Jump to content


- - - - -

Rear Wheel Horse Power


  • Please log in to reply
74 replies to this topic

#1 _Keithy's_UC_

_Keithy's_UC_
  • Guests

Posted 09 March 2006 - 10:24 AM

Ladies, Gents and Others,

If you remember back to the good old days of GMH-Torana, you will remember a post made by me regarding everyone's estimates of the HP at the rear wheels in my UC!

The triple SU's are only weeks away from being fitted (damn working away from home crap)!! I'll have them dyno tuned at the same time.

It's run a 14.852 down the 1/4, with a 350Holley and 3.08:1 diff ratio. I cannot predict what she'll do with the SU's, but i'm hoping to at least equal that!

NOW, what's everyone's guess as to the overall RWHP output of the old girl? If you want engine specs, check it out in Members Ride's. Keep in mind i now have thermo fans as well!

My guess (although it may seem high) is 171RWHP. What do you rekon it will get?

Keith

Posted Image
Posted Image

#2 GML-31

GML-31

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,239 posts
  • Name:Kev
  • Location:Highland Park
  • Car:too many
  • Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 09 March 2006 - 10:35 AM

167.5 to be precise....lol whats the prize i am sure last time Keith you were offering lots of bucks...lol

#3 _[BOTTLEDUP]_

_[BOTTLEDUP]_
  • Guests

Posted 09 March 2006 - 10:50 AM

I'm thinking around the 160 mark...

#4 FastEHHolden

FastEHHolden

    Steptoe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,114 posts
  • Location:Central Coast NSW
  • Joined: 16-November 05

Posted 09 March 2006 - 12:24 PM

Not sure if I originally said 135 or 145....but I will go 145 RWHP.

#5 _Keithy's_UC_

_Keithy's_UC_
  • Guests

Posted 09 March 2006 - 12:55 PM

Ha Ha Ha, no prize but the satisfaction in knowing you got it right (or close)!!

I will keep you posted!

#6 _LC2250_

_LC2250_
  • Guests

Posted 09 March 2006 - 01:56 PM

Woah, I remember this car ... come along way it has. Hope it hits your mark of 171rwhp but quite honestly what do numbers mean ... it either does what you want it to do or it doesn't; and from the sounds of things you seem pretty happy with her!

-Al

#7 _TORANR AMORE_

_TORANR AMORE_
  • Guests

Posted 09 March 2006 - 02:13 PM

14.852 !!!!??!!!! That's pretty good mate.

Edited by TORANR AMORE, 09 March 2006 - 02:14 PM.


#8 _Yella SLuR_

_Yella SLuR_
  • Guests

Posted 09 March 2006 - 02:32 PM

137 as previous.

#9 LXCHEV

LXCHEV

    Lotsa Posts!

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 3,510 posts
  • Name:Brett
  • Location:Melbourne
  • Car:'76 LX - 383 Chev
  • Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 09 March 2006 - 03:45 PM

G'day Keithy,

I just read through your Members Projects thread, it's a great read! Well done on the 14.8 1/4 mile time as well, that's an excellent time, esp for a single carb! Just wait till the triples go on (assuming they are setup and tuned just right, your time should definitely improve)...If it's anything like my old triple-Su powered 202, you may start having traction issues though getting it off the line....

Anyway, as for a quesstimate on what I think it will make on a chassis dyno with the triple SU's: I reckon 134 Hp @ the wheels (100kw). This is based on my old six banger as I can see a lot of similarities in the combo... I had a few more cubes than you though, but would also have lost a few Hp through the 9", so I reckon that figure should be close at the end of the day.

Looking forward to hearing how you go!

Cheers.

#10 GML-31

GML-31

    Oh My, Don't you post alot

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,239 posts
  • Name:Kev
  • Location:Highland Park
  • Car:too many
  • Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 09 March 2006 - 03:48 PM

dont forget to take a leaf blower Keith .....

#11 barny_lx

barny_lx

    Forum Fixture

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPip
  • 599 posts
  • Location:Country South Australia
  • Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 09 March 2006 - 07:08 PM

143rwhp

#12 _Aquarius - LC_

_Aquarius - LC_
  • Guests

Posted 09 March 2006 - 08:39 PM

How ru keithy,
I have similar spec 202 :rockon:
Allowing for differences in dyno's, i'm gunna say
around 140rwhp [that'd be a good result] me think's.
Looking forward to update.

#13 _Keithy's_UC_

_Keithy's_UC_
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2006 - 03:37 AM

Good to see some 'all rounders' there!! Maybe my guess was a bit high, maybe not, but im glad to hear people's thoughts and past experience coming in to play here! A steady 100kW at the treads is a pretty mean feat for a red motor, i'd be happy to get that (but happier to get more)!!

As mentioned above, ill keep you posted on when it's happenin (hopefully when i fly home from work in 2 weeks)...

Keith

#14 _devilsadvocate_

_devilsadvocate_
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2006 - 05:08 AM

According to one of those hp calculators if you are running 14.82 + ~1350kg all up, output at wheels would be 185hp, which seems a bit high by all accounts. Perhaps the formula is modelled on larger bodied American cars(read more air resistance) The same calc appears all over the net, and it does warn to use it only for relative purposes, has anyone else got a qmile time and dyno reading to compare with the calculator?
My guess is youll get another 5hp for your triples and about 2hp effective for your fan(more for both at max rpm on the dyno) total 7hp....which would bring the qt time to "about"......lock me in with 14.65sec.

#15 _devilsadvocate_

_devilsadvocate_
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2006 - 05:34 AM

Ill revise the guestimate ^, mass is probably 1250kg all up. Hp calculator says 167hp, putting your mods at >7hp, 174 rwhp and a 14.60qt.

#16 _UCV80_

_UCV80_
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2006 - 10:39 AM

i guess 151rwhp <_<

cant wait to see your results :P

,nathan

#17 FastEHHolden

FastEHHolden

    Steptoe

  • Members
  • PipPipPipPipPipPipPip
  • 5,114 posts
  • Location:Central Coast NSW
  • Joined: 16-November 05

Posted 10 March 2006 - 02:45 PM

mines bigger than yours! :tease:

#18 _Yella SLuR_

_Yella SLuR_
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2006 - 03:39 PM

We talking length or girth here FastEH?

#19 _WYLDLC 6_

_WYLDLC 6_
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2006 - 04:14 PM

Just out of curiosity what is say 150 rwhp in kw.
cheers Chris.

#20 _WYLDLC 6_

_WYLDLC 6_
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2006 - 04:28 PM

That doesn't sound right to me as I would have thought 150 hp would have been around the 90-100 kw mark, but I could be wrong.
Chris.

#21 _devilsadvocate_

_devilsadvocate_
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2006 - 04:33 PM

yes wyldlc 6, the slur makes mistakes with most things: it is 150 x ~0.7 = 105kW

#22 J-Rod

J-Rod

    Forum Member

  • Members
  • PipPipPip
  • 189 posts
  • Location:..
  • Joined: 08-November 05

Posted 10 March 2006 - 04:33 PM

IIRC 1hp = 0.746 KW

#23 _draglc_

_draglc_
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2006 - 04:35 PM

Yeh yellas got it backwards, KW are bigger than HP.

According to http://www.bikez.com/conv/power.php

150 hp equals 111.86 kW.

A1

#24 _WYLDLC 6_

_WYLDLC 6_
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2006 - 04:40 PM

Thanks guys. Then in my opinion I think Keiths UC will have around 155 rwhp.
And you have also helped me to know what sort of times my LC might be capable of.
Cheers Chris.

#25 _TORANR AMORE_

_TORANR AMORE_
  • Guests

Posted 10 March 2006 - 05:05 PM

....I've got better things to do than play on my computer all day mate...

:spit:
BAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHAH HAHAHAH Ha ah ha ha ha ah ha, errr ha ha, he ha errr, you crack me up mate.

A HP calculator:

http://www.speedworl...ex.com/calc.htm

-------------------------------
About the calculator:

The algorithm they use is a very simple one that uses some constants that they must've derived by plotting some known data, extrapolating and then developing a generalised equation, I dunno, I guessing.
The thing is, does the weight include the weight of the driver (say an extra 100Kgs)?, they don't say, but they do assume 18% drivetrain loss.

The result Starts with RWHP and then multiplies it by 1.18 to get Flywheel HP

1150Kg car (?pretty light?) + 100Kg = 1250Kg = 2,755lbs
Enter this with an ET of 14.852
and you get 166RWHP and 196BHP at the Flywheel according to them

The calculator is fine, but I would ignore their calculation for the Flywheel HP
The problem I found with the calculators is how they factor in the drivetrain loss. The add 18% of the RWHP to calculate Flywheel HP. BUT that is not the drivetrain loss as a loss should be calculated as a percentage based on the power source.
In other words, it should NOT be RWHP x (1+loss) = FWHP, It should be RWHP/(1-loss) = FWHP

From this, using their logic, to get 121.8RWHP from 196Flywheel HP you would have to use a factor of 61% as 121.8 x 1.61 = 196.

It should be 121.8RWHP/(1-0.378) = 196BHP, which uses 38% drivetrain loss

So Their "18% drivetrain loss" is actually 15% drivetrain loss

I wouldn't use 30%, it sounds too high and automatic specialists never agree with it and I've never seen evidence yet to prove it. 18 to 20% can justify the losses throughout the system including the auto and diff etc.
-------------------------------



enough about the calculator,

If we do it again properly with 2,755lbs and an ET of 14.852 with 18% drivetrain loss we get:
166RWHP and 202BHP at the Flywheel
Can a 186 make 200BHP at the flywheel? I don't know, maybe if its worked off it's head, I'll guess that he gets 150RWHP or slightly higher, when he Dyno's it

By the way 1HP = 0.75KW

Peace.

Edited by TORANR AMORE, 10 March 2006 - 05:07 PM.





1 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users