Found this rwhp to crank hp conversion
05-27-2008, 12:06 AM
#1
Teching In
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: omaha nebraska
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Found this rwhp to crank hp conversion I have already been pwned for believing everything I read on the internet, so.. I just wanted to know if anybody knows how far off this is? Or if it is pretty close. I was just bored and curious to see what my car puts down at the crank. According to this my 482rwhp puts down 583! That is 100hp difference! If this is true, I need to get some suspension/ rear end work done ASAP!
correction factor to convert rear wheel HP to crank HP is 1.21, or about a 17.2% loss. Given that, my numbers would work out as follows using the equation RW * CF = C, where RW is rear wheel HP or Torque, CF is the above correction factor, and C is the crank HP or Torque.
correction factor to convert rear wheel HP to crank HP is 1.21, or about a 17.2% loss. Given that, my numbers would work out as follows using the equation RW * CF = C, where RW is rear wheel HP or Torque, CF is the above correction factor, and C is the crank HP or Torque.
05-27-2008, 01:48 AM
#2
I have already been pwned for believing everything I read on the internet, so.. I just wanted to know if anybody knows how far off this is? Or if it is pretty close. I was just bored and curious to see what my car puts down at the crank. According to this my 482rwhp puts down 583! That is 100hp difference! If this is true, I need to get some suspension/ rear end work done ASAP!
correction factor to convert rear wheel HP to crank HP is 1.21, or about a 17.2% loss. Given that, my numbers would work out as follows using the equation RW * CF = C, where RW is rear wheel HP or Torque, CF is the above correction factor, and C is the crank HP or Torque.
correction factor to convert rear wheel HP to crank HP is 1.21, or about a 17.2% loss. Given that, my numbers would work out as follows using the equation RW * CF = C, where RW is rear wheel HP or Torque, CF is the above correction factor, and C is the crank HP or Torque.
Power at the wheels is the best way to measure, why convert it back to the flywheel like the factory does? Your math is close but depends on what transmission as the A4 obviously eats more than the M6.
05-27-2008, 02:18 AM
#3
Teching In
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: omaha nebraska
Posts: 30
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When I tell people what I have, I obviously go with the power to the wheels. Like I said, I was just curious and bored at work looking stuff up. It is kind disappointing when you look at the power you lose through the drivetrain. I have a M6 btw.
05-27-2008, 03:17 AM
#4
torque converters with big stalls, heavy driveshafts (chromeoly) and gears, and big rearends eat horse power as well. That calculator is about as good as a guess. I put down 462rwhp, I gues my motor makes a bit over 500... it dont matter man. All that matters is the end result.
05-27-2008, 08:08 AM
#5
TECH Enthusiast
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Chattanooga,TN
Posts: 736
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
torque converters with big stalls, heavy driveshafts (chromeoly) and gears, and big rearends eat horse power as well. That calculator is about as good as a guess. I put down 462rwhp, I gues my motor makes a bit over 500... it dont matter man. All that matters is the end result.
calculator, conversion, conversions, convert, converting, crank, formula, horsepower, hp, rear, rw, rwhp, versus, vs, wheel
