took my car to the dyno ***updated with a/f info***

Denver_whiteST185

New member
hey guys, i finally found my A/F ratios. here they are....

clip_image002.jpg


I know, its bad. do you think this is also why my idle is kinda lumpy?

btw, my two cents, i think the drivetrain loss is around 20%. is there a way to get my car dynoed at the crank easily? maybe that will solve the discusion i just replaced my oil and differential fluids a few days before the dyno, so drivetrain friction shouldn't have been that bad. im getting my transmission fluid flushed too, so ill probably have a few extra horses after that too.
 

Conan

New member
Denver_whiteST185":1mqjv8x7 said:
btw, my two cents, i think the drivetrain loss is around 20%. is there a way to get my car dynoed at the crank easily? maybe that will solve the discusion
You think beacause you are using your own numbers ;) That's why I said the uncorrected graph is much closer to the truth. You can switch the lever on the tranny and dyno the car in FWD mode, see what the difference is.
I believe your car is fast an all that but I have seen it stated more than once, a stock ST185 makes ~100 kW (which is 136 HP) on all wheels. You can count drivetrain loss from that.
 

Conan

New member
Razzo":2s7dlpka said:
That means a stock sti makes 210whp....i dont see no drivetrain in the world that should lose 30% of the engines force in just the drivetrain. Just to much power being lost
So how much do you think a stock sti is making? :) A dyno uses special brakes to simulate the load the car is getting when it's running on the road. On such dyno, your exhaust manifold and turbine housing will be glowing after 1-2 runs. There are dynos without brakes though, inertia type, they measure power at the flywheel because the load is minimal. Now it's the matter of how "dyno brakes" are adjusted, the car will put down different numbers under different loads. That's why it's best to comare results from same dynos.
And 20% drivetrain loss is more an FR car like RX-7 or 200SX.
 

Denver_whiteST185

New member
Conan":31oe1zen said:
Denver_whiteST185":31oe1zen said:
btw, my two cents, i think the drivetrain loss is around 20%. is there a way to get my car dynoed at the crank easily? maybe that will solve the discusion
You think beacause you are using your own numbers ;) That's why I said the uncorrected graph is much closer to the truth. You can switch the lever on the tranny and dyno the car in FWD mode, see what the difference is.
I believe your car is fast an all that but I have seen it stated more than once, a stock ST185 makes ~100 kW (which is 136 HP) on all wheels. You can count drivetrain loss from that.

Hey, where on the tranny is that lever? if i switched it to FWD, would everything work fine to drive it on an everyday basis. by the way, the uncorrected graphs are at around 6,000 ft, so the car is not putting out 200 crank hp. thats why theres a sae corrected version. also, sense everyone doesn't think i should use a SAFC, what are some idea to fix the A/F ratios?
 

Razzo

New member
Conan":3post4bh said:
Denver_whiteST185":3post4bh said:
btw, my two cents, i think the drivetrain loss is around 20%. is there a way to get my car dynoed at the crank easily? maybe that will solve the discusion
You think beacause you are using your own numbers ;) That's why I said the uncorrected graph is much closer to the truth. You can switch the lever on the tranny and dyno the car in FWD mode, see what the difference is.
I believe your car is fast an all that but I have seen it stated more than once, a stock ST185 makes ~100 kW (which is 136 HP) on all wheels. You can count drivetrain loss from that.

Actually.... I have seen many dynos that say 136hp for a stock alltrac, but i've also seen many dynos like this before. All i'm trying to say is the drivetrain loss numbers are going to be close to 25 then 30.
 

Razzo

New member
Conan":zw602dtd said:
Razzo":zw602dtd said:
That means a stock sti makes 210whp....i dont see no drivetrain in the world that should lose 30% of the engines force in just the drivetrain. Just to much power being lost
So how much do you think a stock sti is making? :) A dyno uses special brakes to simulate the load the car is getting when it's running on the road. On such dyno, your exhaust manifold and turbine housing will be glowing after 1-2 runs. There are dynos without brakes though, inertia type, they measure power at the flywheel because the load is minimal. Now it's the matter of how "dyno brakes" are adjusted, the car will put down different numbers under different loads. That's why it's best to comare results from same dynos.
And 20% drivetrain loss is more an FR car like RX-7 or 200SX.

A stock sti makes anywhere from 230-250 awhp it has a 300 crankhp rating.

So that means the sti has about 20-25% drivetrain loss, i know 4wd/awd trannys haven't had much on the technology side of things within the last 15 years.

Also your off about the rx-7 and the 200sx they lose about 15%(many people have dynos of the ka24 engine showing less then 15% drivetrain loss. You can look if you want. I think people are a little to hard on the gt-four(4wd system), you would be surprised.
 

grip addict

New member
unfortunately you can't drive the car in fwd mode... it'll burst into a pile of burning flames.
i agree on the rx7, they barely have any loss at all. since they're a very torqueless car, they come equipped with an extremely light drivetrain. just look at the driveshaft... it's tiny as hell and all aluminum.
maybe a gutted exhaust would be closer to stock numbers (maybe a little over) on denver's car?
 

Razzo

New member
Conan":3njbu9uq said:
Ok Razzo, I think we can reach an agreement for 25-30% ;) But less
than 25 - no way! :D

True Transmission Losses
So is there any way of really measuring the true transmission loss of a car? Yes - only one - by measuring the flywheel power on an accurate engine dyno, the wheel power on an accurate chassis dyno and taking one away from the other. There is no way on God's green earth of finding out the true transmission loss just by measuring the power at the wheels.

So hopefully that's got you all thinking a bit more now instead of just taking for granted the "flywheel" figure you were given last time you took your car to the rollers. Even worse is the fact that some of these software systems allow the operator to just programme in the % transmission loss he wants the system to add to the wheel figures. So if that isn't a nice easy way to show some big fat flywheel bhp then I don't know of a better one. It's certainly a lot easier than actually doing some proper development work to make the engine perform better - just dial in a bigger transmission loss and bingo - the same wheel bhp now turns into a bigger flywheel bhp - happy customer, happy dyno man - just a shame it was all sleight of hand. See the end of this article if you doubt that this sort of thing really happens.

So what should you do when you take your car to a rolling road? Firstly, make sure you get printouts that show the wheel bhp and not just the flywheel bhp. Then at least you can see if they look sensible in comparison. If you have a desperate need to know the flywheel bhp then you will have to estimate it - there's no other way short of using an engine dyno.

The average front wheel drive road car with between 100 and 200 bhp loses about 15% of the engine bhp as transmission losses.

The average rear wheel drive road car with between 100 and 200 bhp loses about 17% of the engine bhp as transmission losses.

The 2% increase in losses over front wheel drive is because the differential has to turn the drive through 90 degrees at the back axle which soaks up a bit more of the engine's power. Copyright David Baker and Puma Race Engines

4wd cars will have higher losses because of the extra differentials and other power transmission components. The tyre and main gearbox losses will be the same though. Correlating the performance of vehicles with the both 4wd and 2wd options (Audi's and the Sierra Cosworth are examples) (also the gt-four!!!!!!) shows 4wd transmission losses to be about 5% higher than rwd. 22% seems to be a good average.

What each individual car loses is an unknown - it will depend on tyre sizes and pressure, suspension angles and other things, but it shouldn't be far from the figures above. For sure though, no 2wd car in the world, unless it has flat tyres and a gearbox full of sand, loses anything like 30% of the engine's power in the transmission and tyres as many rolling road operators would try to have you believe. In general though it is fair to say that low powered cars have higher % losses than high powered cars. This is because some of the frictional losses are independent of engine power and so represent a bigger drain on a small engine. For example, a 60 bhp Fiesta will have around 14 to 15 bhp total transmission and tyre loss (25%) whereas a 90 bhp XR2 will only have about 17 to 18 bhp loss (20%) - a smaller % obviously. By the time you get to RWD cars with engines in the 300 to 500+ bhp range, losses can eventually drop to as little as 12% to 14% or so.


http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/power3.htm

Its a good read for those people that don't understand how much drivetrain loss there actually is, some of these figures are done with jeeps and other 4wd vehicles, i know the alltrac tranny is one of a kind and is probally only lossing 20-25%.
Like the article says if your lossing up to 30% drivetrain loss you have something wrong mechanicaly. It's the reality :shrug:
 

crazy_russian

New member
Shaun,
The awdpirates.net link about dyno correction doesn't work for me.
I agree with you that the turbo CAN compensate for altitude if the controls permit it, but I don't think our cars do that. If boost is fixed at 7psi then absolute manifold pressure at sea level is 15+7=22psia. At 5000ft manifold pressure is 12+7=19psia. That's less air and less power. Purhaps there are secondary effects I am missing though.
 

SuperWhite92

New member
This dyno is the exact same setup at 500 feet elevation compared to 5300 feet. Uncorrected numbers.

500_vs_5300_uncorrected.jpg


This dyno is the same 500 foot run compared to an "SAE Corrected" 5300 foot run. Note his car (An EVO 8) supposedly gained 50ish horsepower by going up in elevation (according to SAE)

500_vs_5300_SAE.jpg
 

EVcelica

New member
I don't see how on the corrected graph at 500 feet his power went down! How does that happen? Isn't stp sea level and at 0 degrees celcius, or do they not go by this?
 

SuperWhite92

New member
EVcelica":1foxzg5x said:
I don't see how on the corrected graph at 500 feet his power went down! How does that happen? Isn't stp sea level and at 0 degrees celcius, or do they not go by this?

The point is that the SAE correction factors used aren't for turbocharged vehicles
 

smc252

New member
The stock ecu runs 10:1 and 9:1 AFR on top end, up here it must be even worse. This is why the chart drops at 4500rpm, get some tuning and more boost and that will pick up quite a bit, although the ct26 isn't so great on the top-end. Did someone say time for an autronic? I am in Lafayette, and hope to dyno within the next month.
 

nynoah75

New member
Where is this place? I am curiouse what my 88 will pull with my 3in exhaust Supra turbo and HKS fuel computer. Hmmmmm

Noah
 
Top