were back LOL throttle body zs

[Quadcam24]

i was thinking 185 wheels but seein as someones already nabbbed that one, ill go 180 wheels.


















i get the feeling some'ones busy strapping on some nos to try and break through the magic 200 at fly

[tb steve]

Originally Posted by Quadcam24

i was thinking 185 wheels but seein as someones already nabbbed that one, ill go 180 wheels.




go 184 then













i get the feeling some'ones busy strapping on some nos to try and break through the magic 200 at fly

no nos

[Jay-ZS+]

Originally Posted by Quadcam24

i was thinking 185 wheels but seein as someones already nabbbed that one, ill go 180 wheels.

Pretty sure 180 at the wheels will be well over 200 at the fly, transmission got to be less than 90% efficient!

[Eddie]

Stock KV6 177 BHP @ flywheel
Stock KV6 144 BHP @ wheels
Equates to a 18.5% drive train loss = 33 BHP@flywheel

You have to remember the power loss is 33 BHP as stock,
When you increase the power the drive train loss has already been calculated and will not change because you make more power, why would your drive train make more losses beause the engine is making more power, what changed in the gearbox?
If you make 200 BHP@wheels you do not calculate 18.5% drive train losses, you add the factory 33 BHP it lost.
Do not make the mistake of adding the 18% power loss to your new figure.

To jump from 144@wheels to 200@wheels (56 WHP) is some good gains for a NASP build,

[Drew]

Originally Posted by Eddie

why would your drive train make more losses beause the engine is making more power, what changed in the gearbox?

torque, turning force that will generate friction/heat. the more torque you put in the more you will lose through friction/heat.

might only be a small bit but will never be the same bhp number or percentage between std and tuned.

Drew

[Quadcam24]

jay, yeah i was joking mate , 180 wheels would be 210-215.

Drew,....i would maybe agree on a small variance on a big turbo build were your throwing hundreds of extra bhp through the transmission, but at this level where the power difference is 5-10 bhp or so, it will make no difference at all.
When ross sc zs made 260 odd bhp it was still 229 at the wheels.
mine made 212 fly, 180 wheels at powerstation when i had my cams mapped in, so no extra losses.


edit, i hope no news, doesnt mean bad news, must be mapped twice over by now unless its got a problem again ?!?!

what air filter set up has it got ...cone in inner wing ?

[Eddie]

Drew

Point taken, you could also factor in wear on gearbox components, diff, bearings, any kind of drag on the clutch, brake pad contact, worn wheel bearings, general wear and tear on the bottom end of the engine, tired ignition system, so many variables from the point the car leaves the factory.
Most dyno’s have compensation formula’s to allow for resistance and climatic conditions, the general rule would be to use the factory figures as a bench mark and work from this point. Always best to measure effort and find a torque curve to make rough calculation on other numbers.
Once we have wheel torque it’s a little easier to “guestimate” the potential crank HP, this you already know of course, main point being, rollers and even hub packs calculate best guess for crank figures, I don’t believe Thor calculate crank HP they just stick with hub power, that’s fairly close to WHP once they fudge in the compensations.
I will be very interested to see just how much power over stock WHP (144) Steve’s car will make, personally, I don’t think the peak numbers will be particularly high but it should have killer torque based on the other mods done to the car.
We shall see I guess,