Drivetrain Parasitic Loss
#32
03-22-2006, 09:18 PM
That article is so infuriating, I couldn't finish it. I emailed the author with the following message:
Mr. Bunkley,
I realize your article first appeared almost 10 days ago, but I just found a link to it today. I must disagree with the first part of the article. First, none of the automakers have less horsepower than advertised. Each automaker voluntarily measures horsepower at the crank by following the accepted SAE standard. This standard has recently been revised. The advertised numbers were obtained under the old standard. In no way are the same engines, unmodified, making less power. In no way are the manufacturers misleading potential buyers by not republishing output from the new standard.
My second contention is the statement “The testing suggests Detroit's automakers may have suffered unfairly in the battle of perceptions.” I find this statement simply ludicrous. As Mr. Pollak stated, under the old standard areas were subject to interpretation. This means that an automaker could conduct the standardized test, and still see results with some amount of variance. If the domestic automakers chose to be more rigorous in their testing, publishing “retarted” or “understated” figures, please explain to me how these manufacturers have suffered unfairly.
I do not work in the auto industry, nor do I have any links to the industry. I merely happen to be an enthusiast. I’ve been a domestic owner for over a decade, and just recently purchased my first import. But I still “pull” for the domestics. So please don’t misunderstand my comments as coming from an import apologist. In turn, I will choose to ignore the fact that the false statements in your article appeared in a Detroit newspaper.
Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the veracity of the rest of the article because the presence of these untruths made me lose all interest in finishing it.
I realize your article first appeared almost 10 days ago, but I just found a link to it today. I must disagree with the first part of the article. First, none of the automakers have less horsepower than advertised. Each automaker voluntarily measures horsepower at the crank by following the accepted SAE standard. This standard has recently been revised. The advertised numbers were obtained under the old standard. In no way are the same engines, unmodified, making less power. In no way are the manufacturers misleading potential buyers by not republishing output from the new standard.
My second contention is the statement “The testing suggests Detroit's automakers may have suffered unfairly in the battle of perceptions.” I find this statement simply ludicrous. As Mr. Pollak stated, under the old standard areas were subject to interpretation. This means that an automaker could conduct the standardized test, and still see results with some amount of variance. If the domestic automakers chose to be more rigorous in their testing, publishing “retarted” or “understated” figures, please explain to me how these manufacturers have suffered unfairly.
I do not work in the auto industry, nor do I have any links to the industry. I merely happen to be an enthusiast. I’ve been a domestic owner for over a decade, and just recently purchased my first import. But I still “pull” for the domestics. So please don’t misunderstand my comments as coming from an import apologist. In turn, I will choose to ignore the fact that the false statements in your article appeared in a Detroit newspaper.
Unfortunately, I cannot comment on the veracity of the rest of the article because the presence of these untruths made me lose all interest in finishing it.
#33
03-22-2006, 10:38 PM
I really didn't find the article that bad because it was a well known fact that many Hondas and Toyotas weren't producing the numbers they were suppose to when it came to owners dynoing the actual cars. Same goes for the 99 Cobra (manufacturing defects), later model Miata, etc. The second gen Acura TL was a prime example. The 5AT 05 TL was rated at 270hp yet is struggled to make 205whp. Ouch. The RX8 was also another car that clearly missed it's mark. The RX8 6MT was originally suppose to be 250hp, but got downrated to 238hp. I still think the 238hp rating is highly overinflated because stock 6MT RX8s struggle to make 180whp on the dyno.
#34
03-22-2006, 11:00 PM
Originally Posted by DaveB
I really didn't find the article that bad because it was a well known fact that many Hondas and Toyotas weren't producing the numbers they were suppose to when it came to owners dynoing the actual cars. Same goes for the 99 Cobra (manufacturing defects), later model Miata, etc. The second gen Acura TL was a prime example. The 5AT 05 TL was rated at 270hp yet is struggled to make 205whp. Ouch. The RX8 was also another car that clearly missed it's mark. The RX8 6MT was originally suppose to be 250hp, but got downrated to 238hp. I still think the 238hp rating is highly overinflated because stock 6MT RX8s struggle to make 180whp on the dyno.
There is no way you ran your 1/4 mile times with 205 hp.
Im just starting to hate all of this negitive crap that is posted.
Not by you, but from all the people that sit behide a desk and have it all figured out. I have it figured out that your car needed 247 hp to run your numbers w/ good driving and the torque of the VQ.
#35
03-23-2006, 10:06 AM
As to automatics study the ignition advance numbers just before, during, and the slow rise just after the shift......in 0.01 increments you will see the tranny protective software and how it slows acceleration per shift compared to a manual...............these 2 x 0.5 seconds of diminished power in quarter mile.
Doing a dyno test vs an on the road in multiple gears real world accelerations.
Doing a dyno test vs an on the road in multiple gears real world accelerations.
#36
03-23-2006, 10:59 AM
Originally Posted by GEE PASTA
Dave
There is no way you ran your 1/4 mile times with 205 hp.
Im just starting to hate all of this negitive crap that is posted.
Not by you, but from all the people that sit behide a desk and have it all figured out. I have it figured out that your car needed 247 hp to run your numbers w/ good driving and the torque of the VQ.
There is no way you ran your 1/4 mile times with 205 hp.
Im just starting to hate all of this negitive crap that is posted.
Not by you, but from all the people that sit behide a desk and have it all figured out. I have it figured out that your car needed 247 hp to run your numbers w/ good driving and the torque of the VQ.
My 2950lb 1996 Maxima did 14.3s@99+mph with mid 2.1 60 foots. That car made ~200whp/195wtq. In the 1/4 mile, both cars (Max and G) posted identical ETs, increment by increment down the strip. The Maxima had the advantage in terms of trap though because it consistently saw 1-2mph faster traps in the 1/8 and 1/4 because of the better power to weight. However, the G35 places all of it's power to the ground whereas the Maxima would spin quite a bit through 1st and 2nd and that's just wasted power. The G also has a lot more torque multiplication from the start which helps it accelerate stronger in the first 300'.
Another thing is the G/Z VQ35 has a super thick powerband and flat torque curve. Power is consistent from 5000rpms straight to 6600rpms. Team all of this with a rather high stall OEM torque converter and excellent gearing and the car accelerates harder than most people would believe for only having 215-220whp.
I know for a fact that my G is not making 247whp though. If my G made that kind of power, should be in the 13s. A stock 3,300lb 230whp 99-04 Mustang GT typically sees 13.8-13.9@100-101mph.
That's my take
#37
03-23-2006, 11:32 AM
Originally Posted by DaveB
I know for a fact that my G is not making 247whp though. If my G made that kind of power, should be in the 13s. A stock 3,300lb 230whp 99-04 Mustang GT typically sees 13.8-13.9@100-101mph.
Not trying to nitpick. Just curious.
#38
03-23-2006, 03:52 PM
Originally Posted by trey.hutcheson
Don't get me wrong Dave, I'm not dissecting your post, but I have to challenge the traps here. How many stock mustang gt's of that generation trap 100 to 101? I'm sure it's been done, but is it "typical" for stock? I'd believe around 98, but not 100.
Not trying to nitpick. Just curious.
Not trying to nitpick. Just curious.
#39
03-23-2006, 04:12 PM
Originally Posted by DaveB
99-101mph is pretty typical for the 99-04 5MT Stangs. I have a couple friends with them and I've seen a ton of them run at the track. In stock form, lower 14s@99+mph is pretty normal. The autos usually see 14.4s@97mph. My friend's both saw 13.9s@100mph when they were stock and 13.6s@103mph with 4.10 gear, catback, DRs, modded stock intake, and an ignition advancer. According to Corral.net, 13.8s@100-101mph is quite common for the 260hp 99-04 Stangs. That particular generation of the Stang was much quicker (nearly a second) than the sluggish 94-98 generation.
Not much has changed in the past 35 years. You are going to need 240-260 HP to run the 14s -- high 13s with some good driving skills. My 70 Z/28 stock would only run 13.90s @101mph and I remember it dyno'd 272 rwhp back then with the 15" tires spinning all the way, 350ci verses 213ci today.
The VQ is one stout engine.
Last edited by GEE PASTA; 03-23-2006 at 07:05 PM.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Greenlawnracing
Engine - Intake/Fuel
3
02-21-2016 10:39 AM
Mad A
Not G35 Related
4
12-08-2015 01:45 PM
zcherub
G35 Coupe V35 2003 - 07
5
08-27-2015 09:47 AM
calculate, cars, dyno, engine, horsepower, loss, lost, midengined, mustang, parasitic, parasytic, percent, percentage, rwd, suspension
