|
| downingj |
|
||
|
=) Mad_Falcon (= wrote: How many kw are standard EF falcons?
Between 95-100 seems to be the norm for Gli / Futura 4.0 litre... XR6's are about 110... Dunno about XR8's though... |
||
| Top | |
||
| data_mine |
|
|||
|
I6 156KW at the fly, between 95-105 RWKW
XR6 164KW at teh fly, around 110RWKWish
_________________ 1998 DL LTD in Sparkling Burgundy, daily, 302W, stereo, slow |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Walkinshaw |
|
||
|
As a GENERAL rule
160rwkw should beable to punch out 97+mph this is a very genralistic rule. I had arround 130rwkw with my old setup and managed to run 91mph, I'd have close to 150 now and would expect arround 95mph. These claims of 185rwkw, back it up with a 100+mph pass.....
_________________ Soo many idiots. So few bullets |
||
| Top | |
||
| fnp |
|
|||
Age: 39 Posts: 4401 Joined: 25th Mar 2005 Ride: BA XT, BA XR6T, ED Ghia 5.0 Location: Perth |
Walkinshaw wrote: As a GENERAL rule
160rwkw should beable to punch out 97+mph this is a very genralistic rule. I had arround 130rwkw with my old setup and managed to run 91mph, I'd have close to 150 now and would expect arround 95mph. These claims of 185rwkw, back it up with a 100+mph pass..... 97mph.. this is in a heavy BA too, remember.
_________________ What's the difference between a Holden and a sheep? It's less embarrasing getting out of the back of a sheep.. |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
fnp wrote: Walkinshaw wrote: As a GENERAL rule 160rwkw should beable to punch out 97+mph this is a very genralistic rule. I had arround 130rwkw with my old setup and managed to run 91mph, I'd have close to 150 now and would expect arround 95mph. These claims of 185rwkw, back it up with a 100+mph pass..... 97mph.. this is in a heavy BA too, remember. The general rules are for E/A series, BA's will have their own rwkw to mph translations The only BA that ive seen on the same dynos I run on gets ~20rwkw more than mine and the same ET and MPH. So if 20kw of your power goes on dragging more weight down track, then it seems fair to compare you to a 160rwkw SOHC, so 97mph is pretty much spot on.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Walkinshaw |
|
||
|
Another good "conversion" equation is.
A certain BA 6cyl ran on JMM dyno, then 3 days later on a local dyno who's figures back up year after year. 182rwmw = 162rwkw
_________________ Soo many idiots. So few bullets |
||
| Top | |
||
| downingj |
|
||
|
Walkinshaw wrote: Another good "conversion" equation is.
A certain BA 6cyl ran on JMM dyno, then 3 days later on a local dyno who's figures back up year after year. 182rwmw = 162rwkw Explain to me how someone could "rig" a dyno to produce a more generous RWKW figure? I'm not having a go, just interested to get to the bottom off all the talk about different dynos spitting out VERY different power outputs. And it's not just JMM either. There are plenty out there who get different results, depending on dyno... I'm finding it very hard to swallow that one dyno can spit out 182 and another will tell you you only have 162rwk......... |
||
| Top | |
||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
downingj wrote: Walkinshaw wrote: Another good "conversion" equation is. A certain BA 6cyl ran on JMM dyno, then 3 days later on a local dyno who's figures back up year after year. 182rwmw = 162rwkw Explain to me how someone could "rig" a dyno to produce a more generous RWKW figure? I'm not having a go, just interested to get to the bottom off all the talk about different dynos spitting out VERY different power outputs. And it's not just JMM either. There are plenty out there who get different results, depending on dyno... I'm finding it very hard to swallow that one dyno can spit out 182 and another will tell you you only have 162rwk......... by incorrect calibration or fudging the conditions. Good example - the dyno on your printout is not the torque/power that was actually measured. The dyno measures power, and then adds or subracts power from this depending on air temps, humidity etc. This is supposed to be a good thing as cars will produce more power on a cold day than a hot and humid day, and by correcting the reading you should get the same results. If the dyno operator was to accidently leave the temp probe sitting on the radiator instead of putting it down the snorkel, it will read 20 odd degrees more temperature and the dyno will compensate by adding power to your graph. It is usually easy to spot this sort of fudging. If you look at the AT (ambient temp) and IT (intake temp) at the bottom of the graph and the numbers are more than 1-3 degrees different here is an example 
note how the air temp on that day was 21 degrees, but somehow the air going into the engine was 39 degrees. I saw one dyno center demonstrate how much you can play with the settings by getting a old carby mini to pull something like 340rwkw.
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| henry95ef |
|
|||
|
Ported head, 10mm leads, 3" intake pipe with pod, pacemaker extractors, hi flow cat, 3" exhaust and standard cam and computer on 210,000 km bottom end makes 134.8 RWKW
Cant wait for stage 3 cam, adjustable vernier gear and new diff gears to show full potential in 3rd on the dyno 
_________________ Skidz are cooooool!
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Slabz |
|
|||
|
can torque be reliably worked out from a power only graph or does it need to be printed on the chart? (i've got a feeling: "no" because a 7L V8 that makes 140rwkw would make a hell of a lot more torque than a 2L 4cyl making 140rwkw...
_________________ EBII 4.0L GLi | T5 | 3.27 Spool | POD | KKK K27 Turbo | 600x300x76 FMIC | 40mm Wastegate (dead) | RPD Stg1 Cam | B&M Launch Control | Thermos | 3" Dump | Twin 2.25" Zorst | 197kw@3500rpm, 7psi LEAN!
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Waggin |
|
|||
|
Slabz wrote: can torque be reliably worked out from a power only graph or does it need to be printed on the chart? (i've got a feeling: "no" because a 7L V8 that makes 140rwkw would make a hell of a lot more torque than a 2L 4cyl making 140rwkw...
depends on whether its an engine dyno or chassis dyno. Remember a chassis dyno takes into account gbox and diff ratios which have a huge impact on rear wheel torque figures.
_________________ WAG363: AUII LTD Supercharged 363 Dart Stroker [Supercharged 363 LTD Build] |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
Slabz wrote: can torque be reliably worked out from a power only graph or does it need to be printed on the chart? (i've got a feeling: "no" because a 7L V8 that makes 140rwkw would make a hell of a lot more torque than a 2L 4cyl making 140rwkw...
Yep you can - Power (hp) = Torque (ft-lb) * RPM / 5252 different for kw and Nm but cant find it right now So in your example, if the V8 and 2l both had 140rwkw at say 5000rpm they both have the same torque at 5000rpm. Normally though, the V8 will make 140rwkw at like 4000rpm and the 2L will make it at around 6000. So if you work from that 140rwkw ~ 185hp For the V8, torque at peak power = 185 * 5252 / 4000 = 242 ft-lb for the 2L, torque at peak power = 185 * 5252 / 6000 = 161ft-lb
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Slabz |
|
|||
|
stockstandard wrote: Slabz wrote: can torque be reliably worked out from a power only graph or does it need to be printed on the chart? (i've got a feeling: "no" because a 7L V8 that makes 140rwkw would make a hell of a lot more torque than a 2L 4cyl making 140rwkw... Yep you can - Power (hp) = Torque (ft-lb) * RPM / 5252 different for kw and Nm but cant find it right now So in your example, if the V8 and 2l both had 140rwkw at say 5000rpm they both have the same torque at 5000rpm. Normally though, the V8 will make 140rwkw at like 4000rpm and the 2L will make it at around 6000. So if you work from that 140rwkw ~ 185hp For the V8, torque at peak power = 185 * 5252 / 4000 = 242 ft-lb for the 2L, torque at peak power = 185 * 5252 / 6000 = 161ft-lb seems to work. is this supposed to return the torque at the fly (hopefully) or torque at the wheels. Its just that i've seen chassis dyno's give about 200Nm torque and others give 1400Nm torque and the latter is obviously up from the flywheel figure because its been through a gearbox and diff (leverage) but they former, which is what my mate in his supercharged R31 skyline got, is actually lower than the stock flywheel figure. The only thing we could make of it (apart from it being meaningless  ) is that it is an estimated flywheel reading less drivetrain losses (which is a stupid figure, because it isn't actually rear wheel torque).
btw: 1ft-lbs = 1.38 Nm
_________________ EBII 4.0L GLi | T5 | 3.27 Spool | POD | KKK K27 Turbo | 600x300x76 FMIC | 40mm Wastegate (dead) | RPD Stg1 Cam | B&M Launch Control | Thermos | 3" Dump | Twin 2.25" Zorst | 197kw@3500rpm, 7psi LEAN!
|
|||
| Top | |
|||
| stockstandard |
|
|||
|
Slabz wrote: seems to work. is this supposed to return the torque at the fly (hopefully) or torque at the wheels. Its just that i've seen chassis dyno's give about 200Nm torque and others give 1400Nm torque and the latter is obviously up from the flywheel figure because its been through a gearbox and diff (leverage) but they former, which is what my mate in his supercharged R31 skyline got, is actually lower than the stock flywheel figure. The only thing we could make of it (apart from it being meaningless
) is that it is an estimated flywheel reading less drivetrain losses (which is a stupid figure, because it isn't actually rear wheel torque).btw: 1ft-lbs = 1.38 Nm It gives torque at the wheel without any gear multiplication (so flywheel torque less drivetrain loss).
_________________ Stoke me a clipper, I'll be back for Christmas |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| data_mine |
|
|||
|
Some dyno operators quote the 'motive force' figure (also measured in newton metres) as the torque figure you or I are after, I've put down motive force figures of over 3500NM. The figure doesn't mean much, but the graph that gets plotted is useful - as it will be teh save as your torque curve.
_________________ 1998 DL LTD in Sparkling Burgundy, daily, 302W, stereo, slow |
|||
| Top | |
|||
| Who is online |
|---|
Users browsing this forum: Google [Bot], Google Adsense [Bot] and 98 guests |
