According to various sources, the way to guesstimate engine power is to add 10 to wheel bhp then divide by 0.9 for a F.W.D. car the result is Approx engine power. In your case 170@wheels would work out at 200BHP @ flywheel so only 30 Bhp loss. Which seems reasonable.

thats rubbish really, as every car will have different loses.

loses are down to wheel weight, tyre pressure, tyre weight, bearing size and quality, gearbox design, flywheel weight(and also if its a SMF or DMF), etc etc etc

basically every single part of the drive line has a part to play in the transmission loses as each one will have a certain weight and resistance.

for example i have two bikes, one is a road bike with very narrow tyres(under and inch) at about 130psi weighing around 25 pounds or so and its by far an easier bike to rise than my full suspension bike with 2.5" tyres at 60psi that weighs probably 40 pounds+

using a calculator like yours they should by just as easy to ride as they are both RWD etc etc

in the real world a civic has different loses to a metro to an octavia to a focus etc as they all run different setups despite having the same basic layout

It,s not my calculator, as said sourced from the web,and it dont say anywhere its a calculator on how easy a bike is to ride.

Gizmo, can you remember Quaiffe's argument in more detail?

It's going back a few years now, but we were down the factory picking up a rebuilt Quaife Pro box (for a N/A cossie engined MKII Escort) that had stripped a couple of teeth.

I mentioned that i was having problems with my Jack Knight s/c dogbox that was wearing through the case hardening on 2nd gear (i was on my 3rd one) and was considering a different make of gears.

They explained that the main strength advantage with s/c was that you didn't get the (pre?)load on the bearings that you do with std helical gears, but the gears themselves were stronger than s/c ones. So you have a choice of knackering the bearings with helical gears, or worn s/c gears!

The fact i was running 110BHP @ the wheels (from a 1293cc engine) going through soft slicks, something has to give, that started with the drive shafts, so i started using steel billet ones, the weak link was then the gears themselves. So it was a case of rebuilding the box every 10 events (as is the case with most competition stuff).

I guess the main reason for using s/c gears is you can get better ratios and loose less power through them - but with a compromise.

It,s not my calculator, as said sourced from the web,and it dont say anywhere its a calculator on how easy a bike is to ride.

did i say your calculator had anything to do with bikes or did i use bikes as an example that simple calculators don't work?

come on now its not a difficult question this one.

According to various sources, the way to guesstimate engine power is to add 10 to wheel bhp then divide by 0.9 for a F.W.D. car the result is Approx engine power. In your case 170@wheels would work out at 200BHP @ flywheel so only 30 Bhp loss. Which seems reasonable.

What a load of rubbish.

You made that up didn't you?

I notice your source info fits your cars claimed 195.3 whp exactly....Hmmm

Well its sounds like these guy now what they are talking about...

Puma Race Engines Technical Guide - Measuring Engine power - engine dynos and rolling road dynos

What a load of rubbish.

You made that up didn't you?

I notice your source info fits your cars claimed 195.3 whp exactly....Hmmm

Or i could add 15-20% on to the wheel power and get anything from 224.5-234.3 but I thought after reading the above from Puma Racing that this was a more scientific method of calculating. But hay ho looks like you know better.Will change my quoted BHP to wheel power as I know that is correct and not a guesstimate.

ive got a forge front mount intercooler, milltek 3" down pip cat and back, and stage 2 apr chip, to sum it up if ive spent that to get a poop 200bhp i will be ****ED! and i will sell my octy out of anger :orb_mad:

Lol i wouldn't worry too much Lloyd, if Kenny gets 228bhp at flywheel with his setup your gonna be way over 230bhp

Lol i wouldn't worry too much Lloyd, if Kenny gets 228bhp at flywheel with his setup your gonna be way over 230bhp

195.3 BHP @ the wheels actually:thumbup:

Lol i wouldn't worry too much Lloyd, if Kenny gets 228bhp at flywheel with his setup your gonna be way over 230bhp

:orb_jacks then the octy stays lol im tempted to save for the jbs04 conversion, ive got the options to go upto 300 then ? if im allowed lol :orb_lol:

:orb_jacks then the octy stays lol im tempted to save for the jbs04 conversion, ive got the options to go upto 300 then ? if im allowed lol :orb_lol:

Go on then i give you permission:thumbup:

so when the wife asks lol i'll tell her i had brisk folk permission lol

all i need now is some wonga

:orb_boss:

How do they know what the drag from the box is? It can't be assessed unles under load, when under load you have the drag of the engine.....

Your wheels will be sapping a load of power.

If you want to treat the box, drain and fill with Redline. My mates with redline and 20mm narrower tyres consistantly beats his newer one with 100k LESS miles on it. Both cars are same spec and good otherwise (no engine faults etc). I can only pin it to the better and thinner gearbox fluid and the tyres.

Greg.

the rolling road was with the 18s i had?

on the actual road against my mates standard vrs and my brothers there is no doubt, breakie dinner and tea :orb_devil

the rolling road was at TSR

maybe worth a 2nd RR somewhere just to see how it matches up?

very annoying :orb_angry

Yeah smaller (lower width) tyres are well known to reduce rolling + wind resistance on the road (same make and model even, so it's not a material difference in construction or tread [pattern or compound]).

i thought that they worked/guestamated out the losses from lettting the engine run down naturally aswell?

i have no idea ? i just went by that line along the bottom? i will look into that fluid tho , def wont hurt

it put that line on when they let off the throttle

i thought that they worked/guestamated out the losses from lettting the engine run down naturally aswell?

They do; that's why it's sometimes quoted as "rundown drag".