Gandalf the gray Report post Posted October 12, 2014 We put my 2002 Murcielago on the dyno today. It has Fabspeed X-pipe exhaust, secondary cat delete and rwd conversion. It made 475 rwhp & 425 rwtq. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chipster Report post Posted October 12, 2014 Very nice! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Smash Boy Report post Posted October 12, 2014 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudiBull Report post Posted October 12, 2014 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. .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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
pockmark Report post Posted October 12, 2014 Sounds good, and good numbers! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
megachad Report post Posted October 13, 2014 I told everyone how well this car pulled and drove. Great running car. Great to hear!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Wiggs Report post Posted October 13, 2014 The standard AWD Murci loses about 25%. Going to RWD got me to 18%. Upgrading the clutch got me down to 17%. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudiBull Report post Posted October 13, 2014 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Wiggs Report post Posted October 13, 2014 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Gandalf the gray Report post Posted October 14, 2014 Using the Lambo 580HP and the average ~430AWHP on dynojets. What were your RWD numbers? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
D.Wiggs Report post Posted October 14, 2014 What were your RWD numbers? After all the tuning and exhaust work, 515RWHP and 487RWTQ. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
AudiBull Report post Posted October 14, 2014 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
whiteout Report post Posted October 22, 2014 until the LP lines, Lamborghini factory power figures are optimistic. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
04glambo Report post Posted October 12, 2016 Very nice! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.