Jump to content
SAU Community

Recommended Posts

What is the difference between rear wheel KW and Flywheel KW

i mean how do car manufacturers advertise i mean is a GTR 206kw rwkw or flywheel??????

KW at the flywheel are always more than at the rear wheels. The difference depends upon the type of transmission (4x4, Manual, Auto) and its condition the driveline. Many people quote between 20 and 30% loss of power between the flywheel and rear wheels. (Its a guess at the loss as no 2 cars would be exactly the same due to wear and tear)

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/61077-rwkw-vs-flywheel/#findComment-1155541
Share on other sites

This is the most accurate measurement and they are advertising how much power the ENGINE makes.

Not sure it’s any more accurate. In Aust and USA and I am sure they try several new motors and play with the tunning fuel etc to get the highest figure possible to impress the bogans.

I'd love a dollar for every time a Holden owner laughs when I tell then I got 200KW on the dyno, to which they reply "thats nothing the ss commodore has XXXKW". Is it worth my time to explain the difference between the advertised engine figure, the real world figure produced by most cars that leave the factory, and rear wheel KW. Then there is the power to weight aspect as well as handling and power delivery ........

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/61077-rwkw-vs-flywheel/#findComment-1155830
Share on other sites

Well until my car is pushed along by the flywheel directly to the ground I maintain that rwkW is not only the most easily measureable power, but also the most relevant as it is the power available to move your car along the road.

My favorite is people quoting the power to weight ratio of a motorcycle using the dry weight versus the flywheel power. It makes no sense at all.

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/61077-rwkw-vs-flywheel/#findComment-1155997
Share on other sites

I'd love to be able to calculate the difference from the flywheel to the wheels. I'd like to know what 210kw at the wheels is at the fly on a GTT.

Multiply by 1.2

so 210rwKW = 252 fwKW (its close, but if you want to boast multiply by 1.3 and tell your mates you have 273 fwKW.)

Or convert it to horse power and get the big numbers - very popular with advertising gurus and Western Australians :Oops:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/61077-rwkw-vs-flywheel/#findComment-1156040
Share on other sites

What is the difference between rear wheel KW and Flywheel KW

i mean how do car manufacturers advertise i mean is a GTR 206kw rwkw or flywheel??????

does anyone know what the r32 gtr's actually make at the flywheel? when ppl ask me i always say umm.. about 230kw (guess)

so yeh would like to know cos i always thought the 206kw, for all the sports cars in japan was bs

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/61077-rwkw-vs-flywheel/#findComment-1156055
Share on other sites

I don't really believe in the percentage drivetrain loss.

I used too. Until I did some reading and SK brainwashed me.. hahaha.

NOW.. I tend to believe that there is a fixed drivetrain loss (approx 55rwkw) + a very very small percentage loss as power increases. I have no idea what this percentage is but there has to be a very small percentage as when you increase load you also increase the friction upon the gears and bearings which is then transfered in to heat.

As a rough guide I tend to believe 55-60rwkw is around the mark, should it be a 500hp motor or a 300hp motor.

373kw is around 500hp... The place that worked on my head said they had a motor on the engine dyno making a solid 500hp. On a Dyno Dynamic dyno it made 317rwkw. This supports the fixed ~55-60rwkw drive trainloss.

Then you think about a stock R32 RB20DET.

160fwkw - 55kw = 105rwkw, mine made 110rwkw & 115rwkw on 2 different dyno's.

R33 Stock 187fwkw - 55kw = 132rwkw.

And the LS1 220kw 5.7ltr makes around 165rwkw.

The loss appears to be pretty much the same for most manual cars.

Its around the mark. :cheers:

Link to comment
https://www.sau.com.au/forums/topic/61077-rwkw-vs-flywheel/#findComment-1156150
Share on other sites

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

    • First up, I wouldn't use PID straight up for boost control. There's also other control techniques that can be implemented. And as I said, and you keep missing the point. It's not the ONE thing, it's the wrapping it up together with everything else in the one system that starts to unravel the problem. It's why there are people who can work in a certain field as a generalist, IE a IT person, and then there are specialists. IE, an SQL database specialist. Sure the IT person can build and run a database, and it'll work, however theyll likely never be as good as a specialist.   So, as said, it's not as simple as you're thinking. And yes, there's a limit to the number of everything's in MCUs, and they run out far to freaking fast when you're designing a complex system, which means you have to make compromises. Add to that, you'll have a limited team working on it, so fixing / tweaking some features means some features are a higher priority than others. Add to that, someone might fix a problem around a certain unrelated feature, and that change due to other complexities in the system design, can now cause a new, unforseen bug in something else.   The whole thing is, as said, sometimes split systems can work as good, and if not better. Plus when there's no need to spend $4k on an all in one solution, to meet the needs of a $200 system, maybe don't just spout off things others have said / you've read. There's a lot of misinformation on the internet, including in translated service manuals, and data sheets. Going and doing, so that you know, is better than stating something you read. Stating something that has been read, is about as useful as an engineering graduate, as all they know is what they've read. And trust me, nearly every engineering graduate is useless in the real world. And add to that, if you don't know this stuff, and just have an opinion, maybe accept what people with experience are telling you as information, and don't keep reciting the exact same thing over and over in response.
    • How complicated is PID boost control? To me it really doesn't seem that difficult. I'm not disputing the core assertion (specialization can be better than general purpose solutions), I'm just saying we're 30+ years removed from the days when transistor budgets were in the thousands and we had to hem and haw about whether there's enough ECC DRAM or enough clock cycles or the interrupt handler can respond fast enough to handle another task. I really struggle to see how a Greddy Profec or an HKS EVC7 or whatever else is somehow a far superior solution to what you get in a Haltech Nexus/Elite ECU. I don't see OEMs spending time on dedicated boost control modules in any car I've ever touched. Is there value to separating out a motor controller or engine controller vs an infotainment module? Of course, those are two completely different tasks with highly divergent requirements. The reason why I cite data sheets, service manuals, etc is because as you have clearly suggested I don't know what I'm doing, can't learn how to do anything correctly, and have never actually done anything myself. So when I do offer advice to people I like to use sources that are not just based off of taking my word for it and can be independently verified by others so it's not just my misinterpretation of a primary source.
    • That's awesome, well done! Love all these older Datsun / Nissans so rare now
    • As I said, there's trade offs to jamming EVERYTHING in. Timing, resources etc, being the huge ones. Calling out the factory ECU has nothing to do with it, as it doesn't do any form of fancy boost control. It's all open loop boost control. You mention the Haltech Nexus, that's effectively two separate devices jammed into one box. What you quote about it, is proof for that. So now you've lost flexibility as a product too...   A product designed to do one thing really well, will always beat other products doing multiple things. Also, I wouldn't knock COTS stuff, you'd be surprised how many things are using it, that you're probably totally in love with As for the SpaceX comment that we're working directly with them, it's about the type of stuff we're doing. We're doing design work, and breaking world firsts. If you can't understand that I have real world hands on experience, including in very modern tech, and actually understand this stuff, then to avoid useless debates where you just won't accept fact and experience, from here on, it seems you'd be be happy I (and possibly anyone with knowledge really) not reply to your questions, or input, no matter how much help you could be given to help you, or let you learn. It seems you're happy reading your data sheets, factory service manuals, and only want people to reinforce your thoughts and points of view. 
    • I don't really understand because clearly it's possible. The factory ECU is running on like a 4 MHz 16-bit processor. Modern GDI ECUs have like 200 MHz superscalar cores with floating point units too. The Haltech Nexus has two 240 MHz CPU cores. The Elite 2500 is a single 80 MHz core. Surely 20x the compute means adding some PID boost control logic isn't that complicated. I'm not saying clock speed is everything, but the requirements to add boost control to a port injection 6 cylinder ECU are really not that difficult. More I/O, more interrupt handlers, more working memory, etc isn't that crazy to figure out. SpaceX if anything shows just how far you can get arguably doing things the "wrong" way, ie x86 COTS running C++ on Linux. That is about as far away from the "correct" architecture as it gets for a real time system, but it works anyways. 
×
×
  • Create New...