SVX's Real Hp?

SVXMAN2001 · #1 12-20-2002, 11:19 AM

I was just looking at a dyno of SVX Type R's timeslips and it showed the hp only going up to 176, is this what our cars are really putting out? I also recall somewhere else that the actual hp is less than 230, is there any truth to this?
chris

svx6595 · #2 12-20-2002, 12:16 PM

I believe that is the hp at the wheels not at the flywheel. That number is after all of the drivetrain losses.

Larry

SVX10 · #3 12-20-2002, 12:45 PM

ouch...that's a large loss...25%ish. No wonder it's not faster...all that power is lost

wawazat?? · #4 12-20-2002, 01:00 PM

Drive train losses, as a rule of thimb are typically in the 15-25% range. Therefore, if this chart came from a chassis dyno (car on rollers) versus an engine dyno (engine on stand) our 230hp equates to 172.5hp to 195.5hp.

Todd

solarsvx · #5 12-20-2002, 02:34 PM

usually
7-10% on FWD cars
12-15% on RWD cars
20-25% on AWD cars

on dsms its normally 20 % but with automatixs u even loose more going to the wheels

so 176 at the wheels sounds corect . and hp is normally rated at the flywheel/crank.

also depending on height above sea level also and miles on the car if u want to get specific

wawazat?? · #6 12-20-2002, 04:18 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by solarsvx
so 176 at the wheels sounds corect . and hp is normally rated at the flywheel/crank.

also depending on height above sea level also and miles on the car if u want to get specific

They usually correct for ambient conditions solar.

#7 12-20-2002, 05:04 PM

I asked me too all the time, how much max. hp and torque my SVX has.

Our partner garage from http://www.subaruclub.ch has a "motor-power-checker". Sorry, I don't know exact word on english, on german it calls "Motorprüfstand". I think you know what I meen.

It cost around SFr. 120.-- (80$). I think I will do this onetime next year.

Kusi

#8 12-23-2002, 06:20 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by SVXMAN2001
I was just looking at a dyno of SVX Type R's timeslips and it showed the hp only going up to 176, is this what our cars are really putting out? I also recall somewhere else that the actual hp is less than 230, is there any truth to this?
chris

Please be careful with those numbers dude...

Don't know if you or anyone noticed, but those figures are with a Level10 stage 3 (with a high-stall converter) and a cat-back with an admittedly rushed design (by yours truely

). Take them with a grain of salt.

In a bit I'll be taking my #2 girl (totally stock 92') to the same dyno to get a *true* baseline (after I get her to good stage 1 specs).

SVXMAN2001 · #9 12-23-2002, 06:22 AM

any pics of your car yet svxtypeR?

Myxalplyx · #10 12-26-2002, 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by SVXtypeR

Please be careful with those numbers dude...

Don't know if you or anyone noticed, but those figures are with a Level10 stage 3 (with a high-stall converter) and a cat-back with an admittedly rushed design (by yours truely ). Take them with a grain of salt.

In a bit I'll be taking my #2 girl (totally stock 92') to the same dyno to get a *true* baseline (after I get her to good stage 1 specs).

If by chance you ever think of getting rid of this car, can you please PM me? I'd like to get an SVX with a Level 10 tranny already installed possibly.

Please don't let me get a Justy.

Ron Mummert · #11 12-26-2002, 11:16 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by wawazat??
Drive train losses, as a rule of thimb are typically in the 15-25% range. Therefore, if this chart came from a chassis dyno (car on rollers) versus an engine dyno (engine on stand) our 230hp equates to 172.5hp to 195.5hp.

Todd

Excuse me if I've missed a few beats along the way, but I thought back in the mid-seventies an engineering switch was mandated to measure ADVERTISED HP at the driving wheels, & not at the flywheel. Overnight the 300HP GM whatever engine became 190HP etc. depending upon what the vehicle. Please clue me in as to wassup.

Thanks, Ron.

Beav · #12 12-27-2002, 01:36 AM

They switched from gross to net hp ratings. In other words they went from naked engines to ones with manifolds (and maybe even complete exhaust systems), air filter and all accessories mounted and driven.

Ron Mummert · #13 12-27-2002, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally posted by Beav
They switched from gross to net hp ratings. In other words they went from naked engines to ones with manifolds (and maybe even complete exhaust systems), air filter and all accessories mounted and driven.

Ummm...So today's smaller engines are "net" rated, yet attain the HP output of some of the "gross" rated huge displacement engines of the sixties? How'd dey do dat? Cams & revs?
Inquirin' minds - Ron.

Beav · #14 12-27-2002, 09:22 PM

We all knew that the real power was in the heads. Add electronics to multi-valve technology and you get more power per cube with a lot better longevity.

Look for electronics to make things even better. I've read that the NHTSA is calling for widespread implementation of tire pressure monitoring by November, 2003. Here's the part you're gonna love - they want the vehicle disabled if the pressure drops 25% below placard rating. Hmmm... not only are they calling for the widest deviation from spec for any automotive system, but consider that it's a 'safety' system... (I wonder how the Ford/Firestone saga plays into this) I suspect it will soon go the way of the seat belt interlock of the 70's.

p.s. I really think that Detroit started installing some of that 'special' oil and a few well-hidden magnets on the fuel lines to get all that extra power. They just don't want us to know about it. They figure we'd all do the same on our old cars and not ever buy another new car if we knew. There's always a conspiracy theory...