I don't understand.... (hp)
09-17-2006, 04:52 PM
#1
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I don't understand.... (hp)
How can Mazda rate the RX8 6 MT at 238 hp, but in all actuality it's only around 200? I thought that 238 would be wheel horsepower....am I wrong?
p.s., sorry if the answer to this was already given....too much crap comes up when I do a search
p.s., sorry if the answer to this was already given....too much crap comes up when I do a search
09-17-2006, 04:55 PM
#3
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by staticlag
your wrong
09-17-2006, 05:04 PM
#5
The Professor
09-17-2006, 05:07 PM
#6
Registered User
Thread Starter
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Connecticut
Posts: 817
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
thanks a lot guys! Good to know that the car only produces 180 - 190 at the wheel. Even if it's only 180, it feels like a lot more at high RPMS.
09-17-2006, 09:33 PM
#8
Registered User
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Texas
Posts: 994
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
im abreast of the HP number game that manufacturers play... i know of drive train loss etc etc, the quesiton thats floating around in my mind righ tnow is how much drivetrain loss does a G35C get or a 350Z get. They feel all high and mightly with the 300HP mark, but I'd love to know the whp of each. I'll probably search later.
I'm sitting a little under 200whp (yes I dyno'd at Rotary Performance in Garland, TX) right now. Lightweight RP supercat, RB exhaust, and a few odds and ends. Next step is either lightweight flywhee and clutch or whatever FI solution that comes out next and doenst suck.
I'm sitting a little under 200whp (yes I dyno'd at Rotary Performance in Garland, TX) right now. Lightweight RP supercat, RB exhaust, and a few odds and ends. Next step is either lightweight flywhee and clutch or whatever FI solution that comes out next and doenst suck.
09-19-2006, 02:27 PM
#13
Registered
Originally Posted by Huskyfan23
I thought that 238 would be wheel horsepower....am I wrong?
BHP is determined with the engine itself mounted to a brake dynamometer, which is why it's called brake horsepower. It's measuring power at the flywheel, so that's why it's also referred to as flywheel hp.
Every horsepower rating you see given by any manufacturer is bhp, measured at the flywheel.
09-19-2006, 09:48 PM
#15
Rotary Superstar
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Maryland
Posts: 472
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Ehh..
A stock, base (read: no traction control) RX8 has dynoed at 190rwhp.
From 238bhp, With 15% drivetrain loss, that puts the flywheel horsepower at roughly 200rwhp.
10rwhp isn't anything to fuss about, really..especially with how Mazda is ALWAYS overrating their vehicles (or underrating, as far as the Mazdaspeed 6+3 are concerned
)
A stock, base (read: no traction control) RX8 has dynoed at 190rwhp.
From 238bhp, With 15% drivetrain loss, that puts the flywheel horsepower at roughly 200rwhp.
10rwhp isn't anything to fuss about, really..especially with how Mazda is ALWAYS overrating their vehicles (or underrating, as far as the Mazdaspeed 6+3 are concerned
)
09-19-2006, 09:57 PM
#16
Registered
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: La La Land
Posts: 740
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dynos are far more useful for tuning than they are for factual numbers unless you are into bench racing, but you can get some rough comparisons. The VQ35DE in the Z dynos in the 230-240rwhp range.
09-20-2006, 09:45 AM
#17
Originally Posted by murix
Dynos are far more useful for tuning than they are for factual numbers unless you are into bench racing, but you can get some rough comparisons. The VQ35DE in the Z dynos in the 230-240rwhp range.
and then you have to keep in mind they weigh ~6-800lbs more.
09-20-2006, 11:16 AM
#20
Registered
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Conroe, Texas
Posts: 397
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Advertised horsepower is always questionable. My old Mustang Cobra was rated at 240 horsepower, yet I hard a hard time keeping up with a friend's Mustang LX that was rated at 225 horsepower. Yea, I know he had a weight advantage, but sometimes manufacturers play with the numbers.
Occasionally, some cars are underrated. I think the Buick Grand National Turbos are the best example. If I recall they were rated at 235 but in reality they were well over 300! Much faster than even the Corvette at the time!
Occasionally, some cars are underrated. I think the Buick Grand National Turbos are the best example. If I recall they were rated at 235 but in reality they were well over 300! Much faster than even the Corvette at the time!
09-20-2006, 11:19 AM
#21
Originally Posted by HCTR154
Advertised horsepower is always questionable. My old Mustang Cobra was rated at 240 horsepower, yet I hard a hard time keeping up with a friend's Mustang LX that was rated at 225 horsepower. Yea, I know he had a weight advantage, but sometimes manufacturers play with the numbers.
Occasionally, some cars are underrated. I think the Buick Grand National Turbos are the best example. If I recall they were rated at 235 but in reality they were well over 300! Much faster than even the Corvette at the time!
Occasionally, some cars are underrated. I think the Buick Grand National Turbos are the best example. If I recall they were rated at 235 but in reality they were well over 300! Much faster than even the Corvette at the time!
turbo induced torque is another beast in and of itself to compare to an N/A motor.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
gwailo
New Member Forum
30
06-07-2020 12:21 PM
CMRine04
Series I Wheels, Tires, Brakes & Suspension
5
09-17-2015 10:04 AM
