went on rolling road and had a surprise

[copen 660 turbo]

i took my car on a rolling road was very surprised my car is 68 bhp at standard, my car is standard i got 83 bhp and that works out 125bhp per litre

>>> Edited by copen 660 turbo on Sunday 7th November 15:46

[vixpy1]

copen 660 turbo said:

i took my car on a rooling road

Should have given me a call mate

[copen 660 turbo]

it was bought from a main dealer ,the guys at the rolling road were very impressed by the lack of lag and the torque comes in at 3000 to 3500 rpm.they are used to tuning evos and scoobies,they were amazed by the copen

[tuttle]

They're great looking little cars-so tiny,& pretty economical too
Bet its great to chuck about on twisty country roads etc I'd be interested to know how is it on uneven/bad surfaces? & long runs/motorway stuff-y'know the usual nosey motoring banter.I've no idea what the power/performance should be for them,but I expect it could be tweaked a fair bit.

[Mr E]

What was the power figure at the wheels mate?

Anything else is guesswork at best, and made up rubbish at worse.....

[copen 660 turbo]

i have had nearly 3 months been on couple of journeys which have been over 130 miles each way and it is no worse than my old car a mk1 clio 172.for handling it excellent in the dry and wet it really grips it has some very trick Bridgestone tyres.the suspension quite hard and you have to be wary of the potholes.with roof down you get bit shuttle shake but it is not annoying.it has has airconditioning,heated leather seats and airbags and abs but no traction control. i am 6 ft 2 and fit in well but if you have back problems it can be fun getting in.i use everyday i get 32-36 mpg when good with right foot but if i really use the right foot i get 29-31 mpg.it is great in town and on country roads it can really compete with much more powerful cars

>> Edited by copen 660 turbo on Monday 8th November 16:11

[copen 660 turbo]

What was the power figure at the wheels mate?


I am not sure because i was overjoyed with the flywheel figure


>> Edited by copen 660 turbo on Monday 8th November 16:15

>> Edited by copen 660 turbo on Monday 8th November 16:15

[billynomates]

copen 660 turbo said:

on country roads it can really compete with much more powerful cars >> Edited by copen 660 turbo on Monday 8th November 16:11

No it doesnt --it just gets in the bloody way

Seriously--I was surprised how nippy your little bug was

Phil

[Mr E]

copen 660 turbo said:

I am not sure because i was overjoyed with the flywheel figure

You're aware of course that a RR cannot give you an accurate flywheel figure at all. They get a figure at the wheels, and then add a chunk to make you feel happy.

[vixpy1]

Mr E said:

copen 660 turbo said: I am not sure because i was overjoyed with the flywheel figure You're aware of course that a RR cannot give you an accurate flywheel figure at all. They get a figure at the wheels, and then add a chunk to make you feel happy.

Not stictly true, the coast down method should give a good approximation, but is open to serious abuse. We don't do the coast down unless specificaly asked by the customer to do so. We use a special mode which has calculated transmission losses, It seems to give more accurate results, and can't be fudged. I would agree, however that just taking the Wheel horse power fig is the most accurate.

[copen 660 turbo]

i know what you are saying but they had various cars which went on the road different makes and which were standard they came out with figures very close to spec bhp or very close,and there were some unhappy ones i.e one very unhappy highly modded clio 182 which was delivering 172 not 182bhp

[Mr E]

vixpy1 said:

Not stictly true, the coast down method should give a good approximation, but is open to serious abuse. We don't do the coast down unless specificaly asked by the customer to do so. We use a special mode which has calculated transmission losses, It seems to give more accurate results, and can't be fudged. I would agree, however that just taking the Wheel horse power fig is the most accurate.

But a coast down is still an approximation. So you have a car dyno'd at 2 different places, and get 2 different numbers......

I've also seen people stick artifically high air temps in and then adjust for that, leading to better looking power figures.....

You know all the tricks.

I'd insist on WHP. Which is a shame, as the transmission losses on a GT4 are legendary.

copen 660 turbo said:

i know what you are saying but they had various cars which went on the road different makes and which were standard they came out with figures very close to spec bhp or very close,and there were some unhappy ones i.e one very unhappy highly modded clio 182 which was delivering 172 not 182bhp

Happens rather more than you'd imagine. I've seen a fair few badly modified cars get really terrible numbers, simply because they weren't fuelling right....

[vixpy1]

Mr E said:

But a coast down is still an approximation. So you have a car dyno'd at 2 different places, and get 2 different numbers...... I've also seen people stick artifically high air temps in and then adjust for that, leading to better looking power figures..... You know all the tricks.

Correct Mr E, which is why if people do ask, we use the standard computer figs, at least if you go to another Dyno Dynamics Dyno you will get the same tranny losses.

You would'nt believe the stories i've heard of people fiddleing power figs to please customers!!

[Mr E]

Usually on the 'after' run following a lot of money spent tuning the thing......

You have a 4wd dyno there?

[Pulsatingstar]

vixpy1 said:

Correct Mr E, which is why if people do ask, we use the standard computer figs, at least if you go to another Dyno Dynamics Dyno you will get the same tranny losses. You would'nt believe the stories i've heard of people fiddleing power figs to please customers!!

So you using Dyno Dynamics then. Thats intersting as I have figures from one of them so could use your as a future comparison.

Where abouts is it?

Ahh I see now, profiles are handy eh! Whats the Scoob putting out? Last time the FD was run it was about 285 at the wheels IIRC.


>> Edited by Pulsatingstar on Tuesday 9th November 10:52

>> Edited by Pulsatingstar on Tuesday 9th November 10:54

[Mr E]

Pulsatingstar said:

Ahh I see now, profiles are handy eh! Whats the Scoob putting out? Last time the FD was run it was about 285 at the wheels IIRC.

Yikes. Good numbers.

If I'm getting 200 to the wheels, I'm well happy.

[vixpy1]

Ironically i have'nt got the wheel horsepower fig t handfor the scooby, we guesstimated the flywheel power to be 284bhp.

[tuttle]

20-25% inc tyre/roller/friction losses is fairly good 'rule of thumb' to apply to most cars,iirc.Unless you have all the numbers & weigh the car etc,there will always be some error unfortunately.
I believe the hub(wheels off) type dynos-such as used by Thor Tuning etc-are supposed to be the most accurate.

[vixpy1]

tuttle said:

I believe the hub(wheels off) type dynos-such as used by Thor Tuning etc-are supposed to be the most accurate.

But do you drive your car on the hubs?

errr.. no.

[vixpy1]

Gazboy said:

iirc, G-Force have the manufactorers tranny losses, and add them to the wheel figures I think.

we have a set of transmission losses we can apply to whp figs, we have the same road as G-force too!