Engine to Chassis Dyno HP lose

Engine to Chassis Dyno HP lose

Author
Discussion

Stan Weiss

Original Poster:

260 posts

149 months

Thursday 9th July 2015
quotequote all
Not wanting take an old thread to far off, so I started this thread.

While must of this does not apply to this subject, there are a couple of examples where people say that they have seen much greater power lose between engine and chassis dynos than talked about here.

http://www.yellowbullet.com/forum/showthread.php?s...

Stan

Stan Weiss

Original Poster:

260 posts

149 months

Thursday 9th July 2015
quotequote all
Stevie,
Yes, that is what the thread is mostly about.

Extracted from some of the posts. Most post were about how the Mustang Dyno's numbers are lower than other chassis dynos.




That Mustang Dyno is a Heart Breaker our 620 RWHP 975 HP went 9.18 in a 3500 lbs car

620/975=.635 or 63.5% Something seems strange there.

Ive witnessed similar percentage of loss on a mustang many times. Reinforces the fact that the dyno is a tuning tool as opposed to a comparative marker.

Mustang Dyno, issue they don't give up the number like the others do. You want a bigger HP number take it to a different dyno. I dont care what the number is I just try to move it up.

=================================




We've seen from a real honest dyno

18/22% manual trans
29/32% auto trans

Loss to power at wheels




Stan

Edited by Stan Weiss on Thursday 9th July 18:26

Stan Weiss

Original Poster:

260 posts

149 months

Friday 10th July 2015
quotequote all
Pumaracing said:
Stan, when you type "lose" I presume you mean "loss" as lose makes no sense. Not that you make sense much of the time. This is a strange aberration though, to so frequently misspell a simple four letter word. Do you think dementia is setting in already or is it just an American thing?
Dave,
Not yet. I am not sure when I will be following you on that journey. smile

Stan

Stan Weiss

Original Poster:

260 posts

149 months

Friday 10th July 2015
quotequote all
Dave,
You are right or is that write? smile While I may someday go on that same journey, there no way that I would ever want to take the same path as you. eekyikes

Stan

Stan Weiss

Original Poster:

260 posts

149 months

Friday 17th July 2015
quotequote all
I have been off doing some other things, and just got back to this and found this article. For me it was a very interesting read.

http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/mod...

Stan

Stan Weiss

Original Poster:

260 posts

149 months

Friday 17th July 2015
quotequote all
Peter,
If all I was doing was looking to run a simulation then the chassis dyno numbers would be great, and I would have no problem using them. But lets say that a car you had on your chassis does a standing mile run and goes 201 MPH and a few cars later someone goes 207 MPH. The two owners talk to each other and the engine that went 207 MPH was on an engine dyno. It would be nice to see know if the car that went 207 MPH did it because of more HP or because of some other reason.

Stan

Stan Weiss

Original Poster:

260 posts

149 months

Friday 17th July 2015
quotequote all
Peter,
Yes, it is what is at the wheels which gets it done. smile But on this side on the pond I see more engine dyno numbers than chassis dyno numbers.

Stan

Stan Weiss

Original Poster:

260 posts

149 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
PeterBurgess said:
That's interesting Stan. Do you think that is because there are more engine dynos than chassis dynos Stateside or folk divulge more info from engine dynos?

Peter
Peter,
I believe that different groups will have a different average usage between the 2 types of dynos. When I had my 4.6l Mustang that group used the chassis dyno much more than the drag racing groups I deal with do.

When you get your 901 up and running I do not know what output you are going to give people. But some here in the states give them the SFD files. I have had people send me SFD files and that is the reason I have the SF program to read and display those files on my computer.

Stan

Stan Weiss

Original Poster:

260 posts

149 months

Saturday 18th July 2015
quotequote all
Pumaracing said:
That's not much help when what you've got to work from is flywheel bhp or OE manufacturer road car power curves. It's essential to be able to at least approximate transmission and tyre losses.

In fact much of the early work I did circa 20 years ago on establishing what true transmission and tyre losses really were was by computer simulating many cars tested by Autocar and Motor magazine and seeing what level of losses were required from the quoted flywheel bhp to match the tested performance. Now of course there's no guarantee that every car tested had exactly the claimed flywheel bhp but averaged over many simulations I was able to find very consistent patterns of loss which eventually gave rise to the loss equations for manual transmission cars on my website.

https://web.archive.org/web/20110909141356/http://...

In the 15 or so years since writing that I've found nothing to alter my view that these give a very close approximation of real losses for most cars.
Dave,
There has been changes in automatic gearboxes over the last twenty year. Have you done any calculations with vehicles using the ZF 8H or 9H gearboxes?

Stan

Stan Weiss

Original Poster:

260 posts

149 months

Sunday 19th July 2015
quotequote all
Peter,
Sound like have gotten a lot of work done and still have a lot of work to do. I do know if you have talked with anyone @ Performance Trends but some years ago I had some dealing with Kevin Gertgen (Owner) and he was very nice to deal with.

Say Hi to Martin for me. smile

Stan

Stan Weiss

Original Poster:

260 posts

149 months

Monday 10th August 2015
quotequote all
Hi Peter,
Thank you very much for that update. It looks like all of that hard work is paying off. smile While I have changed EPROM's on a number of different circuit boards I am not sure I would want to play around with a twenty plus year old circuit board.
Stan