hp loss from crank-rear?
- Thread starter trkmotorsports
- Start date
bentley429isBAC
10 Year Member
cenok is family
15 Year Member
yeah it really depends on the rotating mass of your drivetrain including flywheel, clutch, transmission, driveshaft, etc. it's roughly 15-20% though.
Shaolin Crane
Banned
MAC'n89Blckstng
Active Member
Clutch ratings also have to do with how much the car weighs, if you have a car thats 3500 pounds with 500 hp, and a car thats 3000 pounds with 500hp, then obviously the 3500 pound car is gonna need a stronger clutch. Torque ratings are more of a deciding factor in clutches than hp also.
If you give us more info on the motor somebody could steer you in the direction of a good clutch
Dino Dino Bambino
15 Year Member
Real HP... a question on the how's and why's of ratings
All this leads to another question I have had.
A 1984 5.0 was rated at 175 HP and the 1989 5.0L was rated at 225 HP. Was that at the rear wheels? Has the industry gone back and forth on if to quote HP at the crank vs. rear wheels for insurance purposes? If these 5.0L HP figures were quoted at the rear wheels would I assume a 20 - 30% bump at the crank?
My 2009 normally aspirated 3.5L in a Lincoln MKX is quoted at 265 HP... is that at the crank or rear wheels? Despite the huge differences in technology I would think my 5.0L's would still out HP my 3.5L... they certainly "feel" that way when driving them both. The 5.0L's are certainly more fun!
Just curious more than anything else
All this leads to another question I have had.
A 1984 5.0 was rated at 175 HP and the 1989 5.0L was rated at 225 HP. Was that at the rear wheels? Has the industry gone back and forth on if to quote HP at the crank vs. rear wheels for insurance purposes? If these 5.0L HP figures were quoted at the rear wheels would I assume a 20 - 30% bump at the crank?
My 2009 normally aspirated 3.5L in a Lincoln MKX is quoted at 265 HP... is that at the crank or rear wheels? Despite the huge differences in technology I would think my 5.0L's would still out HP my 3.5L... they certainly "feel" that way when driving them both. The 5.0L's are certainly more fun!
Just curious more than anything else
When the advertise the hp they always talk about how much power the engine makes, not the "car". That rating does not include acesories such as PS and AC. Now at least they include the alternator and waterpump.
The 1984 engine was pathetic but about all engines were back then. That's what happens when you let the goverment have control of anything.
The 1984 engine was pathetic but about all engines were back then. That's what happens when you let the goverment have control of anything.
cenok is family
15 Year Member
all advertised HP ratings are at the flywheel. that "feeling" you're getting is the torque. your mkx probably has more horsepower, but it weighs more and definitely has less torque.
Manufacturers have never rated HP at the rear wheels- its always been at the flywheel/crank. Since 2005, to certify an engine power claim with the SAE, testing conditions must include everything the engine would have in the car; full accessories, exhaust and intake, IIRC.
A lot of people misunderstand horsepower on a fundamental level. Horsepower is nothing but a function of torque and engine speed. It defines nothing but how fast your engine is spinning when you measure the torque output. It can get pretty hairy when trying to define why some engines perform the way they do, but suffice to say that the 5.0 is fast because of its solid torque numbers, not because of its peak HP.
A lot of people misunderstand horsepower on a fundamental level. Horsepower is nothing but a function of torque and engine speed. It defines nothing but how fast your engine is spinning when you measure the torque output. It can get pretty hairy when trying to define why some engines perform the way they do, but suffice to say that the 5.0 is fast because of its solid torque numbers, not because of its peak HP.
Similar threads
