Jump to content

2002 Murcielago Dyno


Gandalf the gray
 Share

Recommended Posts

What kind of correction factor do we normally use to get crank HP? .8, .85?

 

So between 558-593 HP at crank....either way, awesome. :icon_thumleft:

.85 is probably pretty close. 15% is the industry standard. With the rear wheel drive conversion I would think you would see maybe a 3-4% difference (17% down to maybe 14%). There isn't really a perfect way to measure it since you would be going from an AWD to a RWD dyno but that seems about right considering the rotational mass and frictional drag that is eliminated.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard AWD Murci loses about 25%. Going to RWD got me to 18%. Upgrading the clutch got me down to 17%.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The standard AWD Murci loses about 25%. Going to RWD got me to 18%. Upgrading the clutch got me down to 17%.

Where did you get the 25% from? Where did the baseline crank number come from? Unless you used an engine dyno and then put the engine back in the car it's hard to get a straight number. Even doing that you have two different types of dynos and multiple variables at play. The same is true going from an AWD to a RWD dyno.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Where did you get the 25% from? Where did the baseline crank number come from? Unless you used an engine dyno and then put the engine back in the car it's hard to get a straight number. Even doing that you have two different types of dynos and multiple variables at play. The same is true going from an AWD to a RWD dyno.

Using the Lambo 580HP and the average ~430AWHP on dynojets.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

What were your RWD numbers?

475 old clutch, 481 new, by the numbers he gave. My point was that using the factory numbers isn't the most reliable way to factor driveline efficiency or loss. An SAE horsepower number already uses a 15% standard loss rating for engine accessories (belts, pulleys, AC, etc.) unless the losses are measured and provided. You also need to correct for temperature, air pressure, humidity, fuel, etc. Types of dyno (Mustang vs. Dynojet, etc.) makes a huge difference as does calibration. Tons of variables at play. Not to mention the fact that everyone knows speedometers, curb weights, and many other Lambo numbers are quite optimistic. Why would the Hp be any different? My thought is that 25% seems quite high. All that really matters is that you see improvements when you should.

 

Your SV baseline was 595awhp. Using the same method (factory given 670hp) that equates to only a 12% driveline loss. There is no way that an SV driveline, which is pretty close to identical, could possibly be TWICE as efficient. Too many variables at play.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...
  • 1 year later...

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...