Finally got my G35 Tuned (04 5AT) Dyno Inlcuded
Bro, are you retarded? First of all, let me correct a few things for you:
The 06 had 15 more HP as a revup but 10ft-lbs less TQ.
Every 100lbs (not 50) of weight relief is the general rule for .1 second shaved off the 1/4mi.
We are not talking about just weight relief, we are talking about parasitic drive line loss. The general rule with a stock car is that you lose ~20% of your crank HP by the time the power get to the street.
Let's keep this simple for understandings sake, but if you have a motor with 100hp and then you attach it to a transmission, then a driveshaft, then a differential, then axles, then wheels, a whp dyno will read about 80hp..k? Still following.
Ok, so if you took off rotational mass in the drive line it would take less power to push those parts, resulting in less parasitic power loss. So, say you could drop your drive line loss from 20% to maayyybe ~12%; you would pick up 8% more HP to the wheels, so your whp dyno would then read 88hp instead of 80. Now go apply this to your racecar builds.
The 06 had 15 more HP as a revup but 10ft-lbs less TQ.
Every 100lbs (not 50) of weight relief is the general rule for .1 second shaved off the 1/4mi.
We are not talking about just weight relief, we are talking about parasitic drive line loss. The general rule with a stock car is that you lose ~20% of your crank HP by the time the power get to the street.
Let's keep this simple for understandings sake, but if you have a motor with 100hp and then you attach it to a transmission, then a driveshaft, then a differential, then axles, then wheels, a whp dyno will read about 80hp..k? Still following.
Ok, so if you took off rotational mass in the drive line it would take less power to push those parts, resulting in less parasitic power loss. So, say you could drop your drive line loss from 20% to maayyybe ~12%; you would pick up 8% more HP to the wheels, so your whp dyno would then read 88hp instead of 80. Now go apply this to your racecar builds.
Bottom line
Revups are the only worthy g35c anything else is just a pos
Fellas it's simple physics.
If you go from a 2" pipe to 3" pipe well obviously it will take exhaust gases longer to fill up the exhaust with pressure. Hence the loss of torque in the lower range and gain of peak power.
If you go from a 2" pipe to 3" pipe well obviously it will take exhaust gases longer to fill up the exhaust with pressure. Hence the loss of torque in the lower range and gain of peak power.
I should be close. Would probably eclipse it if not for being 5AT. Dyno pulls incoming in 2 weeks.
Great, we found OPs retarded/separated at birth brother. Here's another guy who expects 500hp from an exhaust and ugly wheels. Go home, Roberto.
So first it "does not".
NOW it does, but it's "pretty small".
Do you even physics? There is and always will be an inverse relationship between weight & horsepower in automotive applications (& really anything else involving work & load).
You should let your "skinny Asian wife" teach you math.
NOW it does, but it's "pretty small".
Do you even physics? There is and always will be an inverse relationship between weight & horsepower in automotive applications (& really anything else involving work & load).
You should let your "skinny Asian wife" teach you math.
But reducing a vehicles weight doesn't increase WHP.
Reducing rotational mass doesn't typically increase it either, atleast not by any measurable number.
To have a 1WHP increase.... is far within margin of error, especially on these cars known for their "10whp phantom gains" between runs.
This is completely true, but the gains will taper. You won't infinitely increase peak power by ever increasing the exhaust size.
Now that you have been grossly proven wrong and the actual numbers have been posted about how drivetrain loss recovery via lower rotational mass will have a minimal (if any) impact on actual dyno WHP... you just cannot get over the fact that you are wrong.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 194
Likes: 9
From: Atlanta
With each one of your retarded posts, your anger and stupidity grows.
Now that you have been grossly proven wrong and the actual numbers have been posted about how drivetrain loss recovery via lower rotational mass will have a minimal (if any) impact on actual dyno WHP... you just cannot get over the fact that you are wrong.
Now that you have been grossly proven wrong and the actual numbers have been posted about how drivetrain loss recovery via lower rotational mass will have a minimal (if any) impact on actual dyno WHP... you just cannot get over the fact that you are wrong.
First you claimed weight reduction wouldn't impact WHP - period. Now you say, "well, it won't impact it much".
Here's the real bottom line: dyno your car. Then remove 500 lbs & dyno again. The second set of numbers will be higher (all other things being equal).
The gains may or may not be worth what you have to give up to save that weight, but that's an entirely different discussion. We're talking about the physical laws at play here - about which you are sorely mistaken.
With each one of your retarded posts, your anger and stupidity grows.
Now that you have been grossly proven wrong and the actual numbers have been posted about how drivetrain loss recovery via lower rotational mass will have a minimal (if any) impact on actual dyno WHP... you just cannot get over the fact that you are wrong.
Now that you have been grossly proven wrong and the actual numbers have been posted about how drivetrain loss recovery via lower rotational mass will have a minimal (if any) impact on actual dyno WHP... you just cannot get over the fact that you are wrong.
He's a little too grumpy, but he's not wrong - you are.
First you claimed weight reduction wouldn't impact WHP - period. Now you say, "well, it won't impact it much".
Here's the real bottom line: dyno your car. Then remove 500 lbs & dyno again. The second set of numbers will be higher (all other things being equal).
The gains may or may not be worth what you have to give up to save that weight, but that's an entirely different discussion. We're talking about the physical laws at play here - about which you are sorely mistaken.
First you claimed weight reduction wouldn't impact WHP - period. Now you say, "well, it won't impact it much".
Here's the real bottom line: dyno your car. Then remove 500 lbs & dyno again. The second set of numbers will be higher (all other things being equal).
The gains may or may not be worth what you have to give up to save that weight, but that's an entirely different discussion. We're talking about the physical laws at play here - about which you are sorely mistaken.
Reducing rotational mass can, but its a game of %'s and the reality is that the transmission will have the most affect so there isn't much power to be gained from there.
You sound like the type of ricer that thinks a CF hood makes u faster.
Registered User
Joined: Jan 2015
Posts: 194
Likes: 9
From: Atlanta
So again, if you dyno a car, then reduce the car's weight by 500 lbs & dyno again, the dyno will read the same for both runs? Good to know! Glad we have an experienced genius tuner like you around to set us all straight!