442rwhp with an auto
03-23-2005, 01:32 AM
#2
TECH Junkie
Join Date: Jan 2002
Location: At the office
Posts: 3,015
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Great #s through an auto! Being that they're the exact same setup, I wonder what else made the 41rwhp between the two cars. I would have figured on a 5% or so difference in hp based on the "hypothetical" difference in drivetrain losses between an auto and manual tranny. Could be tuning, different dynos, who knows.
03-23-2005, 02:03 AM
#3
TECH Resident
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: AUSTIN TX
Posts: 855
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Using the theoretical losses that he quoted, they are only about 15-16 HP different at the flywheel. I could easily see that much difference between dyno's not to mention between parts and tuning and even correction factors. As he mentioned, uncorrected he was over 450 rwhp.
03-23-2005, 11:23 AM
#4
Staging Lane
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mesa, Az
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by verbs
Great #s through an auto! Being that they're the exact same setup, I wonder what else made the 41rwhp between the two cars. I would have figured on a 5% or so difference in hp based on the "hypothetical" difference in drivetrain losses between an auto and manual tranny. Could be tuning, different dynos, who knows.
03-23-2005, 02:45 PM
#7
Staging Lane
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Mesa, Az
Posts: 91
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by verbs
You have any support to back that up?
http://web.camaross.com/forums/showt...rivetrain+loss
