Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

^ wow, possibly the most useless reply ever...

1) 206kw is the "stated" figure, ever noticed how many JDM cars have that as the power figure? heard of the 'gentlemen agreement'? That was the cap

2) GTR would be, i dunno, more 250-260kw at the fly

3) he was after AWKW!!!! not same bogus factory claim fly wheel number!!

to answer your question, i dunno :wub: but 180-190awkw sounds about right

^ wow, possibly the most useless reply ever...

1) 206kw is the "stated" figure, ever noticed how many JDM cars have that as the power figure? heard of the 'gentlemen agreement'? That was the cap

2) GTR would be, i dunno, more 250-260kw at the fly

3) he was after AWKW!!!! not same bogus factory claim fly wheel number!!

to answer your question, i dunno :wub: but 180-190awkw sounds about right

Actually no i haven't noticed that. i'll keep an eye out for that from now on tho.

I wasn't trying to make a useless reply. I posted what i thought was right. I obviously wasn't and i accept that.

thanks for all the stuff you put up there tho. i'll keep that in mind

30% drive train loss is too low as an AWD setup, or, awkw reading will have more power lost through the drive train than a rwd car would.

there is no way a car weighing around 1600kg, can do what it does with just 227kw's.

250-260kw's or more at the fly would be my guess.

It's basically saying that an extra turbo, extra displacement (plus a whole raft of better components than a NEO RB25DET) only gains 21kw's? Not likely...

Unless you want to rip the engine out and dyno that, you won't know what the factory specs are. Someone may have done this already, i dunno... but yeah, more lost through the AWD than RWD

.92 bar i think off memory

I thought its closer to .9 BAR on 34's and .85 bar on R33's, anyway .92 bar sounds about right :blink:

30% drive train loss is too low as an AWD setup, or, awkw reading will have more power lost through the drive train than a rwd car would.

Debatable, there are thread on here that have done a RWD then an AWD dyno and lost 1KW.

Others have noticed big differences but its usually different dyno/different day so its not comparable.

I think the 175AWKW for an R34 sounds about right, when shopping around I'd seen higher than that though for stock R34's.

I dyno'd a stock one when I was looking to buy mine a few years back and it made 178awkw's - so 175-180 is where they are at.

The funny thing is I know of 2 x NUR's that have been dyno'd stock and both have made under 160awkws..... So much for the ultimate.

The funny thing is I know of 2 x NUR's that have been dyno'd stock and both have made under 160awkws..... So much for the ultimate.

Sux to be those guys :rofl: All that extra money to make less power stock.

I dyno'd a stock one when I was looking to buy mine a few years back and it made 178awkw's - so 175-180 is where they are at.

I always thought 34 GTR's would make a little more than the above quoted figures....

Not sure if this is a useful comparison but a stock AUTO stagea s2 has 206kw at the flywheel (probably accurate in this case) and roughly 120awkw. They also weigh around 1658kg.

So thats a loss of about 86kw. The losses dont increase by much as you increase the power so working by percentage doesn't give an accurate enough result...

At a very rough guess, I'd say make that ~70kw drivetrain loss given the GTR is manual and a bit lighter (AFAIK the GTR's are about 1500kg or thereabouts - feel free to correct me).

I've also heard of them getting around ~180awkw completely stock so that would put it at about 250kw at the flywheel. anything around 240-250kw should be accurate enough in my opinion.

And just for the record, the "Gentlemans agreement" in japan seems to have finally been lifted since we now have cars in japan like the R35 GTR and others smashing the 206kw limit to pieces.

Edited by pixel8r

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now


  • Similar Content

  • Latest Posts

    • You're making my point for me. 95 is not "premium". It is a "slightly higher octane" version of the basic 91 product. The premium product that they want people to buy (for all the venal corporate reasons of making more profit, and all the possibly specious reasons of it being a "better" fuel with nicer additive packages) is the 98 octane stuff. 95 is the classic middle child. No-one wants it. No-one cares about it. It is just there, occupying a space in the product hierarchy.
    • 98 and 95 have to meet the same national fuel standards beside the actual RON.  91 has lower standards (which are quite poor really), so 95 is certainly not 91 with some octane booster. It would be an easier argument to claim 98 is just 95 with some octane boosters. Also RON doesn't specify 'quality' in any sense, only the octane number.  Anything different retailers decide or not decide to add to their 95 or 98 is arbitrary and not defined by the RON figure.
    • Anyone know alternatives to powerplus tungsten? Can't find an alternative online. 
    • 95 is just a scam outright. 98 is the real "premium" with all the best detergents and other additive packages, and at least historically, used to be more dense also. 95 is just 91 bargain basement shit with a little extra octane rating. Of course, there's 91 and there's 91 also. I always (back in the 90s early 2000s) refused to put fuel in from supermarket related fuel chains on the basis that it was nasty half arsed shit imported from Indonesia. Nowadays, I suspect that there is little difference between the nasty half-arsed shit brought in by the "bargain" chains and the nasty half-arsed shit brought in by the big brands, given that most of it is coming from the same SEAsian refineries. Anyway - if there's still anything to that logic, then it would apply to 95 also. 98 is only made in decent refineries and, as I said, is usually the "premium" fuel, both in terms of octane rating and "use this because it's good for your engine because it's got the unicorn jizz in it!".
    • Yeah since those first 2 replies I actually went and put some 98 in it and tbf it's already doing much better than the 95 (which is weird and makes my inner tinfoil hat wearer think the 95 was a crap batch), getting 8ish around town. Again, wonder if it takes a while to stabilize if the fuel is changed a couple of times. I swear cars used to just either run "well" or "s**t* in my 20s, none of this fuel optimisation business haha 
×
×
  • Create New...