Dyno drivetrain losses
10 July 2001, 10:59 PM
#1
Scooby Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
OK - question for ya. What are the typical drivetrain losses for a scooby on a dyno?
Lets say a car makes around 260 bhp at the flywheel - roughly what would this give at the wheels.
Si.
Lets say a car makes around 260 bhp at the flywheel - roughly what would this give at the wheels.
Si.
13 July 2001, 02:09 PM
#3
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Jun 1999
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I got 257BHP at the flywheel, and 175BHP at the wheels last time.
This was a 99MY UK Turbo with various attachments :-) Though nothing modified on the transmission.
Tyre pressure can make a big difference, as can the wheelbase to which the dyno system rollers are set.
Hope this helps
Steve
This was a 99MY UK Turbo with various attachments :-) Though nothing modified on the transmission.
Tyre pressure can make a big difference, as can the wheelbase to which the dyno system rollers are set.
Hope this helps
Steve
13 July 2001, 08:41 PM
#5
Ecu Specialist
Have a look at the dyno site, (click link at top of page) you will see a wide range, cars with the lockable centre diff lose less ... for the rest its higher and is just as dependant on the rolling road roller spacing, tyre pressures, suspension geometry etc as anything else.
14 July 2001, 11:45 PM
#6
Scooby Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bob Rawle said
<<is just as dependant on the rolling road roller spacing, tyre pressures, suspension geometry etc as anything else.>>
OK, so if the RWP is measured directly, and the losses (and therefore calculated flywheel power) is affected by so many factors, how come everybody on this list always quotes flywheel figures.
Surely they are a nonsense, and we should all be talking directly measured rear wheel figures?
Si.
<<is just as dependant on the rolling road roller spacing, tyre pressures, suspension geometry etc as anything else.>>
OK, so if the RWP is measured directly, and the losses (and therefore calculated flywheel power) is affected by so many factors, how come everybody on this list always quotes flywheel figures.
Surely they are a nonsense, and we should all be talking directly measured rear wheel figures?
Si.
14 July 2001, 11:57 PM
#7
Ecu Specialist
Since a Scoob is all wheel drive ... do you own one ? Common sense should tell you that the rollers measure the drive train losses for each car and add to the PAW figs ... therefore it is better to quote flywheel although IMHO rolling roads are good for comparative measurement and pub talk, the only real way to measure an engine is using an engine dyno.
Trending Topics
16 July 2001, 08:33 AM
#8
Scooby Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2001
Posts: 7
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
<<the rollers measure the drive train losses for each car and add to the PAW figs ... therefore it is better to quote flywheel>>
I understand how the dyno measures the losses, but I still don't follow the logic of why quoting flywheel is better - it's just adding further margin for error into the equation IMO.
<<although IMHO rolling roads are good for comparative measurement and pub talk, the only real way to measure an engine is using an engine dyno.>>
I agree 110%.
Si.
I understand how the dyno measures the losses, but I still don't follow the logic of why quoting flywheel is better - it's just adding further margin for error into the equation IMO.
<<although IMHO rolling roads are good for comparative measurement and pub talk, the only real way to measure an engine is using an engine dyno.>>
I agree 110%.
Si.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
hedgecutter
General Technical
3
25 September 2015 02:35 PM
StueyBII
Engine Management and ECU Remapping
5
22 September 2015 02:13 PM