Welcome to the Australian Ford Forums forum.

You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and inserts advertising. By joining our free community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members, respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features without post based advertising banners. Registration is simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact us.

Please Note: All new registrations go through a manual approval queue to keep spammers out. This is checked twice each day so there will be a delay before your registration is activated.

Go Back   Australian Ford Forums > General Topics > The Pub

The Pub For General Automotive Related Talk

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 16-08-2007, 11:59 PM   #1
Rock ape
Regular Member
 
Rock ape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Mandurah W.A.
Posts: 305
Default Wheel Kw's to flywheel kw's

Ok guys how much power do you lose from the flywheel to the wheels with a manual box? Can it be worked out? If i make 279kw on a dyno whats that at the motor??? Do auto's lose more?

__________________
Drive it like you stole it.
FPVTICKFORDCLUBWA


New FG XR6T ZF
Rock ape is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 12:08 AM   #2
groops
Regular Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Sydney, Parramatta Area
Posts: 185
Default

Ohh...I think I can answer this one...I was talking about this to mate the other day...you have to find out how much drivetrain loss there is, how much gearbox loss there is and then add those 2 figures to the atw kw rating and that should be in the ballpark of your KW at the flywheel.

I'm happy to be proven otherwise, like I said, just going off what I was told.

Mike
groops is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 12:39 AM   #3
feebs
BrwnBstd
 
feebs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 746
Default

How are you Terry... you still smiling after the weekend..?

Some say that FWKW = RWHP, but that's with an auto not a manual, so perhaps your engine is making 340KW peak.

Either way with a factory tune, it is very good. :-)
feebs is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 12:47 AM   #4
Rock ape
Regular Member
 
Rock ape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Mandurah W.A.
Posts: 305
Default

FWKW= RWHP yes thats what i have been told aswell. 279rwkw=374rwhp=374fwkw???
Is that right???
Yes feebs im still smiling.
__________________
Drive it like you stole it.
FPVTICKFORDCLUBWA


New FG XR6T ZF
Rock ape is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 12:52 AM   #5
Fair302
Life is a Ride!
 
Fair302's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Baldivis, WA
Posts: 675
Default

That is what i have been told. So 279rwkw x 1.341 = 374rwhp = 373fwkw

Not bad is it?

PS I got your PM and I'll contact you when DVD ready
__________________
: 2010 FG G6E Turbo - Ego , A6;
Lowered, 19" Typhoon R-Specs, Tint, Mats, JL C2600.2 Splits, JL C2600, JL XD400/4 and JBL 12" Sub, 256RWKW...for now!

: 2011 Honda CB400 - Pearl White; Megacycle slip-on, Some Carbon Fibre & More... 2010 Yamaha Virago 250 - Burgandy
Fair302 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 12:56 AM   #6
Rock ape
Regular Member
 
Rock ape's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Mandurah W.A.
Posts: 305
Default

Not bad at all , these Boss motors do make good power. I am hanging out for the DVD.
__________________
Drive it like you stole it.
FPVTICKFORDCLUBWA


New FG XR6T ZF
Rock ape is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 12:59 AM   #7
gtfpv
GT
 
gtfpv's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: SYDNEY
Posts: 9,205
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAGTp001
FWKW= RWHP yes thats what i have been told aswell. 279rwkw=374rwhp=374fwkw???
Is that right???
Yes feebs im still smiling.
thats what i was told when i had my dynograph done . but another mechanic in the same shop said he didnt really believe that, and believed that the ba MKII MAN loses around 60kw through the driveline .

so i got 2 conflicting figures from the same shop.

one was 264 RWKW = 354 RWHP = 354 FWKW.
the other 264 rwkw + 60 = 324 fwkw. i tend to believe the latter.

as mine is stock and if you add my bolt on claims you get
290kw engine
15 kw BMC fltr
5 pwr pipe
10 kw catback
total = 320 kw.
gtfpv is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 01:02 AM   #8
feebs
BrwnBstd
 
feebs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 746
Default

The FWKW = RWHP works better for AUTOs than Manuals.

So your engine may not be making 375KW, but either way it is doing well!

Saving up for a s/c kit then??
feebs is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 01:04 AM   #9
Bent8
Long live the GT !
 
Bent8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 1,863
Default

Motor mag tested a bunch of FPV's and HSV's on the dyno and they averaged out the figures and came to the conclusion that the auto's lose about 22% at the wheels and the manuals about 17%. Utes were a little more.

279rwkw equals about 336fwkw (17% power loss) That's only 14kw short of the supercharged AMG E55!!
__________________
2018 Ford Mustang GT - Oxford White | Auto | Herrod Tune | K&N Filter | StreetFighter Oil Separators | H&R Springs | Whiteline Vertical Links | Ceramic Protection | Tint

"Whatya think of me car, XR Falcon, 351 Blown Cleveland running Motec injection and runnin' on methanol... goes pretty hard too, got heaps of torque for chucking burnouts, IT'S UNREAL !!" - Poida
Bent8 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 01:09 AM   #10
feebs
BrwnBstd
 
feebs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 746
Default

^^^^^^^^^^
Speaking of boss motors.. how is yours?
feebs is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 01:52 AM   #11
Bent8
Long live the GT !
 
Bent8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 1,863
Default

Quote:
^^^^^^^^^^
Speaking of boss motors.. how is yours?
Hi Feebs, just got my car back this afternoon, she's purring great but I'm not gonna thrash it just yet, got let it run in first...
__________________
2018 Ford Mustang GT - Oxford White | Auto | Herrod Tune | K&N Filter | StreetFighter Oil Separators | H&R Springs | Whiteline Vertical Links | Ceramic Protection | Tint

"Whatya think of me car, XR Falcon, 351 Blown Cleveland running Motec injection and runnin' on methanol... goes pretty hard too, got heaps of torque for chucking burnouts, IT'S UNREAL !!" - Poida
Bent8 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 01:58 AM   #12
feebs
BrwnBstd
 
feebs's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2006
Posts: 746
Default

Yeh.. let her run in for a couple of minutes huh??
feebs is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 02:11 AM   #13
Bent8
Long live the GT !
 
Bent8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 1,863
Default

Yeh a few minutes should do it
__________________
2018 Ford Mustang GT - Oxford White | Auto | Herrod Tune | K&N Filter | StreetFighter Oil Separators | H&R Springs | Whiteline Vertical Links | Ceramic Protection | Tint

"Whatya think of me car, XR Falcon, 351 Blown Cleveland running Motec injection and runnin' on methanol... goes pretty hard too, got heaps of torque for chucking burnouts, IT'S UNREAL !!" - Poida
Bent8 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 08:58 AM   #14
3vXT
...
 
3vXT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,046
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent8
Motor mag tested a bunch of FPV's and HSV's on the dyno and they averaged out the figures and came to the conclusion that the auto's lose about 22% at the wheels and the manuals about 17%. Utes were a little more.
Thats more like it.

Flywheel kw = rear wheel hp is a load of crap. There are far too many variables in different gearboxs and drivelines for this to be a reliable way of working out the loss. Its the same as the people that claim cars lose a uniform 30% through the driveline.
By pure coincidence, it may work out to be accurate in some cases, the way a broken clock is right twice a day

EDIT: Assuming the dyno was accurate and that its flywheel kw were the same as ford have quoted (a pretty big assumption) my BA lost almost exactly 20% with no mods, thats with a T5.

Last edited by 3vXT; 17-08-2007 at 09:04 AM.
3vXT is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 10:56 AM   #15
Fair302
Life is a Ride!
 
Fair302's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Baldivis, WA
Posts: 675
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Bent8
Motor mag tested a bunch of FPV's and HSV's on the dyno and they averaged out the figures and came to the conclusion that the auto's lose about 22% at the wheels and the manuals about 17%. Utes were a little more.

279rwkw equals about 336fwkw (17% power loss) That's only 14kw short of the supercharged AMG E55!!
I must admit that the above does sound more realistic. It would make some of the BOSS motors absolute beasts otherwise.

In my case: 273.2 / 0.83 = 329.2fwkw
290 to start with
helix + 5
BPRD CAI + 15
Pacemakers + 10
APC SS Twin 2.5" + 10

290+5=295+15=310+10=320+10=330
329.2 x 1.341=441.5fwhp

That sounds realistic enough to me.
__________________
: 2010 FG G6E Turbo - Ego , A6;
Lowered, 19" Typhoon R-Specs, Tint, Mats, JL C2600.2 Splits, JL C2600, JL XD400/4 and JBL 12" Sub, 256RWKW...for now!

: 2011 Honda CB400 - Pearl White; Megacycle slip-on, Some Carbon Fibre & More... 2010 Yamaha Virago 250 - Burgandy
Fair302 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 11:03 AM   #16
HLC
Audi S3
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Sydney.
Posts: 8,307
Default

i normally add about 50kw to get fwkw from a rwkw figure :
__________________
HLC is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 12:11 PM   #17
TZENU
XY Driv3r
 
TZENU's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Melbourne
Posts: 3,004
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by BAGTp001
Do auto's lose more?


Auto's do lose more power(not much) especially if they have a high(ish) stall converters..
__________________
Genuine Faker NOW BROKEN
Imagniation is a human element creativity is the result
TZENU is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 12:27 PM   #18
TUF270
BACK IN AN FG TURBO
 
TUF270's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: GEELONG
Posts: 3,077
Default

but then if autos lose more power? y are they faster than the manuals down the quarter? in stock form that is? not bringing modded cars into it..
TUF270 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 01:00 PM   #19
3vXT
...
 
3vXT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Posts: 1,046
Default

^^^ because they're easier
3vXT is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 01:14 PM   #20
irlewy86
Meep Meep
 
irlewy86's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Southside
Posts: 1,513
Default

The Ford GT put out 550rwhp (either Ford defied the laws of physics or lied about the engine output)

17% is a fairly accurate figure for drivline loss on your modern barge.

Auto's have come a long way over the years and there as much of a gap between the 2 setups these days.
__________________
Thundering on....
irlewy86 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 01:45 PM   #21
T3man
Banned
 
T3man's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: searching for cubes
Posts: 6,672
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by HLC
i normally add about 50kw to get fwkw from a rwkw figure :
Yay, this sounds like the one for me! My old Beetle has about 25 rwkW. So if I add 50kW that means I have 75kW at the fly - 100HP - gotta be happy with that from a 40HP motor.

A good basic estimation of driveline loss (for properly matched gearbox/transmission) is 17% for manual and 18% to 22% for autos (the lower figure for modern autos and higher for the older types).

Because your engine has been modded the transmission is now being asked to work harder than before so the driveline loss wil be slightly higher than for a standard car. If you therefore used a figure of 20% for a manual and 25% for an auto you'd be pretty close. Also, autos tend to lose more of their basic efficiency than a manual does as torque is increased. Unless of course the transmission is also modified eg. higher line pressure to servos/upgraded clutches etc.
T3man is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 02:13 PM   #22
Fair302
Life is a Ride!
 
Fair302's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Baldivis, WA
Posts: 675
Default

Thanks for above info, I have always wanted to know this.

Also:

Holden Ute... Evoloution ends here.

It makes sense really, most of the Holden drivers I know stopped evolving a long time ago.

LOL but so true
__________________
: 2010 FG G6E Turbo - Ego , A6;
Lowered, 19" Typhoon R-Specs, Tint, Mats, JL C2600.2 Splits, JL C2600, JL XD400/4 and JBL 12" Sub, 256RWKW...for now!

: 2011 Honda CB400 - Pearl White; Megacycle slip-on, Some Carbon Fibre & More... 2010 Yamaha Virago 250 - Burgandy
Fair302 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 02:56 PM   #23
webby_191189
low wagooon
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Swan Hill
Posts: 1,579
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TUF240
but then if autos lose more power? y are they faster than the manuals down the quarter? in stock form that is? not bringing modded cars into it..
Because you loose a little bit of time shifting between gears in a manual where as an auto it does it automatically. Also depends on driver skill and how well they can shift
__________________
Webby
S2 AU XR6 UTE

webby_191189 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 03:03 PM   #24
RavenLS1
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 1,419
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by irlewy86
The Ford GT put out 550rwhp (either Ford defied the laws of physics or lied about the engine output)

17% is a fairly accurate figure for drivline loss on your modern barge.

Auto's have come a long way over the years and there as much of a gap between the 2 setups these days.
thats 550bhp not rwhp.
RavenLS1 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 03:23 PM   #25
Bent8
Long live the GT !
 
Bent8's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 1,863
Default

I've heard that the GT40 makes 530rwhp because it doesn't have a tail shaft so almost all of the engines power gets to the ground.
__________________
2018 Ford Mustang GT - Oxford White | Auto | Herrod Tune | K&N Filter | StreetFighter Oil Separators | H&R Springs | Whiteline Vertical Links | Ceramic Protection | Tint

"Whatya think of me car, XR Falcon, 351 Blown Cleveland running Motec injection and runnin' on methanol... goes pretty hard too, got heaps of torque for chucking burnouts, IT'S UNREAL !!" - Poida
Bent8 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 03:55 PM   #26
joe260
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
joe260's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2007
Location: Regents Park
Posts: 1,315
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TUF240
but then if autos lose more power? y are they faster than the manuals down the quarter? in stock form that is? not bringing modded cars into it..
even i know the answer to that one. autos are best for dragging as u dont waste time chagning through gears lol
__________________
www.bseries.com.au/fordgirl86
joe260 is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 04:36 PM   #27
prydey
Rob
 
prydey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Woodcroft S.A.
Posts: 21,603
Default

auto's faster down the strip? what era of cars we talkin here? only in the last few years has this been remotely close to being true on stock cars and even then its mostly on forced induction models where an auto is better.

drivetrain loss was always ROUGHLY 30% . there is no definitive figure as all cars will be slightly different. once again though, as the cars and the technolgy get newer and improve the loss through the drivetrain is becoming less and less. nowadays it is more likely to be somewhere in the 20's but its a rough guide as it always will be.

also when calculating, you are talking a loss so you start with fwkw and minus the percentage you choose (somewhere between 20 and 30%). because it is a percentage if you add it to your rwkw you will get a smaller figure than if you take it from fwkw. eg 200kw - 30% does not equal the same as 140 + 30%.

in my opinion, 270rwkw would be around 340fwkw using 20% drivetrain loss. this also is confirmed if you think a stock 290kw puts out around 220rwkw then both outputs are up around 50rwkw.

i also believe once you have estabished drivetrain loss on a stock car you can use that figure after future mods instead of using a percentage as loss should remain virtually the same.
prydey is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 06:57 PM   #28
Badcooky
FF.Com.Au Hardcore
 
Badcooky's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: My house
Posts: 1,637
Default

From dirt bikes to top fuelers it's about 20% across the board,sometimes a little more.
Badcooky is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 09:20 PM   #29
asusdragon
BA Falcon XT
 
asusdragon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Perth WA
Posts: 848
Default

the top one rwhp to flkw would bout right for my car 202rwhp so 202fwkw which working with the mods is bout what i think mine is doing plus take 50kw and you get 152rwkw which is what my car put out on the dyno
__________________
Click here to check out my signature
http://i238.photobucket.com/albums/f...ignature-1.jpg

Quote:
If you can't fix it with a hammer. you're got an electrical problem
Quote:
You only need two tools in life - WD40 and Duct Tape. If it doesn't move and should, use the WD40, If it shouldnt move and does, use the duct tape
asusdragon is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Old 17-08-2007, 11:37 PM   #30
prydey
Rob
 
prydey's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: Woodcroft S.A.
Posts: 21,603
Default

stock ef falcon at the fly is 157kw. 30% loss equals about 110rwkw which i think is about normal for most e series. 20% loss would give about 125rwkw which is a bit off the mark so i'm of the opinion that something closer to 30% is more applicable to that era of cars.

ba's on the other hand, being newer, seem to lose less. most stock xr8's are up around 200rwkw and xr6t's around the 170 - 190rwkw which equates to something closer to the 20% mark.

at the end of the day, its meaningless except for bragging rights down the pub.
prydey is offline   Reply With Quote Multi-Quote with this Post
Reply


Forum Jump


All times are GMT +11. The time now is 05:22 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.5
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Other than what is legally copyrighted by the respective owners, this site is copyright www.fordforums.com.au
Positive SSL