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

    • Version 1 aluminium airbox is.......not acceptable No pics as I "didn't like the look.....alot" Even after all my "CAD", and measurements, the leg near the fusebox just didn't sit right as it ended up about 10mm long and made the angle of the dangle look wrong, the height was a little short as well, meh, I wasn't that confident that Version 1 was going to be an instant winner I might give Version 2 another go, there's plenty of aluminium at work, but, after having in on and off a few times, and laying in the old OEM airbox without the new pod filter and MAF, there may be an option to modify the OEM air box and still use the Autoexe front cover and filter.... maybe This >  Needs to fit in here, but using the panel, and not the pod, the MAF will need to fit in the airbox though> I'm thinking as the old OEM box and Autoexe cover that is sitting in the shed is just sitting around doing nothing, and they are relatively abundant and cheap to replace if I mess it up and need another, it may well fit with some modifications to how the Autoexe brackets mounts to the rad support, and some dremiling to move it get in there, should give me some more room for activities, as I don't want to move the MAF and affect the tune Sealing the hole it requires to stick it in the air box is simple, a tight fit and some pinch weld will seal it up tight  I am calling this a later problem though
    • and it ends up being already priced in as though you're just on 91RON without any ethanol. Car will lose a bit of economy as the short and long term fuel trims bring down the AFR back to stoich or whatever it is for cruise/idle for the engine.  
    • Oh, you are right. But, in Australia E10 is based on 91RON fuel and ends up being 94RON. Hence it being the cheaper option for economy cars. The more performance oriented cars go for the 98RON fuel that has no ethanol mixed in. The only step up we have left then at some petrol stations is E85.
    • There is a warning that "this thread is super old" but they ignore that anyway...
    • With 10% Ethanol, we're talking 2-3% fuel consumption difference. The emissions reductions and octane boost in my opinion far outweigh this almost non existent loss.    My tanks sitting at 80%. Luckily that should go down fast as I'm on vacation again for the next two weeks. 
×
×
  • Create New...