LT1 Based Engine Tech 1993-1997 LT1/LT4 Engine Related

Auto drivetrain loss not as bad as people say

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Aug 3, 2003 | 09:50 PM
  #1  
RyanMacZ28's Avatar
Thread Starter
Registered User
 
Joined: May 2003
Posts: 80
Auto drivetrain loss not as bad as people say

Well, had our little dyno day. Mine was the 3rd one to go. It was a bit humid, low 80's not too bad.

Well, here were my numbers Max Power= 253.9 and Max Torque was 294.1

My ratings for the car are 275 bhp and 325 lbs/ft. So according to simple math, that leaves a 7.6% drivetrain loss through hp and a 9.5% though tourque. It was at Unlimited Motorsports in South Windsor. So I guess my auto drivetrain loss isn't so bad, unless I got a factory freak

All and all, I am quite happy with the base numbers that I put down today. And all with just a K&N.
Old Aug 3, 2003 | 10:11 PM
  #2  
treyZ28's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,505
From: looking for a flow bench so Brook and I can race
Re: Auto drivetrain loss not as bad as people say

Originally posted by RyanMacZ28
Well, had our little dyno day. Mine was the 3rd one to go. It was a bit humid, low 80's not too bad.

Well, here were my numbers Max Power= 253.9 and Max Torque was 294.1

My ratings for the car are 275 bhp and 325 lbs/ft. So according to simple math, that leaves a 7.6% drivetrain loss through hp and a 9.5% though tourque. It was at Unlimited Motorsports in South Windsor. So I guess my auto drivetrain loss isn't so bad, unless I got a factory freak

All and all, I am quite happy with the base numbers that I put down today. And all with just a K&N.
if you really think you have 9.5% drivetrain loss...



if you have 253RWHP and a 17% power loss you have 304rwhp...

intresting

I am going to say you have a freak or its not SAE corrected or a mod. what dyno?
Old Aug 3, 2003 | 10:15 PM
  #3  
96speed's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Dec 1999
Posts: 2,248
From: Houston, TX
Re: Re: Auto drivetrain loss not as bad as people say

253/275 = 92% efficiancy .

Not bad at all! Sounds like your car is strong . Any track mph numbers?

Ryan
Old Aug 3, 2003 | 10:30 PM
  #4  
FastZinTennessee's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Mar 2001
Posts: 2,521
From: Costa Mesa, CA
If you really only have 9.5% loss I'd like to buy your tranny and rear
Old Aug 3, 2003 | 10:39 PM
  #5  
brain's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 746
From: Columbia, SC, USA
I'll go out on a limb and say you have neither a freak or low drivetrain loss. Sounds about right when you look at what the numbers are. I believe Fred dispelled the 17% loss when he dyno'd his motor engine and chassis, and it only lost around 13%, and I think he has a fairly large stall as well. With a tighter stall, you could expect 1% less I'd guess? So, 253 RWHP and a 12% loss gives you 287 FWHP. Your sig says you have a K&N, which adds around 10 dyno tested RWHP. Convert that to FWHP and you would pick up roughly 11.5, and add that to the 275 rating you get 286.5, which is right in line with the 287 you should have. Sound more reasonable?
Old Aug 4, 2003 | 12:28 AM
  #6  
Injuneer's Avatar
Administrator
 
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 71,097
From: Hell was full so they sent me to NJ
You can't just assume your car makes exactly the 275flywheel HP that GM rated it at many years ago. There is a fairly wide variation among factory production engines. To suggest this indicates 7.5% drivetrain loss is a bit of a reach.

I've got ACTUAL engine dyno vs. chassis dyno for my setup with an M6, and the losses ranged from 12.6% at 500HP to 12.1% at 762HP. Hard to believe a 4L60E, even with the convertor locked up, could have 5% less loss than a T56.

Not sure where "brain" got his numbers from, because the only auto trans numbers I have are for a TH400 with a sloppy, non-locking convertor, and those range from 19.8% at 500HP to 21.3% at close to 800HP. No way that can be compared to a 4L60E.
Old Aug 4, 2003 | 04:30 PM
  #7  
brain's Avatar
Registered User
 
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 746
From: Columbia, SC, USA
My bad Fred! I thought the 12.6% loss was with the auto and big stall! So much for thinking. Curious, did you have a 9" rear? Was the manual dyno on that? Also, I've heard that slicks will rob some power as well. What tires did you dyno with?
Old Aug 4, 2003 | 04:33 PM
  #8  
treyZ28's Avatar
Banned
 
Joined: Aug 2001
Posts: 3,505
From: looking for a flow bench so Brook and I can race
Originally posted by brain
My bad Fred! I thought the 12.6% loss was with the auto and big stall! So much for thinking. Curious, did you have a 9" rear? Was the manual dyno on that? Also, I've heard that slicks will rob some power as well. What tires did you dyno with?
anything that is heavier (ie slicks) will create more drivetain loss. think of it as adding a lead driveshaft (ok a bit dramatic)

also there will be slightly more loss if the tires are "stickier" on the dyno.
Old Aug 4, 2003 | 04:40 PM
  #9  
Injuneer's Avatar
Administrator
 
Joined: Nov 1998
Posts: 71,097
From: Hell was full so they sent me to NJ
My T56 runs were done with a steel flywheel Street Twin, stock T56, 3" chrome moly DS, and Strange 12-bolt/3.73 gears. Tires were 315/35-17 Drag Radials.

TH400 runs were done with a B&M flex-plate, non-locking convertor, more than 10% slip, 5Krpm flash at 800ft-lb, same 3" DS, same rear axle, gears and tires.

The typical GM rear... 10-bolt or 12-bolt is good for about 6 to 7% loss.
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Magenta_Hearts
LT1 Based Engine Tech
15
Mar 29, 2017 08:54 PM
dbusch22
Forced Induction
3
Jun 6, 2015 08:27 AM
Briah.hood
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
1
Feb 17, 2015 02:10 PM
importkiller94
General 1967-2002 F-Body Tech
0
Jan 17, 2015 09:03 PM
Z28Wilson
Automotive News / Industry / Future Vehicle Discussion
7
Aug 1, 2002 04:27 PM




All times are GMT -5. The time now is 11:50 PM.