Torque figures

1072 Views 18 Replies 3 Participants Last post by fletch, Mar 26, 2003

fletch

Discussion Starter · Mar 14, 2003

Hi all ive been nosing at the squadra torque fiqures and then started worrying about mine , its quite strange as i went to york expecting 135bhp as car is not spot on but got 165 now i know that it was flywheel and the rollers are diff at everywhere but my torque figures are really crap as my print out says 135lbft . as ive read in the owners book it should be 165 now is it that alwyn has got his torque and bhp figures mixed up or has my car lost a lot of power somewhere ? does anyone with a 1.8 16v have a current torque figure for there car who went to york im quite worried. eek!
thanks for any replies Craig.

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

G

· #2 · Mar 14, 2003

Standard is 140bhp and 165 torque. Bit difficult to say what the true figures are until someone comes up with the equation for working out the "at wheels" figure.

Anyone else?

wrinx

fletch

Discussion Starter · #3 · Mar 14, 2003

sorry wrinx it made 165bhp and 135lbft of torque now in the owners book it says 140 bhp and 165lbft torque strange or what? what sort of torque did you get wrinx?

fletch

Discussion Starter · #4 · Mar 14, 2003

you went and changed it !!

G

· #5 · Mar 14, 2003

my torque figures from kershaws are 145 1bft

in the manual it says i should have 187 Nm EEC

ITS A 2.0 16V standard. are 1bft and Nm the same?
obviously they are both torque figures. just wondering if they are different ways of measuring the same thing?

G

· #6 · Mar 14, 2003

Think Nm and lb ft are very similiar......I think, near enough for me anyway!!!

Sorry Fletch, I re-read and it made sense then

but the results don't

wrinx

fletch

Discussion Starter · #7 · Mar 15, 2003

strange isnt it im assuming they are the same could be wrong though but my peak torque was at 5250 rpm i think as crapy chart does not state and its a bit wrinkled now

anybody else have high bhp low torque from alwyns

G

· #8 · Mar 15, 2003

Mine showed about 165lb ft but looking at what Deano has said that is very different to Nm.........someone help, the conversion website I use doesn't do Nm

wrinx

fletch

Discussion Starter · #9 · Mar 15, 2003

I think ive opened a bag of worms here.

spiros54

· #10 · Mar 15, 2003

According to Haynes the conversion factors are :-
Pounds-force Feet (lbft) x 1.356 = Newton metres (Nm)
Newton metres (Nm) x 0.738 = Pounds-force Feet (lbft)
Hope this helps?

daKlone

· #11 · Mar 15, 2003

As has been mentioned elsewhere before, this whole 'at the flywheel' rubbish is just useless. What difference does it make what the figure 'at the flywheel' is? Ultimately it's only the bit that gets applied to the road (via the wheels and tyres) that does the driving, isn't it? So all you really need is the measurement of torque at the wheels, surely??

I would recommend phoning Alwyn's and just asking them to explain EXACTLY how they arrive at the 'at the flywheel' figure, based on the only thing they can directly measure, the torque at the wheels.

I would certainly be interested in the answer - I've heard lots of different suggestions as to how it's done. wink

daKlone

· #12 · Mar 15, 2003

Darn, hit the 'Back' button and it double-posted!!!

G

· #13 · Mar 15, 2003

Torque figures quoted in road tests for 2 litre 16V engines was 138lb/ft which sounds about the right ball park to me. I would guess the 1.8 is around 125 area.
From what I saw at Kershaws the rolling road gave a graph at the wheels (on the screen) and then put another area(in red) for the power losses on top of that.The combined figure was what they printed off. Never asked where that loss figure came from but they did input a code for each engine type that went on the rollers so I suppose it could have been a theoretical figure, or it could have come from lifting off the throttle maybe as their were some -ve figures coming up as the engines were run down.

fletch

Discussion Starter · #14 · Mar 15, 2003

i really think alwyns should have given both figures for at wheels and flywheel as it may point to running gear probs and such if dramatic loss at wheels . i think i will give them a ring and maybe ask when it was calibrated as at the moment it seems like the rolling road was a waste of time.not having a pop at the garage i should have paid more attention on day and asked more but it seemed there was not enough time with all the cars and limited time.

G

· #15 · Mar 16, 2003

I know its been said already, but roads differ, and I wouldn't worry what Kershaw's did or didn't show. The key thing is that you use the same one every time after making mods so that you can see the difference made. Treat your first session simply as a bench mark.

My Sud has been on one road that showed 145 bhp at the wheels, on another it showed only 105bhp. Realistically we reckon that it has between 20 and 25 bhp more at the flywheel than a standard 1700 8v boxer (which is 118 bhp), hence has about 140bhp at the flywheel.

The guy who built the engine reckons on losing 20 to 25 bhp to the wheels, however this is affected by ambient temperature, and more so tyres. You could put a car on the rolling road on one set of tyres, and get 5 or more bhp either way on a different set. Tyre pressure affects this also. Additionally, engine temperature, my Sud loses 6 bhp at the wheels when at max temperature, so if some of you had your engines running hot while waiting to get on the road, you might have seen less power than someone else who was at 70 or 80 degrees.

Remember that manufacturers will test for and quote figures obtained under optimum conditions. So long as you all had a good time at Kershaws, then don't worry about it.

See less See more

daKlone

· #16 · Mar 16, 2003

I wouldn't say it was nessisarily a waste of time (or money!) Fletch, just that you need a little more information to make sense of what your printout actually means. I don't imagine that Alwyn's would have a problem with explaining the process to you and then you can decide how much use it is.

I would agree with Tim in that if you were going to have it tested again (after further mods, say) then it would be sensible to go back to the same place again (but shouldn't really be compulsory - but that's another story!).

fletch

Discussion Starter · #17 · Mar 16, 2003

i do agree it was not a waste of time as i did get a good idea how engine is delivering power ie a nice power graph with no dips in . i know i should have asked more on day im gonna phone tommorrow to see about how they converted the figures just so i know not to go around saying ive got x amount of bhp or torque just find it interesting. as youve mentioned typing in what car it was when they tested them i also thought straight away my figures were too high and asked them if they had the car down as diff model but he said it made no difference to figures provided, im maybe gonna get it on the rollers more local to me and as you said check again after mods.

G

· #18 · Mar 17, 2003

going back to the origional point... lb/ft is very difff from Nm.

150 Lbs/ft torque is roughly 205 Nm torque

guessing the book might be using Nm in comparison to the RR which usually uses Lbs/ft

mike- correct... most rollers use the 'wind down' of the engine/wheels on the rollers to calculate the power loss through the wheels.

hope this helps

j

fletch

Discussion Starter · #19 · Mar 26, 2003

I did speak to kershaws and he did say 20% roughly for at wheels , he went on to say as mentioned on here that the road is only good for checking after mods have been done and comparing with old readouts . i did ask about how they come up with the figures for at flywheel and he said the computer just does an equation and doesnt measure the car individually .

1 - 19 of 19 Posts

This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.