydrocarbon component of E10 can be shittier, and is in fact, shittier, than that used in normal 91RON fuel. That's because the octane boost provided by the ethanol allows them to use stuff that doesn't make the grade without the help. The 1c/L saving typically available on E10 is going to be massively overridden by the increased consumption caused by the ethanol and the crappier HC (ie the HCs will be less dense, meaning that there will definitely be less energy per unit volume than for more dense HCs). That is one of the reasons why P98 will return better fuel consumption than 91 does, even with the ignition timing completely fixed. There is more energy per unit volume because the HCs used in 98 are higher density than in the lawnmower fuel.
    • No, I'd suggest that that is the checklist for pneumatic/hydraulic adjustable systems. I would say, based on my years of reading and complying with Australian Standards and similar regulations, that the narrow interpretation of Clause 3.2 b would be the preferred/expected/intended one, by the author, and those using the standard. Wishful thinking need not apply.
×
×
  • Create New...