recompile

iTrader: (38)

Man's got a right to know how much BHP he's making... I realize that the power-hungry number-craving sponsor-driven EvoM members feel there's no point... but that's your opinion...

From what I've seen, there is a 15-16% loss on stock IX's and about 17-18% on stock VIIIs. The statement above to multiply by 1.15 or 1.20 isn't really accurate... you should be dividing WHP by 0.85 to 0.82. That should be enough to safely estimate your BHP within 10, I'd say.

Frenchy4g63

I wouldn't say crank horsepower is an imaginary number. It definatly exists, you just cant determine it using dyno numbers. Now if you had an engine dyno, you most certainly could get an accurate crank hp number.

I know what your saying though, and this has been discussed before, the 15%-20%-25% difference doesnt work. A dynojet reads higher than a Mustang dyno. If a car makes 350whp on a dynojet, and 310whp on a Mustang, if you added a percentage, the numbers would be different. Which one is right? who knows? there's no way to tell.

Agreeing with Warrtalon, if they believe crank power is true power, they dont know sh*t.

If they ask how much your making at the crank, tell them you dont know, that's the most honest answer.

spdracerut

iTrader: (2)

I wouldn't say that..... the counterpoint to the inertial dyno is that rotating mass effects the number. You put on lighter wheels and a lighter flywheel, it'll read higher on an inertial dyno like a dynojet, but you're not making more crank HP.

So it sort of depends on what you're looking at. If you're looking at how much power the ENGINE is making, then crank HP is the relative number. If you're looking at a power number that relates to acceleration, then wheel HP. But if you're looking at acceleration, I think trap speed is a better number to use

Heck, different dynos, different tracks, different days.... it's all a big pissing contest.