Thread: 230hp VE, its so easy!

thats why i said what i said...

whp can change from day to day. increased tyre pressures mean less contact on the rollers, meaning less drag, meaning higher whp figure. poor tracking, camber, sticking caliper, unbalanced wheels and driveshafts all effect whp figures. engine power is engine shown as bhp/ps imo, show via the dyno run down.

let me know when a manufacture regularly quotes whp over bhp/ps

wheel horsepower is where its @.. i want to know how much of that crank/bhp is actually making it to the ground. thats just me tho

Very true, import tuner did an article on whp and tire pressures. Tire pressure at 32psi vs 20psi and the difference was i believe 5 or 6whp on a stock integra gsr. Then they tested it at the 1/4 mile and the trap speed was 1.5mph or so slower at 20psi but because the added traction they gained .4 in the 1/4 vs tires at 32 psi. So its true, a lot of factors can affect whp.

exactly ^ whp can change from day to day.

2 guys *or girls, same car, same age, same mods, same wheels and tuning. engines make 200bhp +/- 5bhp on the same rolling road on the same day. one has 180whp and the other 170whp??? the 170whp had a sticking brake caliper is all. the following weekend this was sorted and the whp is now within a few hp of the other car. had they not done the runs together the figure of 170whp might have been accepted or opt'd for more tuning and more $$$ spent. stick in 50psi if you wanna win the whp cup.

imho whp can go jump compared to bhp/ps ie the power the engine is making regardless. yes bhp is a derivative of whp however the losses are taken into account.

whp can go jump compared to bhp.................but bhp is a derivative of whp??!!!!

lol erm nice logic - you just totally iundermined your whole argument for bhp over whp cos one comes from the other. And all the losses like tyre pressure etc are not taken into account at all, how could tthey be

engine dyno ftw........if you're all about the bench racing.

alternatively, screw dynos other than for tuning

Again, why are you bragging about making 196 brake hp when a stock 2.0 VE makes 190 bhp, 20V: 200 bhp, and the tiny 1.6 N1 makes 200 bhp.

We wouldn't be talking ALLMTRB13 # if it was in brake/flywheel hp. Making 232 at the crank is no big deal. A lot of people have done it, but 232 whp for a 2.0 is a big achievement and hence the controversy.





What exactly is your point? Are you trying to say since your #s are in bhp that they more accurate than whp?

I got news for you .They are not.

Think for one moment. You did not dyno your engine on an engine dyno. Your engine was not ran outside of the car. Instead, you drove up to some rollers, strapped down, and ran through the gears like everybody else here, and guess what? You were on a chassis dyno. The chassis dyno measures whp and wtrq. The chassis dyno spits out whp figures and to get brake hp figure it has to do some more rough calculation like driveline losses, wheel weight, tire weight, gear oil viscosity, and so on.





You just shot yourself in the foot, contradicting your previous post. Stay in school.

every engine has different losses. There are Frictional, mechanical and thermal losses associated with any engine. These will also change for the same engine depending on how worn out it is. So if you dyno'd your car on a chassis dyno and it converted it too engine hp and you are saying it will be more accurate than whp. You are wrong. Simple.
As said the losses are assumed to convert back to an approximate engine hp.
Pretty simple really.

On a slightly related note.
Man threads get off topic with big arguements on this forum haha

nice numbers either way.. like said above, 232 is very good for a 2.0

i got a couple printers want one to print that graph out?