RWHP of an AUTO STOCK G35?
G (enie) FUNK ERA
Joined: Jul 2003
Posts: 6,616
Likes: 1
Originally Posted by Diesel1
AHEM AHEM.......I was pushin close to 232 SPEED!!! COUGH COUGH!! That's with Z tube and K&N drop in! And a GSQUAD decal of course!!! LOL
SPeed I just noticed you had an 04 and Steve has an 04 as does Dave....I am wondering if the 04's changed slightly?? I dunno??
It's all close enough... a few ponies either way won't make a huge difference.
SPeed I just noticed you had an 04 and Steve has an 04 as does Dave....I am wondering if the 04's changed slightly?? I dunno??
It's all close enough... a few ponies either way won't make a huge difference.
I stand corrected !
Charter Member Florida G35 Club
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 803
Likes: 1
From: Orlando, Fl
Originally Posted by Sickone
common wisdom says an AT w/RWD has ~20% loss (no matter the manufacurer) and a MT RWD has ~15% loss.
A Front wheel transverse setup (like the Honda) would be about 5% less (so ~10% on the manual, and 15% on the auto)
The numbers seen as posted from Dyno goers suppert this...
i.e. a G35 AT with 280HP has a loss of 20% or 56HP, or about 225 RWP which is what was seen on the dyno.
A Front wheel transverse setup (like the Honda) would be about 5% less (so ~10% on the manual, and 15% on the auto)
The numbers seen as posted from Dyno goers suppert this...
i.e. a G35 AT with 280HP has a loss of 20% or 56HP, or about 225 RWP which is what was seen on the dyno.
The mustang Cobra only loses about 10rwhp and its rear wheel drive....so does that mean that ALL RWD cars only lose 3%? No, the car was underrated, maybe some cars are underrated or overrated.
Chaz - you are absolutely correct that some cars are intentionally underated. That has nothing to do with actual loss...
The Cobra no way has only 10HP loss in the drive train... it may only dyno 10HP less than stated engine power, but that doesn't mean the loss is 10hp. It measns the engine is putting out more than advertized - something ford has been burned on so it wouldn't surprise me. I know my buddies '04 cobra dyno'd at 396 RWHP prior to any mods (490 after)
But you can't change physics, that means it is putting out in the 450 range stock from the engine.
Give or take about 1% a manual tranny, RWD (so you have a drive shaft, Differential, transfer, etc... you lose about 15% of the engines power.
An auto with RWD it is about 20%
A FWD car is going to lose less, simple math, less parts, less transfer, less loss.
So a common FWD car manual will lose 10 or 12% rather than the 15% of a RWD
The Cobra no way has only 10HP loss in the drive train... it may only dyno 10HP less than stated engine power, but that doesn't mean the loss is 10hp. It measns the engine is putting out more than advertized - something ford has been burned on so it wouldn't surprise me. I know my buddies '04 cobra dyno'd at 396 RWHP prior to any mods (490 after)
But you can't change physics, that means it is putting out in the 450 range stock from the engine.
Give or take about 1% a manual tranny, RWD (so you have a drive shaft, Differential, transfer, etc... you lose about 15% of the engines power.
An auto with RWD it is about 20%
A FWD car is going to lose less, simple math, less parts, less transfer, less loss.
So a common FWD car manual will lose 10 or 12% rather than the 15% of a RWD
Charter Member Florida G35 Club
Joined: Dec 2004
Posts: 803
Likes: 1
From: Orlando, Fl
Originally Posted by Sickone
Chaz - you are absolutely correct that some cars are intentionally underated. That has nothing to do with actual loss...
The Cobra no way has only 10HP loss in the drive train... it may only dyno 10HP less than stated engine power, but that doesn't mean the loss is 10hp. It measns the engine is putting out more than advertized - something ford has been burned on so it wouldn't surprise me. I know my buddies '04 cobra dyno'd at 396 RWHP prior to any mods (490 after)
But you can't change physics, that means it is putting out in the 450 range stock from the engine.
Give or take about 1% a manual tranny, RWD (so you have a drive shaft, Differential, transfer, etc... you lose about 15% of the engines power.
An auto with RWD it is about 20%
A FWD car is going to lose less, simple math, less parts, less transfer, less loss.
So a common FWD car manual will lose 10 or 12% rather than the 15% of a RWD
The Cobra no way has only 10HP loss in the drive train... it may only dyno 10HP less than stated engine power, but that doesn't mean the loss is 10hp. It measns the engine is putting out more than advertized - something ford has been burned on so it wouldn't surprise me. I know my buddies '04 cobra dyno'd at 396 RWHP prior to any mods (490 after)
But you can't change physics, that means it is putting out in the 450 range stock from the engine.
Give or take about 1% a manual tranny, RWD (so you have a drive shaft, Differential, transfer, etc... you lose about 15% of the engines power.
An auto with RWD it is about 20%
A FWD car is going to lose less, simple math, less parts, less transfer, less loss.
So a common FWD car manual will lose 10 or 12% rather than the 15% of a RWD
Chaz
The rule of thumb for RWD (which is all I was stating) is 15% and 20% (like I said +/- 1%) has been that way for decades.
The FWD cars, and numbers I quoted were going back 20 years, when several were written up for the improved efficency due to the lower parts count, moving parts, etc
(which is undeniable). The assumption at the time was they would shave a couple of percent through improved design (FWD was not that common 20 - 25 years ago)
at the time, they were stating 12 and 13% loss vs 15%.
Certainly cars vary, and certainly I rounded in my original statement say 10% (assuming they made such improvements) ... OK I suck...but you are stating
that they have actually gotten worse over the last few decades, something that would make no sense at all.
Are you saying that an average quality MT on a FWD vs RWD has exactly the same loss ???? How do they manage throwing away the gains they got from the reduced moving parts and drive train ?
The rule of thumb for RWD (which is all I was stating) is 15% and 20% (like I said +/- 1%) has been that way for decades.
The FWD cars, and numbers I quoted were going back 20 years, when several were written up for the improved efficency due to the lower parts count, moving parts, etc
(which is undeniable). The assumption at the time was they would shave a couple of percent through improved design (FWD was not that common 20 - 25 years ago)
at the time, they were stating 12 and 13% loss vs 15%.
Certainly cars vary, and certainly I rounded in my original statement say 10% (assuming they made such improvements) ... OK I suck...but you are stating
that they have actually gotten worse over the last few decades, something that would make no sense at all.
Are you saying that an average quality MT on a FWD vs RWD has exactly the same loss ???? How do they manage throwing away the gains they got from the reduced moving parts and drive train ?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
laksjd84
Exterior - Body Parts
1
Jul 24, 2015 05:12 PM
