A must read website
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
Good site George - thanks for posting.
Seems to keep resizing my browser though depending on what i click which is a pain in the ar5e!
Seems to keep resizing my browser though depending on what i click which is a pain in the ar5e!
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
He's in list heaven now! Its as if all your dreams have come true eh Steve? :lol:
- Joined
- Jan 29, 2007
- Messages
- 596
- Reaction score
- 0
Nope - you're not being stupid, it seems like the 182 isnt there.
182 not there.
197 is waaay down on power, as I already knew. (172bhp - ironic!)
All the figures are unadjusted at the wheel figures, although the compare them with manafacturer claims which are, as far as I know, always at the flywheel/output shaft. THis would explain why most of the cars are down on power. Look at the Audi RS4 and BMW M3, 60 and 40bhp down on claimed figures respectively.
197 is waaay down on power, as I already knew. (172bhp - ironic!)
All the figures are unadjusted at the wheel figures, although the compare them with manafacturer claims which are, as far as I know, always at the flywheel/output shaft. THis would explain why most of the cars are down on power. Look at the Audi RS4 and BMW M3, 60 and 40bhp down on claimed figures respectively.
Intersting info that. Thanks for posting that up. Are the 197's recommended to run on 98 ron fuel like our tomatoes? That dyno test was done on 95....would be interesting to see the difference.
Wonder why the engines don't produce best performance at new, or is it just in our minds? When mine was new it seemed pretty sluggish and seems much livelier now at 22k.
I work with off highway diesel engines and when we dyno those with just a couple of engine hours on the clock they make full specification power, usually a little bit high, no trouble at all.
Wonder why the engines don't produce best performance at new, or is it just in our minds? When mine was new it seemed pretty sluggish and seems much livelier now at 22k.
I work with off highway diesel engines and when we dyno those with just a couple of engine hours on the clock they make full specification power, usually a little bit high, no trouble at all.
I agree, if someone could explain why road car engines need running in, that would be great, have an idea but it might be wrong. An F1 engine only gets a couple of hours of operation before putting out 900bhp+ (V10's), why do silly little lawnmower engines like the one in our car need so much 'loosening up'. Mine feels better than ever at a couple of miles of the 20K mark.
Great site. Golf GTI is very healthy at 192bhp.
- Thread starter
- #11
Max well spotted - there are some which make more than 100% - the MkV GTi being one of the better examples.
Because the rototest system is bolted direct othe hubs the tyre to rollers losses (inlcuding hysterisis energy that goes into heating the tyres) are eliminated. depending on the gear ration, most two wheels drive cars should be about 92 - 95% efficient.
Steve, F1 engines are built to totally different standards and tolerances, with different materials. It is only in the last couple of years that they have been able to do more than 500 miles before a 50k rebuild. An example of how they achieve this level of performance is that they are pre-heated to obtain running tolerances before being fired up.
in general this demonstrates why it is worth using an independent (from the tuner) rolling road to do before and after tests - I guess that otherwise it is possible to modify load and atmospheric compensations to flatter the apparent gains.
Because the rototest system is bolted direct othe hubs the tyre to rollers losses (inlcuding hysterisis energy that goes into heating the tyres) are eliminated. depending on the gear ration, most two wheels drive cars should be about 92 - 95% efficient.
Steve, F1 engines are built to totally different standards and tolerances, with different materials. It is only in the last couple of years that they have been able to do more than 500 miles before a 50k rebuild. An example of how they achieve this level of performance is that they are pre-heated to obtain running tolerances before being fired up.
in general this demonstrates why it is worth using an independent (from the tuner) rolling road to do before and after tests - I guess that otherwise it is possible to modify load and atmospheric compensations to flatter the apparent gains.
Thanks George, still confused as to why they don't mention ANYWHERE in their site that their figures are at the wheels (or more accurately at the hubs) and the manafacturer claims are at the flywheel. I'm surprised the their findings aren't a fair bit lower than they are considering the losses in the drivetrain between the crankshaft and the hubs. The 'at the wheels' figure for my Trophy was 145bhp or something, corrected for the fly, this was 175bhp, still 7 down on manufacturer claims after the remap. The standard 182's of the day made 169bhp, 13 down!
Why are they blind to this?
Why are they blind to this?
yep...interesting reading indeed...
check out this place if you get a chance..
http://www.jimmya1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/oops.html
check out this place if you get a chance..
http://www.jimmya1.pwp.blueyonder.co.uk/oops.html