my profile | register | search | faq | forum home

You are not logged in. Login or register

Rennlist Discussion Forums 924/944/951/968 Model Specific Forums 944 Turbo and Turbo-S Forum transmission losses on dyno run

Author

paul r
User

User # 2072

Topic: transmission losses on dyno run

posted 12-30-2001 16:01

Hi,
Recently had my 86 951 reprogrammed on a rolling road dynamometer. It made 246bhp at the wheels. Can anyone tell me what
percentage transmission losses there are on this car so that I can calculate the flywheel power. Note my car has a limited slip
differential.
At the end of the full throttle acceleration run the reprogrammer lifted off the gas and let the car coast down. He said that the power
curve resulting from the coast down period was in fact the transmission loss curve. Can anyone comment on this statement also. If it is
true would adding this loss be a more accurate than the percentage loss method.
Finally my car had completed about six full throttle runs in a space of about twenty minutes. Had the car been given longer to cool
down before the final run would the power have been greater, if so by about how much?
Thanks Paul R.

Posts: 13 | From: Sunderland, England | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Mike B

Senior User
Rennlist Member

posted 12-30-2001 16:22

User # 226
I've been told 20 to 25 % which would put you around 295 to 307 at the flywheel...Of course those loss figures are subjective and
depend on a host of factors...What modifications have you made...
Posts: 578 | From: Calgary | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

adrial
Guru

Rennlist Member

posted 12-30-2001 17:27

User # 1464
I've been told 10% and have seen numbers to back it up...
It was someone on here that has a 500HP John Milledge 951...dyno'ed the engine then dyno'ed the car...was a 10% difference...
--Adrial

Posts: 2034 | From: New York, USA | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Danno
Guru

Rennlist Member

User # 1947

posted 12-30-2001 18:12

Rather than going by what "I've been told", how about looking at the empirical data yourself. Check out Farzaan's dyno-chart
comparisons at: Farzaan's Dyno Day
Look under Paul's '89 944 Turbo at the "Stock chips @ 11.2psi (stock boost)" chart. Well, I'll just put it here:

Knowing that the stock '89 Turbo makes 247hp, we can compute the drivetrain loss:
(247 -212.5) / 247 * 100 = 14%
For a non-S turbo, I've got a chart on my website:951 RacerX website and look at the chart for Tony Garcia's car vs. stock '86 & stock

'89. Here's the chart:

In this case, the non-S turbo makes 180.6hp at the rear wheels. Knowing non-S Turbo has 217hp, computing drivetrain loss we get:
(217-180.6) / 217 * 100 = 17%
Both of these are roughly centered around the 15% figure that "I've been told" is pretty much standard for most cars. I think any
Porsche engineer that lets a car out of factory with a 20-25% drivetrain loss would probably get fired!
you can go back and forth like this:

. Anyway, assuming 15% loss,

rear-wheel HP = crankHP * 0.85

crankHP = rear-wheel HP / 0.85
Posts: 4293 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Russ Murphy
Senior User

posted 12-30-2001 18:48

Rennlist Member

User # 4179

Howdy all,
Great info Danno.
I wonder if losses are static as a percentage of hp or change percentage wise under greater loads?
I trying to envision where all the heat would go(like the "lost" 75 hp of the 500hp Milledge engine). the most thorough discussion on
the topic I've read is here: Dyno Thoughts and HP Losses
Posts: 614 | From: St. Louis | Registered: Dec 2001 | IP: Logged

Danno
Guru

Rennlist Member

User # 1947

posted 12-30-2001 21:12

My take on frictional losses through the drivetrain is that it's linear. Comes from the friction equation f=Mu. Basically, the more load
you put on a part (hp & tq), the more friction you'll have. You jack up the car and can take the 944 tranny and spin it by hand. You're
putting a very, very light load on it (weight of wheels) and the frictional loss is very low. Now put the car down and try to put 500lt*ft of
torque through that gearbox and the frictional losses will increase.
Similar example with frictional losses is to drag a house brick across your garage floor. The load on that brick is its weight, its friction is
defined by f=Mu and it'll take a certain amount of force to move it at 1m/sec across the floor. Put two more bricks on top of that first
brick and you'll see the load triple, and the friction triples (F=mU) and the force required to move it across at 1m/sec also increases.
In this house-brick example, nothing has changed in the friction-related interfaces. The same side of the brick is sliding across the
floor at the same speed, yet friction has increased by three times because you have three times the load. Same thing with gearboxes
and bearings. The mating surfaces are the same, but because they are grinding against each other harder, friction increases.
That's why you need a beefier gearbox for the Turbo cars (and even stronger for TurboS). Even though it's moving the same mass of a
car, it's doing it quicker with more power. Thus the friction on those gears is higher. Higher friction means more heat and more wear.
Thus you have the hardended 1st & 2nd gears in the TurboS tranny. Also anyone who've tried the folly of putting a non-Turbo tranny
(like a 944S) into a Turbo car will tell you how long those things last under the load that a Turbo motor can apply.
So in summary, the frictional losses through the drivetrain is based upon how much force you are trying to transmit through it. A 500hp
motor is definitely going to be putting a lot more force through the tranny, and provided the tires don't slip, the friction will increase
roughly proportionally to the load.
Now this is completely independent from the kinds of speeds you can achieve, of course. Because the air-resistance goes up with the
square of the speed and the power requirement to overcome that air-resistance goes up to the third power of speed. So at

high-speeds, frictional losses are miminal compared to air drag.

Posts: 4293 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Mike B

Senior User
Rennlist Member

posted 12-30-2001 21:27

User # 226
Ok, I certainly stand corrected...I'll go as low as 15 %...and not a penny more...Thanks Danno...great info
Posts: 578 | From: Calgary | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

Danno
Guru

posted 12-30-2001 21:32

Rennlist Member

User # 1947

Mike, that's a good way to look at it though (being pessimistic). A lot of people under-estimate how much power they are actually
losing through the drivetrain.
Following Russ's link, there's an article here that's pretty informative:
http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/power3.htm
Posts: 4293 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

Mike B

Senior User
Rennlist Member

posted 12-31-2001 14:41

User # 226
That's a good article...Thanks Danno
Posts: 578 | From: Calgary | Registered: May 2001 | IP: Logged

paul r
User

User # 2072

posted 01-04-2002 14:15

Hi,
I contacted the guy at Puma Racing and he ran his programme for the standard 220, 250 and my 290bhp 951's for 0-60mph times.
His results were 5.9s, 5.5s and 4.9s respectively.
Anyone got actual experience of 0-60 times for their cars, and what mods have you done?
Also what do the manufactures state the accuracy of their chassis dyno's to be?
Paul R

Posts: 13 | From: Sunderland, England | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

fc-racer
User

posted 01-04-2002 14:45

User # 3674
quote:

Originally posted by paul r:

Hi,
I contacted the guy at Puma Racing and he ran his programme for the standard 220, 250 and my 290bhp 951's for
0-60mph times. His results were 5.9s, 5.5s and 4.9s respectively.
Anyone got actual experience of 0-60 times for their cars, and what mods have you done?
Also what do the manufactures state the accuracy of their chassis dyno's to be?
Paul R
Danno, great way to describe the losses, very well done. For 0-60 times, when I took my 944TS to the 1/4 mile track, I extrapolated
from the timeslip and came up with 0-60 in a little over 5 seconds. My car made 300hp. 1/4 mile was 13.8 @ 104mph.
fc-racer

Posts: 254 | From: Vancouver, B.C. Canada | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged

Andrew
User

User # 1078

posted 01-05-2002 19:39

I borrowed my buddy's Gtech and the best it gave me was a 4.89 then a 4.92 and 5.00 this is with minimal tire spin. it claims max of
250hp/wheels. my car is mostly stock but i have some chips and a NA tranny in there! this makes the biggest difference! Danno,
remember when my brother and you ran them up on Hwy 9? That is just what the Gtech said though.
-Andrew

Posts: 161 | From: San Jose, Ca | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Robby
Guru

User # 1325

posted 01-06-2002 02:22

Not trying to argue here, but I've talked w/Jon Milledge, and he does contend that 951's lose less than 10%. There are several things

to consider w/this... First off, the graphs you are showing (Danno) were, I assume, dyno'ed fairly recently (w/in the last few years?). I
think it is fair to assume that MOST of our beloved 951's have lost at least a small percentage of their original power. Also, when
people like Jon build these engines, they do much more than just add power- they usually use lighter clutches, flywheels, and other
rotational parts. At any rate, I'm not sure what he was referring to (I didn't think about the variables until after the conversation)whether or not he was referring to new, used, and/or rebuilt and modified engines, etc... I personally, have always assumed, based on
what I've read and seen, that a well tuned 951 should lose close to 15%unless reciprocating parts were lightened. Again, this is my
opinion, and I really don't have anything real to back it up with. I did dyno my Turbo S right after I bought it- it's compression and
leakdowns were pretty good- it dynoed at 198 and 216. The TQ seemed ~5 or so low, and the power, ~10 - 15. I wasn't very
impressed, and have had so many little nagging problems (and several large ones) that I haven't returned. I do plan to do it again,
) I'm just trying to decide how far to go w/the rebuild vs how far
after I rebuild the engine and do several little mods (at least several
in debt I want to (and can afford to) go... I'm having serious problems deciding what to do w/all of it, as I've heard many bad things
about some of the 2.8L's and such, not performing any better than stock(!). I'm also not sure if I want to stick w/the stock engine
management, but stand alone is a pretty expensive proposition...
Also, I've been told that different types of dynos will show different results, and I understand that Jon's dyno is different from the oft
used Dynojet's- not sure that it's necessarily better, but different...

Posts: 1209 | From: Knoxville TN | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Danno
Guru

Rennlist Member

User # 1947

posted 01-06-2002 22:45

I think this gets into that debate on whether lightweight parts "fools" inertial dynos. On other dynos, lighter parts don't show up as
higher HP. That's because the engine is putting out the same amount of force.
It's like a bar brawl where I punch you with my bare fist or with a 10-lb bottle of tequila. I both cases, I've put the SAME amount of
power into my swing, but the extra weight of the bottle stores up energy I was expending before it hits the target.
So the idea of MOMENTUM comes into play. Inertial dynos can be fooled by the weight of parts.
Anyway, does Milledge have TWO dyno runs for his engines? First an engine dyno to measure raw crankshaft power? And a second
rolling-road dyno with that SAME engine installed to measure drivetrain loss?
Posts: 4293 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

fc-racer
User

User # 3674

posted 01-07-2002 03:46

The stock hp and torque numbers as quoted by Danno above using my dyno sheets were on a fresh block and head, all purchased new
from Porsche to the tune of $22,000! That is about as fresh as you're gonna get. The lines look great, the torque rolls off exactly how
you'd expect a stock car to. If anything, I was a bit surprised to see the torque so high on a stock car, but I watched the boost gauge
myself, there was no creep.
fc-racer

Posts: 254 | From: Vancouver, B.C. Canada | Registered: Nov 2001 | IP: Logged

Robby
Guru

User # 1325

posted 01-07-2002 04:31

Good points Danno... I've always assumed that lowering resistance by reducing rotational and frictional drivetrain parts, would increase
power. When I say this, I mean that more of the engine's power would actually get to the ground- basically, removing weight from such
parts would free up the power that the engine already has, thereby reducing it's losses.
This also brings up the G-Tech question. I have never used them for measuring HP, as I never really believed in them for that
purpose. Everyone says they measure power @ the wheels, which is true, but... If you went from tires to slicks, then you would get
through the 1/4 several 1/10's quicker. I assume the G-Tech would then show you a higher HP reading, as it calculates it's HP readings
by moving X amount of weight a specific distance in a certain amount of time. But, in this case, you haven't actually added any power.
Some say that, yes, it's still true, that you got more of the engine's power to the ground. But, on a chassis dyno, you don't have to
worry, really, about the tires slipping on the huge rubber rollers, so it wouldn't show a difference b/t the slicks and the regular tires.
Unless, one or the other were a good bit lighter, which would allow the engine to spin the rollers a little faster.
As for the question about Milledge- I'm not postive, but I'm pretty sure that he just has an engine dyno- I had forgotten about that
when I had sent my last reply. I THINK he somtimes uses a friend's wheel dyno that is somwhat close by, and has compared the two
that way. I'm not sure on this, but he did tell me a story about his dyno situation, and had mentioned the drivetrain loss in the same
conversation. He also mentioned that he had compared 951's w/both MAF's, AND, ported and polished heads (not shaved), and that
neither really helped TOO much, even on 400HP engines...
Anyway, sorry this was so long,
Later,
Robby

Posts: 1209 | From: Knoxville TN | Registered: Jun 2001 | IP: Logged

Danno
Guru

posted 01-07-2002 06:44

Rennlist Member

User # 1947

quote:

I've always assumed that lowering resistance by reducing rotational and frictional drivetrain parts, would increase power.
When I say this, I mean that more of the engine's power would actually get to the ground- basically, removing weight
from such parts would free up the power that the engine already has, thereby reducing it's losses.

Yeah, I think this is true too, just difficult to measure. You have to distinguish FORCE (torque) from POWER, which is force per unit
time. Dynos measure force by sensing acceleration of a known mass, or braking-force. Then it computes power based upon how much
acceleration of the known mass/braking-force in a set amount of time. So with lighter parts, no more torque would register on the dyno
(force), but HP will increase because you've got less engine-mass to accelerate. But the HP increase will be different depending upon
the mass of the dyno's drums or its braking-force.
So I guess this is where the debate on lightweight parts started. Depending upon the dyno you use, it may show no HP gains, or
varying amounts with various dynos. But high-speed rotational parts have so much more inertia than non-moving parts, that losing
weight in the engine is probably the most beneficial. I think the ultimate test would be data-logged acceleration (with no tire slip,
maybe 5mph+ roll-ons) and top-speed runs, then compare to stock car.
Posts: 4293 | From: Santa Barbara, California | Registered: Jul 2001 | IP: Logged

All times are U.S. EasternTime

Hop To:

Select a Forum:

Contact Us | Rennlist Discussion Forums | Privacy Statement

Powered by Infopop Corporation
Ultimate Bulletin BoardTM 6.1.0.4

Go