Print

Please login or register.
1 Hour 1 Day 1 Week 1 Month Forever
Login with username, password and session length

[patsmx5]

If I had to guess, fluid losses from turning oil go up between cubic and quarticly. That's like saying HP_loss due to moving oil = X = RPM * constant_1 ^(3 to 4) Where friction losses due to bearings, gears rubbing, etc, are mostly linear. IE- HP_loss due to friction = Y = RPM * constant_2. But in reality, as you begin increasing load, the working loads of the various pieces goes higher and higher, and they become less efficient, and your friction losses begin to increase quadratically.

[patsmx5]

nah its prob around 20%

Didn't you say 2 pages ago that no one who is intelligent uses driveline loss %'s???

Holy fuckin contradiction.


U truly are the coolest guy ever.

you're too stupid to understand. you can't use a blanket %  because a 300hp engine would take 60hp to spin the drive train and a 600hp engine would take 120hp to spin the drivetrain. thats idiotic if you think because the engine makes more power its going to rob twice as much to spin the same shit. that is moronic.

you can say something takes a % of crank hp to spin the drive train, but you can't use a flat percent.

lets say it takes about 60hp to spin an auto trans and the rest...

if you have a 300hp engine it'll take 20%
if you have a 600hp engine it'll take 10%

no one in their right mind would believe that the same drive train would rob 60hp from a 300hp motor and 120hp from a 600hp motor

Counter point. So if I build a 300hp, 600hp, 10,000hp, and 1,000,000hp engine and put them behind the same drivetrain, if we assume the drivetrain doesn't fail, could I approach 100% efficient drivetrain as hp -> infinity? By your logic, yes.

nope

do you think if you had a 10000hp engine it would take 2000hp to spin a corvette drive train, but a 300hp engine would take 60hp to spin it.

 :yes:

Do you understand any of what I'm saying?

[random-strike]

nah its prob around 20%

Didn't you say 2 pages ago that no one who is intelligent uses driveline loss %'s???

Holy fuckin contradiction.


U truly are the coolest guy ever.

you're too stupid to understand. you can't use a blanket %  because a 300hp engine would take 60hp to spin the drive train and a 600hp engine would take 120hp to spin the drivetrain. thats idiotic if you think because the engine makes more power its going to rob twice as much to spin the same shit. that is moronic.

you can say something takes a % of crank hp to spin the drive train, but you can't use a flat percent.

lets say it takes about 60hp to spin an auto trans and the rest...

if you have a 300hp engine it'll take 20%
if you have a 600hp engine it'll take 10%

no one in their right mind would believe that the same drive train would rob 60hp from a 300hp motor and 120hp from a 600hp motor

Counter point. So if I build a 300hp, 600hp, 10,000hp, and 1,000,000hp engine and put them behind the same drivetrain, if we assume the drivetrain doesn't fail, could I approach 100% efficient drivetrain as hp -> infinity? By your logic, yes.

nope

do you think if you had a 10000hp engine it would take 2000hp to spin a corvette drive train, but a 300hp engine would take 60hp to spin it.

 :yes:

Do you understand any of what I'm saying?

Why are we talking about fluid? little of the hp rob from a drivetrain is the torque converter on a automatic transmission.

we're talking about spinning metal parts with a thin film of oil on them.

i understand what you're saying and NO you can't get 100% efficiency because you have a 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000hp motor. it'll still rob a little bit of it, but it'll obviously be a very little percent.

[patsmx5]

nah its prob around 20%

Didn't you say 2 pages ago that no one who is intelligent uses driveline loss %'s???

Holy fuckin contradiction.


U truly are the coolest guy ever.

you're too stupid to understand. you can't use a blanket %  because a 300hp engine would take 60hp to spin the drive train and a 600hp engine would take 120hp to spin the drivetrain. thats idiotic if you think because the engine makes more power its going to rob twice as much to spin the same shit. that is moronic.

you can say something takes a % of crank hp to spin the drive train, but you can't use a flat percent.

lets say it takes about 60hp to spin an auto trans and the rest...

if you have a 300hp engine it'll take 20%
if you have a 600hp engine it'll take 10%

no one in their right mind would believe that the same drive train would rob 60hp from a 300hp motor and 120hp from a 600hp motor

Counter point. So if I build a 300hp, 600hp, 10,000hp, and 1,000,000hp engine and put them behind the same drivetrain, if we assume the drivetrain doesn't fail, could I approach 100% efficient drivetrain as hp -> infinity? By your logic, yes.

nope

do you think if you had a 10000hp engine it would take 2000hp to spin a corvette drive train, but a 300hp engine would take 60hp to spin it.

 :yes:

Do you understand any of what I'm saying?

Why are we talking about fluid? little of the hp rob from a drivetrain is the torque converter on a automatic transmission.

we're talking about spinning metal parts with a thin film of oil on them.

i understand what you're saying and NO you can't get 100% efficiency because you have a 10000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000000hp motor. it'll still rob a little bit of it, but it'll obviously be a very little percent.

Why are we talking about fluids? Because we are talking about drivetrain losses. They are relevant and you are neglecting them. The transmission is a box with gears in it, and it has oil in it. So does the differential. Wheel bearings are lubed with grease that turns to oil when up to temp. Most of the drivetrain is metal shit that's lubricated to reduce friction, increase working loads, etc when transferring power.

[random-strike]

maybe you can put your book down, and talk in reality. there is no 1000000000000000000000motor that spins a car drive train. so throw that away.

flat percentages don't work if you're going to figure drive train loss. END OF STORY. you can express the drive train loss in a percent, but you can't use a percent to figure it out.

is that easy enough for you professor?

[patsmx5]

maybe you can put your book down, and talk in reality. there is no 1000000000000000000000motor that spins a car drive train. so throw that away.

flat percentages don't work if you're going to figure drive train loss. END OF STORY. you can express the drive train loss in a percent, but you can't use a percent to figure it out.

is that easy enough for you professor?

Dude, you just don't understand what I said. No shit it's not a flat %. Duh. But it's not constant either. I've said this 3 times now if you haven't noticed.     It's complex. There are multiple losses that must be accounted for. You can have different % power losses at the same power too. (I'll let you ponder how that's possible) 

[random-strike]

maybe you can put your book down, and talk in reality. there is no 1000000000000000000000motor that spins a car drive train. so throw that away.

flat percentages don't work if you're going to figure drive train loss. END OF STORY. you can express the drive train loss in a percent, but you can't use a percent to figure it out.

is that easy enough for you professor?

Dude, you just don't understand what I said. No shit it's not a flat %. Duh. But it's not constant either. I've said this 3 times now if you haven't noticed.     It's complex. There are multiple losses that must be accounted for. You can have different % power losses at the same power too. (I'll let you ponder how that's possible) 

its minuscule difference in the power levels we're talking. so minuscule it doesn't even fucking matter and we should not be talking about it.

thanks.

[patsmx5]

maybe you can put your book down, and talk in reality. there is no 1000000000000000000000motor that spins a car drive train. so throw that away.

flat percentages don't work if you're going to figure drive train loss. END OF STORY. you can express the drive train loss in a percent, but you can't use a percent to figure it out.

is that easy enough for you professor?

Dude, you just don't understand what I said. No shit it's not a flat %. Duh. But it's not constant either. I've said this 3 times now if you haven't noticed.     It's complex. There are multiple losses that must be accounted for. You can have different % power losses at the same power too. (I'll let you ponder how that's possible) 

its minuscule difference in the power levels we're talking. so minuscule it doesn't even fucking matter and we should not be talking about it.

thanks.

Uh, wrong.

Super simplified example. (extremely dumbed down) You have a stock motor that makes 200 flywheel HP. Of that, 35HP gets eaten up from friction losses through the drivetrain, 5HP for churning oil and everything else. So you loose 40hp total and put 160hp to the wheels. 20% drivetrain loss.

Stop. Think. What's friction?

Now turbocharge this motor and it puts out 400hp. You'll loose say (35*2) = 70hp due to friction and 5 HP from churning oil and everything else, and put down 400-75 = 325 hp to the wheels, for a 18.75% efficient drivetrain.

And perhaps at 500hp you've got 18% drivetrain loss.

But eventually you'll reach a point where as you begin to increase the power going through the drivetrain, bearings begin to overheat and bind up, gears rubbing get hotter than normal and bind, causing more friction and heat, and the problem compounds. So by the time you're at say 600hp, your efficiency might fall off back to 20%.

Or just believe whatever you want.  

[Conceptz-X]

to sum up this arguement, the drivetrain loss in an automatic is between 30 to 70hp; numbers i threw in here but are close to real life figures depending on variables, rwd/fwd, transmission size (car or diesel truck), etc.

whether it's a 300hp motor, or a 600hp motor, it's going to take roughly the same amount of effort to make it work.

That's about it

Haven't seen a tranny to take 70HP, 50HP max, but yea

[patsmx5]

to sum up this arguement, the drivetrain loss in an automatic is between 30 to 70hp; numbers i threw in here but are close to real life figures depending on variables, rwd/fwd, transmission size (car or diesel truck), etc.

whether it's a 300hp motor, or a 600hp motor, it's going to take roughly the same amount of effort to make it work.

That would be nice if that were true. Your argument is larger, more powerful engines (with respect to relative drivetrain size) have much lower drivetrain losses. You are neglecting too many things/ making too many assumptions.

[random-strike]

zzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZZ

[patsmx5]

to sum up this arguement, the drivetrain loss in an automatic is between 30 to 70hp; numbers i threw in here but are close to real life figures depending on variables, rwd/fwd, transmission size (car or diesel truck), etc.

whether it's a 300hp motor, or a 600hp motor, it's going to take roughly the same amount of effort to make it work.

That would be nice if that were true. Your argument is larger, more powerful engines (with respect to relative drivetrain size) have much lower drivetrain losses. You are neglecting too many things/ making too many assumptions.

what part of "to sum up this arguement" didn't you read?

i KNOW it is not a linear scale of parasitic loss.  i know it is not a fixed amount of loss.  if you make xhp and you lose 40hp, if you make 3x hp you may only lose 80 hp but its not an equal ratio

Ah. I misunderstood your last post.

[BoostedSchemes]

i went snorkeling in a cum dumpster for money today

[Conceptz-X]

That would be nice if that were true. Your argument is larger, more powerful engines (with respect to relative drivetrain size) have much lower drivetrain losses. You are neglecting too many things/ making too many assumptions.

I was thinking GAS up to LIGHT DUTY TRUCK

I'd hate to see what it takes to turn the trans in one of those super-sized earthmovers.

[random-strike]

zzzzzzz

[Conceptz-X]

Sleeping Johnny?

[1Fast68]

This thread was doomed from the beginning, just let it die.

[BlackDragon]

No point in arguing with RS he always right and the opposite always wrong 

[random-strike]

r&r a 96 corvette... what a pain in the ass

[Conceptz-X]

yea they are

[random-strike]

[Perfek360]

johny, when did you get the vette?  i know you were talkin bout getting one not too long ago. i might have to make a trip to take a looky at it

[random-strike]

johny, when did you get the vette?  i know you were talkin bout getting one not too long ago. i might have to make a trip to take a looky at it

i got it a few months ago and had it two days and a rod started knocking. what a joke!

[patsmx5]

johny, when did you get the vette?  i know you were talkin bout getting one not too long ago. i might have to make a trip to take a looky at it

i got it a few months ago and had it two days and a rod started knocking. what a joke!

Cylinder 7 started knocking.

[Perfek360]

johny, when did you get the vette?  i know you were talkin bout getting one not too long ago. i might have to make a trip to take a looky at it

i got it a few months ago and had it two days and a rod started knocking. what a joke!

nice...gotta love that

[random-strike]

[92CXyD]

Nice those headers need the flanges cut off and a turbo flange welded on each for some twin turbo action.

[random-strike]

maybe someday

[Lowerit]

Block huggers on an LT1 Vette..

The first sign you know sweet fuck all.. Ported stockers flow more.

before you go on the typical BS Rampage take a look at what the rest of the Vette world (Who has been in it longer then 6 mos) Thinks of SUPER SWEET BLOCK HUGGERS.

http://www.corvetteactioncenter.com/forums/c4-technical-performance/30586-who-makes-headers-92-96-lt-1-a.html

[random-strike]

those guys aren't seeing butt dyno gains on their stock engine

i'm sure these will have an effect on my motor. i've already talked to guys smarter than you and they said with my engine it'll help.

stick it up your pussy and go look at your dads engines poser.