g-force Report post Posted December 6, 2007 conversion chart REAR WHEEL VS. ENGINE HORSEPOWER ENGINE HP ENGINE HP ENGINE HP REAR WHELL HP 17.0 % POWER LOSS 20.0 % POWER LOSS REAR WHEEL HP 17.0 % POWER LOSS 20.0 % POWER LOSS REAR WHEEL HP 17.0 % POWER LOSS 20.0 % POWER LOSS 150 181 188 435 524 544 720 867 900 155 187 194 440 530 550 725 873 906 160 193 200 445 536 556 730 880 913 165 199 206 450 542 563 735 886 919 170 205 213 455 548 569 740 892 925 175 211 219 460 554 575 745 898 931 180 217 225 465 560 581 750 904 938 185 223 231 470 566 588 755 910 944 190 229 238 475 572 594 760 916 950 195 235 244 480 578 600 765 922 956 200 241 250 485 584 606 770 928 963 205 247 256 490 590 613 775 934 969 210 253 263 495 596 619 780 940 975 215 259 269 500 602 625 785 946 981 220 265 275 505 608 631 790 952 988 225 271 281 510 614 638 795 958 994 230 277 288 515 620 644 800 964 1000 235 283 294 520 627 650 805 970 1006 240 289 300 525 633 656 810 976 1013 245 295 306 530 639 663 815 982 1019 250 301 313 535 645 669 820 988 1025 255 307 319 540 651 675 825 994 1031 260 313 325 545 657 681 830 1000 1038 265 319 331 550 663 688 835 1006 1044 270 325 338 555 669 694 840 1012 1050 275 331 344 560 675 700 845 1018 1056 280 337 350 565 681 706 850 1024 1063 285 343 356 570 687 713 855 1030 1069 290 349 363 575 693 719 860 1036 1075 295 355 369 580 699 725 865 1042 1081 300 361 375 585 705 731 870 1048 1088 305 367 381 590 711 738 875 1054 1094 310 373 388 595 717 744 880 1060 1100 315 380 394 600 723 750 885 1066 1106 320 386 400 605 729 756 890 1072 1113 325 392 406 610 735 763 895 1078 1119 330 398 413 615 741 769 900 1084 1125 335 404 419 620 747 775 905 1090 1131 340 410 425 625 753 781 910 1096 1138 345 416 431 630 759 788 915 1102 1144 350 422 438 635 765 794 920 1108 1150 355 428 444 640 771 800 925 1114 1156 360 434 450 645 777 806 930 1120 1163 365 440 456 650 783 813 935 1127 1169 370 446 463 655 789 819 940 1133 1175 375 452 469 660 795 825 945 1139 1181 380 458 475 665 801 831 950 1145 1188 385 464 481 670 807 838 955 1151 1194 390 470 488 675 813 844 960 1157 1200 395 476 494 680 819 850 965 1163 1206 400 482 500 685 825 856 970 1169 1213 405 488 506 690 831 863 975 1175 1219 410 494 513 695 837 869 980 1181 1225 415 500 519 700 843 875 985 1187 1231 420 506 525 705 849 881 990 1193 1238 425 512 531 710 855 888 995 1199 1244 430 518 538 715 861 894 1000 1205 1250 Last Updated on 2/12/98 By Sam Safiedine Email: [email protected] Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destructo Report post Posted May 8, 2008 Well this looks interesting and cool, but to be honest, i have no idea what i'm looking it. Mine as well be the Matrix coding to me! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
porter Report post Posted July 3, 2008 1st column is HP at rear wheels. 2nd column is HP at crank with 17% drivetrain loss. 3rd column is HP at crank with 20% drivetrain loss. 4th column is HP at rear wheels. 5th column is HP at crank with 17% drivetrain loss. 6th column is HP at crank with 20% drivetrain loss. 7th column is HP at rear wheels. 8th column is HP at crank with 17% drivetrain loss. 9th column is HP at crank with 20% drivetrain loss. I tried to post it again from an Excel spreadsheet and it didn't format right once again. It's just a simple calculation anyway of whatever the HP is, divided by 0.83 for 17% loss, and by 0.80 for 20% loss. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan-Herbie Report post Posted July 3, 2008 So a certain someone running 1050rwhp would equal very close to 1300hp! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
porter Report post Posted July 4, 2008 So a certain someone running 1050rwhp would equal very close to 1300hp! I hope you're running a single rolling pin of rubber at the rear, because you've got a shit-ton of power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan-Herbie Report post Posted July 4, 2008 I hope you're running a single rolling pin of rubber at the rear, because you've got a shit-ton of power. Its not me! Atleast not yet! According to them, they can lay all the power down no problems in 2nd gear. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mako Report post Posted July 4, 2008 Its not me! Atleast not yet! According to them, they can lay all the power down no problems in 2nd gear. Man this car is like a NASA rocket or something, you look at the numbers and wonder how on Earth the vehicle will function without tearing itself apart... If the G-car can handle this level of boost through the AWD setup it really was engineered at a whole other level. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan-Herbie Report post Posted July 4, 2008 Man this car is like a NASA rocket or something, you look at the numbers and wonder how on Earth the vehicle will function without tearing itself apart... If the G-car can handle this level of boost through the AWD setup it really was engineered at a whole other level. 5000+ hard miles at 900rwhp+, now aprrox 1500 miles at 1050rwhp... no probs, and its on stock 04 halfshafts. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Placid Report post Posted July 4, 2008 If the G-car can handle this level of boost through the AWD setup it really was engineered at a whole other level. I don't know if it's related in any way, but Audi's torsen quattros are known to handle 3-4 times stock power without any issues, they are really "over-engineered". But is the G AWD any different than the Murcie's one? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambornima Report post Posted July 4, 2008 So a certain someone running 1050rwhp would equal very close to 1300hp! yes, its your "friend's" Gallardo, right? that friend of yours, how did his Gallardo hunt go? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan-Herbie Report post Posted July 4, 2008 yes, its your "friend's" Gallardo, right? that friend of yours, how did his Gallardo hunt go? It truly isnt mine..its Rippers. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
lambornima Report post Posted July 4, 2008 any weight figures on Ripper's car? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan-Herbie Report post Posted July 4, 2008 any weight figures on Ripper's car? I would imagine it weighs around the same as mine, as it is an 04 with glassbonnet and Callistos. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPERTT Report post Posted July 5, 2008 5000+ hard miles at 900rwhp+, now aprrox 1500 miles at 1050rwhp... no probs, and its on stock 04 halfshafts. Maybe I have been lucky with the shafts or maybe they are stronger than we all think.. Dunno... No problems though... Only problem I have is finding more time to pilot the car I would imagine it weighs around the same as mine, as it is an 04 with glassbonnet and Callistos. It should Allan I will scale it at some point before I decide to add some of the weight saving goodies you are adding.. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan-Herbie Report post Posted July 5, 2008 Maybe I have been lucky with the shafts or maybe they are stronger than we all think.. Dunno... No problems though... Only problem I have is finding more time to pilot the car It should Allan I will scale it at some point before I decide to add some of the weight saving goodies you are adding.. Sounds good! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mbn Report post Posted July 15, 2008 5000+ hard miles at 900rwhp+, now aprrox 1500 miles at 1050rwhp... no probs, and its on stock 04 halfshafts. no boost control ? 900rwhp/1050rwhp all times ? if so good build ! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan-Herbie Report post Posted July 15, 2008 no boost control ? 900rwhp/1050rwhp all times ? if so good build ! As far as I know cars have to programs, pump gas and race gas... each of those programs chooses max boost for that application, no boost control. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
RIPPERTT Report post Posted July 15, 2008 Race gas and full boost .. It is more linear in the power application than one would think. I will be installing a progressive boost control at some point. Wheel spin hasn't been an issue with my set-up and tire selection. More Power is on the way !!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Allan-Herbie Report post Posted July 15, 2008 Race gas and full boost .. It is more linear in the power application than one would think. I will be installing a progressive boost control at some point. Wheel spin hasn't been an issue with my set-up and tire selection. More Power is on the way !!!!! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
SAMLAMBO Report post Posted August 12, 2008 All these huge hp numbers are to hard for me to absorb You guys are seriusly producing some serious serious power. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destructo Report post Posted August 27, 2008 1st column is HP at rear wheels. 2nd column is HP at crank with 17% drivetrain loss. 3rd column is HP at crank with 20% drivetrain loss. 4th column is HP at rear wheels. 5th column is HP at crank with 17% drivetrain loss. 6th column is HP at crank with 20% drivetrain loss. 7th column is HP at rear wheels. 8th column is HP at crank with 17% drivetrain loss. 9th column is HP at crank with 20% drivetrain loss. I tried to post it again from an Excel spreadsheet and it didn't format right once again. It's just a simple calculation anyway of whatever the HP is, divided by 0.83 for 17% loss, and by 0.80 for 20% loss. Thank you! It actually makes sense now. Those are some impressive numbers for sure Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
porter Report post Posted August 29, 2008 Thank you! It actually makes sense now. Those are some impressive numbers for sure Good response time, Dave. Only 2 months lol Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Destructo Report post Posted August 29, 2008 Good response time, Dave. Only 2 months lol No one ever said i was efficient or observant! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mike Report post Posted August 29, 2008 Allan I have not taken the time to read all about your car. Sounds like an animal 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.