horsepower
+ Reply to Thread
Results 1 to 13 of 13

This is a discussion on horsepower within the Comparison: WRX vs World forums, part of the Community - Meet other Enthusiasts category; Dodge claims 215 horse from the 2.4 liter but dyno 223 to the wheels.So what I'am trying to say a ...

  1. #1
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    tampa
    Posts
    46

    horsepower

    Dodge claims 215 horse from the 2.4 liter but dyno 223 to the wheels.So what I'am trying to say a front Wheel drive car loses about 25 to 30 percent to the wheel therefore at the crank it should be a little over 250hp.

  2. Remove Advertisements
    ClubWRX.net
    Advertisements
     

  3. #2
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    370

    Re: horsepower

    Originally posted by wrxallwheel
    Dodge claims 215 horse from the 2.4 liter but dyno 223 to the wheels.So what I'am trying to say a front Wheel drive car loses about 25 to 30 percent to the wheel therefore at the crank it should be a little over 250hp.

    Do you mean FWD (front wheel drive) or AWD (all wheel drive)? I think the WRX looses between 23- 26% at the wheels, where as the FWD vehicle might loose 12- 15%.

    As far as the SRT4 goes, keep in mind that Dodge wasn't using Dynojets to come up with those HP ratings. The Dyno jet dynos are notorious for reading high... I think Vishnu Performance (aka Shiv) has some more acurate data if I'm not mistaken.
    2002 WRBP WRX

    Old setup = BPM GT turboback, PDE up-pipe, Unichip w/custom map, cooler plugs (NGK range 7), Walbro 255LPH FP, MBC (15 PSI), and custom built turbo utilizing the 13G housing (Internals: Hitachi compressor wheel, Mitsu 15G turbine lightly clipped).

    1/4, 12.88 105.10 - 1/8, 8.09 85.96

    New set up = Now w/UTEC and STI Injectors

    1/4, ? - 1/8, ?

  4. #3
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410

    Re: Re: horsepower

    Originally posted by boosted 4
    As far as the SRT4 goes, keep in mind that Dodge wasn't using Dynojets to come up with those HP ratings. The Dyno jet dynos are notorious for reading high... I think Vishnu Performance (aka Shiv) has some more acurate data if I'm not mistaken.
    I think the stock track times for the SRT-4 confirm the fact that they are vastly underrated from the factory. How else could a FWD 215HP car consistently beat an AWD 227HP car to the end of the 1/4? The weight difference isn't that big.
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  5. #4
    Registered User capt'n'caveman's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    so cali
    Posts
    464
    i think is the one time where a car manfacturer rated the hp at the wheel instead of at the crank
    k&n, sti-hoodscoop, engine mounts, & tranny mount, blitz dtt, catless up-pipe, samco ic hose, greddy CC, cusco f/r swaybars, gutted midpipe, oil cooler, prodrive exhaust & f/r replica sti strut tower bar, gunmetal rota tarmac, goodridge ss lines, p'n'p exhaust manifold

    deny the fly-by

  6. #5
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Jul 2002
    Location
    tampa
    Posts
    46

    horse lost

    well a stock wrx well dyno 170hp to all the wheel so it lost about 49hp that about 30 to 35 percent a front wheel drive car loses about 20 to 30 horse power to the wheel.But the good thing a awd car has outstading traction so that make up for the horse power lost.

  7. #6
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    370

    Re: Re: Re: horsepower

    Originally posted by RSXSucks
    I think the stock track times for the SRT-4 confirm the fact that they are vastly underrated from the factory. How else could a FWD 215HP car consistently beat an AWD 227HP car to the end of the 1/4? The weight difference isn't that big.
    Okay, perhaps the SRT4's crank HP is under rated. So let's say in stock form it's putting down 205whp and the WRX is putting down 170whp. With the extra weight of the WRX and the SRT4 putting down more power to the ground I think it makes perfect since.

    They're both low 14 car's (driver dependent of course), the WRX get's the launch giving it the head start and the higher whp and lighter SRT4 plays catch up and barely bests it at the end.

    Pretty simple, really.
    Last edited by boosted 4; 06-11-2003 at 06:31 PM.
    2002 WRBP WRX

    Old setup = BPM GT turboback, PDE up-pipe, Unichip w/custom map, cooler plugs (NGK range 7), Walbro 255LPH FP, MBC (15 PSI), and custom built turbo utilizing the 13G housing (Internals: Hitachi compressor wheel, Mitsu 15G turbine lightly clipped).

    1/4, 12.88 105.10 - 1/8, 8.09 85.96

    New set up = Now w/UTEC and STI Injectors

    1/4, ? - 1/8, ?

  8. #7
    Registered User randy98mtu's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Posts
    168
    FWD with a manual doesn't lose that much. My previous car (94 Taurus SHO) lost about 17% while the auto version lost 22-25, IIRC. The worst FWD was the Chyrsler M that had the engine mounted longitudinal (sp) instead of horizontal (I think I phrased that right. The engine was front back instead of side side) Turning the power 90 deg wasted their 30 hp advantage to the SHO so they were about equal to the ground, auto trans vs auto trans.
    '04 JBP Wagon 5MT

  9. #8
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Location
    Sabattus, ME
    Posts
    26

    Re: horse lost

    Originally posted by wrxallwheel
    well a stock wrx well dyno 170hp to all the wheel so it lost about 49hp that about 30 to 35 percent a front wheel drive car loses about 20 to 30 horse power to the wheel.But the good thing a awd car has outstading traction so that make up for the horse power lost.
    Actually, it's 25.1%, not 30-35% and it's rated 227 crank, 227-170 is 57, not 49. Boosted 4 was right on the money based on those numbers.

  10. #9
    Buzzz Wannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Peoria, AZ
    Posts
    5,239
    Just a little reminder for a side note. Peak horsepower has little to do with 1/4 mile times. Torque multiplication in regards to transmission ratios, gear ratios, sweepable horsepower, torque, cubic inches, power band, and gearing in relation to the power band are about the most important. (Unless the car is an auto- then the converter is more important than they all!)
    I know that we all know this, but sometimes it gets lost in peak HP numbers.

  11. #10
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Apr 2002
    Posts
    410
    Originally posted by Wannabe
    Just a little reminder for a side note. Peak horsepower has little to do with 1/4 mile times. Torque multiplication in regards to transmission ratios, gear ratios, sweepable horsepower, torque, cubic inches, power band, and gearing in relation to the power band are about the most important. (Unless the car is an auto- then the converter is more important than they all!)
    I know that we all know this, but sometimes it gets lost in peak HP numbers.
    Absolutely, one cannot solely look at peak HP. Out of everything you listed though, you missed what I believe are the other 2 most important factors though: drivetrain layout and weight. Given HP, weight, and drivetrain layout (and nothing more) for any 2 cars and with pretty good certainty (no, obviously not 100%), you could determine which should win the 1/4.

    I think most people look at the things that can easily be used to categorize cars into segments to guess at what their 1/4 times are going to be and there is nothing wrong with that. Peak HP is an easy number to quantify, torque curves and gear ratios are not. I once saw an extremely good graph of hp/weight vs 1/4 track times for RWD cars and as much as the other factors can act as a tie breaker, the data showed that hp/weight was an extremely good indication of how a car would perform in the 1/4. So although something like gear ratios do affect 1/4, most car manufacturers put in moderately good gear ratios so that empirically, it usually ends up being a pretty minor component of 1/4 times. I suppose a car company could put really really bad ratios in a car that would hurt the times, but so far, most don't.
    2002 RSX Type S
    Anyone want to buy my car?

  12. #11
    Registered User
    Join Date
    Aug 2002
    Posts
    370
    I didn't mention gearing, final drives, or even how many gears each has on my above post. I guess I was just taking that for granted since I was already kind of familiar with the gearing in both cars. I think this one had been discussed here before on the gearing of the SRT4 vs WRX and the final drives and gear ratios were close.

    I think the biggest factor between the two, stock for stock, is the weight diff and power to the ground which allows the SRT4 (once it's going) to catch the WRX at the end. Of course this one has been told a thousand times
    2002 WRBP WRX

    Old setup = BPM GT turboback, PDE up-pipe, Unichip w/custom map, cooler plugs (NGK range 7), Walbro 255LPH FP, MBC (15 PSI), and custom built turbo utilizing the 13G housing (Internals: Hitachi compressor wheel, Mitsu 15G turbine lightly clipped).

    1/4, 12.88 105.10 - 1/8, 8.09 85.96

    New set up = Now w/UTEC and STI Injectors

    1/4, ? - 1/8, ?

  13. #12
    Buzzz Wannabe's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2003
    Location
    Peoria, AZ
    Posts
    5,239
    Yes! Dead on! Weight is a huge factor. They stated that the two cars in questions were at about the same weight, so I carelessly overlooked that.
    And the other factor that is often overlooked, is a large one on this board, and that is traction. My car will easily double it's time in the 1/4 without traction. That is where all wheel drive comes into play.
    Now, the gears is an interesting one. With the dragsters and doorcars of the NHRA in Super Eliminator, Super Comp and Super Gas, the 7.90, 8.90 and 9.90 classes, the cars almost always go quicker by 2 tenths with a 2 speed than a three speed. Same weight, etc. (Just an interesting tidbit of information.)

  14. #13
    Registered User brembo's Avatar
    Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Location
    North Carolina
    Posts
    1,163
    Road and Track put one on the dyno. Said it was puttin down 222 hp TO THE WHEELS. Coast-down test showed a 16 hp driveline loss, so the final tally is 238 crank hp. 246 ft/lbs to the wheel, if yer curious, states this was a Dynojet.

    *edit*

    This is the June 2003 issue, the one with the Saleen S7 on the front, and a STi/Lancer comparo...guess why I bought this issue? The Lancer won due to better pricing
    2003 WRB Wagon. Vishnu Stage 2(VF30). DBA 5010's/steel lines/Carbotech Bobcat pads, MRT topmount. Tein coilovers, 22/24 mm sways, ALK....I'M DONE!!!!!!

+ Reply to Thread

Quick Reply Quick Reply

Register Now

Please enter the name by which you would like to log-in and be known on this site.
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.

Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.

Please enter a valid email address for yourself. We strongly suggest that you stay away from using aol, yahoo, msn, and hotmail accounts. Sometimes the mail server blocks the emails from our server. As a result you will not receive any notifications including the confirmation email.

Log-in

Human Verification

In order to verify that you are a human and not a spam bot, please enter the answer into the following box below based on the instructions contained in the graphic.


Posting Permissions

  • You may post new threads
  • You may post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •