Reply With Quoteyou Dynoed WHP, not crank HPOriginally posted by Nelson Lago
well thats pretty much the same as me but i really think its off by 50hp because all of us with the 280 knows that 280 C class flys
well thats pretty much the same as me but i really think its off by 50hp because all of us with the 280 knows that 280 C class flys
Mercedes
Engineers
Racecars
Carfully
Economically
Drivability
Even
Safety
you Dynoed WHP, not crank HPOriginally posted by Nelson Lago
well thats pretty much the same as me but i really think its off by 50hp because all of us with the 280 knows that 280 C class flys
i have a c280 and its not that fast. its a good car but flies...?
seriously reading this thread makes me feel like an after school program supervisor.
the v6 was rated at the rear wheels, and the n/a 4 banger was rated at the crank.
WTF is everyone bickering about? those are pretty much dead-on.
We all know that the C280 v6 puts out 194hp at the crank
Now we know OCKlasse's puts out Mid 140s at the crank.
Yes, the v6 gets 50 more HP than the (modded) i-4. WHAT A SHOCK.
The school teacher grosses 40k/year and the engineer nets 45k/year. OMG the engineer only make 5k more than the school teacher.
True about the crap in this thread...but my car is making 170hp at the crank...for some reason, all my guy's dynos don't say whp. My car is rated at 150hp stock, which would mean ~125 whp.Originally posted by rman
seriously reading this thread makes me feel like an after school program supervisor.
the v6 was rated at the rear wheels, and the n/a 4 banger was rated at the crank.
WTF is everyone bickering about? those are pretty much dead-on.
We all know that the C280 v6 puts out 194hp at the crank
Now we know OCKlasse's puts out Mid 140s at the crank.
Yes, the v6 gets 50 more HP than the (modded) i-4. WHAT A SHOCK.
The school teacher grosses 40k/year and the engineer nets 45k/year. OMG the engineer only make 5k more than the school teacher.
Ok there is A LOT of confusion in this thread....
ALL manufacture power claims are at the crankshaft, none give wheel HP numbers that up to the consumer to determine via dyno testing.
Loading dynos always read lower than dynojet style, but in turn are much more accurate of "real world" results.
For 170HP crank engine you should be dynoing 132-136HP (22%-20% drivetrain loss).
For 194HP crank power you should be dyoing 151-155HP (22-20% drivetrain loss).
19 inch wheels rob REDICULOUS amounts of power, if you want more power get a lighter set of wheels then stock (which may not be easy). The more rotational mass you put on the wheels and etc the more power you rob, people don't realize you can flucutate 5-10wheel HP on the dyno just based on different wheel & tire setups.
I think there is more confusion than you think as well....Originally posted by omeyhomey
Ok there is A LOT of confusion in this thread....
ALL manufacture power claims are at the crankshaft, none give wheel HP numbers that up to the consumer to determine via dyno testing.
Loading dynos always read lower than dynojet style, but in turn are much more accurate of "real world" results.
For 170HP crank engine you should be dynoing 132-136HP (22%-20% drivetrain loss).
For 194HP crank power you should be dyoing 151-155HP (22-20% drivetrain loss).
19 inch wheels rob REDICULOUS amounts of power, if you want more power get a lighter set of wheels then stock (which may not be easy). The more rotational mass you put on the wheels and etc the more power you rob, people don't realize you can flucutate 5-10wheel HP on the dyno just based on different wheel & tire setups.
a.) My car dynoed at 143 to the wheels which in turn equates to 170+ crank hp
b.) I used a Dynapack, which required me to remove my rear wheels and connect them to the dynometer. Therefore, 19 inch wheels had no effect on my dyno.
c.) my 19 inch wheels are SIGNIFICANTLY lighter than my 17 inch Monoblocks were, due to the fact that they are Aluminum 2-piece.
Again more confusion lol .Originally posted by OCKlasse
I think there is more confusion than you think as well....
a.) My car dynoed at 143 to the wheels which in turn equates to 170+ crank hp
b.) I used a Dynapack, which required me to remove my rear wheels and connect them to the dynometer. Therefore, 19 inch wheels had no effect on my dyno.
c.) my 19 inch wheels are SIGNIFICANTLY lighter than my 17 inch Monoblocks were, due to the fact that they are Aluminum 2-piece.
Yes i know you dynoed 143, which is why i mentioned compression check a few posts back. Alot of times on higher mileage engines compression falls and if even one cylinders compression has plummeted it will affect overall engine performance (and on NA engines compression is everything).
Yes i know your wheels didnt' but loading dynos dyno much lower so you cannot really compare to dynojet numbers. for loading dynos 22% is more accurate so for your car that equates to about 183 HP which for a car of higher mileage is completely normal (again sounds like you have compression issues).
Also, Remember weight is not the only factor....
Inertia = mass x Radius (squared). So radius plays a much more crutial role than most people realized, its exponentially more important than mass (literally). In addition, center of mass is also a big issue. On a 19" wheel the mass is at a larger radius and more of it is at the edge of that radius so then leverage becomes a factor. Just b/c a 19" weighs less does not mean the overall rotational interia and rotational mass of the wheel assembly is less. Plus most people never factor in tires, and 19" tires are much heaver than 17s b/c of the necessary steel belts and etc in 19s. So even if your entire wheel assembly is lighter than stock (doubtful), you can still rob power based on the radius & center of mass alone). You can still lose 5HP on dyno b/c of it. If your car dynos 143 w/o the wheels it probably dynos 135-138 with them (which is why i dont agree in using hub dynoes in the first place b/c they aren't the most accurate in determining real world stree HP gains (Dyno dynamics / mustang dyno still the best dynos out there). Not trying to be pesimistic, just pragmatic and realistic. There are a lot of factors people just don't take into account when they go to dyno there car which is why most people are dissapopointed b/c they have unrealistic gains going into the dyno.
Dont' worry, keep your head up high, I have new mods coming out to increase those numbers.
2 cents,
~Omey~
what OCKlasse says is true...there will be a 25-30% loss when translated from engine power to wheel power...Originally posted by OCKlasse
You don't understand...that figure is WHEEL HORSEPOWER...according to the guy who owned the Dyno, there is an approx 25hp loss on ANY vehicle, whether it has 100hp or 900hp. Therefore, I can assume my car has around 168hp to the crank, and even if you take 143 * 1.2 you get 168, so I am happy. Look at the tcf of 1.00, that will tell you it's WHP.
this is my dyno results that i did on my alfa 164QV, it showed about 250hp on engine but my "on wheel" results showed only 178hp...the loss can be due to a number of reasons, like 4 e.g. auto tranny, rear-wheel drive, health of the engine, etc, etc....
http://www.italiaauto.net/files/dyno4_527.jpg
Originally posted by mrfeelgood
what OCKlasse says is true...there will be a 25-30% loss when translated from engine power to wheel power...
this is my dyno results that i did on my alfa 164QV, it showed about 250hp on engine but my "on wheel" results showed only 178hp...the loss can be due to a number of reasons, like 4 e.g. auto tranny, rear-wheel drive, health of the engine, etc, etc....
http://www.italiaauto.net/files/dyno4_527.jpg
the exact % loss due to drive train for mid engine stick tranaxle is 15%. A front engine rear wheel drive stick is 17%, a front engine rear wheel drive automatic is 20-22%. Any more loss would be due to engine health and other factors.
Posting Permissions
