Erland Cox

Hi Spyros! What kind of cooling system do you use on the gearbox and the diffs?

Erland

03whitegsr

iTrader: (8)

A couple questions on these pieces.

Do they change the stock geometry?
Still use the wheel speed sensors and OEM hub bearings?
Radial Mount caliper option?
Adjustable bumpsteer?

tim radley

See seriously, this BS is getting out of hand. 20-25% on a hub dyno??? Someone needs to put the crack pipe down. Each wheel/tyre will be around 15-25 bhp loss dependant on weight. Spyros are you trying to say that with the wheels removed you have a 25% power loss from the transmission and inertia of the discs? 400bhp is 17,000 BTU in a minute or almost 300KW. Now call me stupid if you like but if i sit in front of a 3KW electric heater for 1 minute i get very hot, you are talking about 100 times that power here. How about we analyse that another way. You run the car on the dyno for 1 minute on the hub dyno. It losing 400bhp through the transmission because you already account for engine thermodynamics in the FWHP number you quote. So lets imagine a 400bhp EVO engine being run on an engine dyno for 1 minute with no cooling circuit at all just oil in the sump like your transmission. After one minute of dyno time please go put your hand on your evo gearbox now go touch the 400bhp engine on the engine dyno with your bare hand. Are they both the same temperature???? Does your transmission really get as hot as the evo engine in that minute? If so how do you sit in the car it must be like an oven, perhaps you should turn it in to a convertible? As others just said, what kind of cooling circuit does your transmission require? Many people need to stop with this percentage loss as it absolutely is not the case its just throwing more inflation on the dyno number pile ......

Sorry one more question. I was reading back to some earlier posts from 2 years ago where you said a lot of these parts would be tested and on the market very soon. There is one post caught my attention. https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/8423709-post161.html The large body rods in the photo, what evo application are they? 2 years on now, can i buy these rods from you now that they are ready and tested?

kelesha

No, seems you ran such programs for first time, or you choice to share results from most optimistic ones. The car with 3240lb weight need to have at least 1000hp engine to reach 155mhp. Try Geoffrey Fox's calculator to see it. This calculator is very realistic for street cars driven on non specially prepaired tracks.....

About 20-25% AWD drivetrain loss on DynaPack i think its not correct too, even half of that loss is optimistic.......

Extreme Tuners

detroit pistins: Fp black 550whp (690hp) at 37psi to varous efficiency 4g63 and 4b11 engines with stock 100oct fuel. With VpQ16 570whp (710hp) at 39psi on 4g63 and 4b11 again. We expected more than 710hp as the compressor wheel was rated to 68lbs/min.


evodan2004, if u read carefully u will see that the whp of this car with the weight match.


tim radley: from our dyno numbers
Stock evo 8 : 227whp / 283hp = 25%
Stock evo9 : 231whp / 288hp = 25%
Stock evo X : 235whp / 294 hp = 25%

With ur calculations then stock evo 8 = 242 0r 252 etc. to the next models then u can make a complaint to mitsubishi and ask to give ur money back. Then try to poove it with 3KW electric heater u use.

Learn something losses are not steady value as u write, just use ur mind and thin what i will tell u before any science: As u tell me that its steady value of 15-25hp steady losses the mitsubishi then when we place a mitubishi car on a rollling chasis dyno and just place in it an 25hp engine instead of 290hp engine and leave same trasmition - wheels etc. then with ur thoughts and claims the rollers from the dyno must not move as the 25hp losses will absorve from the trasmition, so this time when i ask u Tim what is the power of the engine u place to my evo u told me 25hp u will tell me that the engine u place me was 0 hp because the rollers even move? Come on stop be a hatter any more i am getting tired. I thought i respond to a person that knows and u try to find anything to doubt.
The moving frictional-heat losses i can explain it more profesional if u wanted realy to know how works. Sorry i will not answer to any post of u again as u might anderstand, all ur posts are trying to doubt my claims, and i am not here for this sorry.

As from the rods are 2 years old, we have test them and use them ofcourse. U can buy them to sales@extreme-tuners.com





Spyros

Extreme Tuners

All the trap speed calculators are rated to whp, try to read carefully the instructions before use them. And correct ~980-1000whp with this achieve 158mph with our weight.

akauf

iTrader: (3)

frictional loss through a drivetrain does not grow linearly.

Your not here to have your claims doubted??

That wouldn't be a problem if you were here to prove your claims... Tim hasn't asked or said anything out of line and has even thoroughly explained his rational.

tim radley

Ah ok. I think its better to explain to rods to the other readers here who missed the details.

You said on Post #140
We use 13:1cr gasketless, to a destroked 85mm x 85mm stroke combo.
2.07 ratio capable of 12.500rpms.
Yes it's Evo ix engine, we get rid the mivec. And we use drysump for these kind of rpms with custom design crank.

More details about pistons tomorow.

Your rod in the picture is shorter than the stock evo rod it is next to. A 2.07 rod ratio at a destroked 85mm would be over 175mm long. It is more like a 65mm stroke engine that rod belongs to...... Also that rod would never clear an evo block at the bottom of the bore. How much of the block did you have to machine? Did it not break through?

Thankyou for continuing to educate idiots like myself with your thread, i almost feel like i should send you some money for your time.

tim radley

You are getting tired? What as tired as the rest of us are getting reading your lies?

Sorry perhaps you have something stuck in your eyes as you did not read what i wrote, not the other way around. I said 15-25bhp per wheel/tyre not for 4 wheels. An evo on a dyno that measures coastdown losses is in the region of 80-90bhp loss. I have a chassis dyno and an engine dyno and i am fully aware of the losses and i am not here to hate you just write some posts that do not add up.

The losses are not linear and not scaled to flywheel power. The roller weight is the same whether it is a 100bhp car or a 2000bhp car. The wheel weight is the same if you run your stock 280bhp evo then put at 2000bhp engine in later that day. So how can a dyno claim for 227whp/283fwhp (56bhp loss) suddenly turn into 400bhp loss at 1600bhp? You are saying that an additional 344bhp of loss has come through the transmission from putting the more powerful engine in? We know the masses and MOI are the same for all mechanical parts. So you get 344bhp more loss in friction then yes or is it somewhere else? 256KW more frictional loss in drivetrain (not wheels, not tyres, not rollers with a controlled ramp rate) because of engine bhp increase? That 256KW needs to be rejected somewhere, you tell me where it has gone. Please show the science in that.

Your 1600bhp build isn't making 1600bhp. It isn't making 1400bhp, its making 1330-something on your dyno. Your youtube video is saying ~1200 with low boost so that must now mean more like 1120 at flywheel. Why low boost on that video if it can do more and you are now chasing even higher numbers? With your 25% made up loss, that is more like 840WHP which with your bad chassis setup/bad driver (whichever is at fault causing the hop and bad launch) puts you about level with the other people running those speeds and times. 840bhp is not 1400bhp nor 1600bhp. But other people reading this and looking at your videos maybe don't understand the science so perhaps they trust what you say too easily. They see big turbo's and shiney parts - DLC cams in post #146 those are not evo cams so i say that is

I think everything i question is 100% ON TOPIC. Sorry you disagree. In my country lying about your product can result in your business being shut down or lawsuit, maybe Greece is different.....

supersnow

iTrader: (6)

losses are not linear BUT they are not static either.....the 25bhp per wheel for all set-ups is as false as the 25% losses claim. A 1500BHP engine will not put down 1400WHP on a AWD platform. The more powerful the engine, the greater the thrust force and angular acceleration it's able to exert on the drivetrain, generating even more friction and heat in the process....HEAT is where those 100s of ponies go. Without knowledge on the drivetrain set up....there is no way to know how those BHP translate to WHP....all I know is way more than 100WHP but less than 25%.

However, if a shop hopes to gain customers (why else posting in this site?)......pictures and BHP claims will not be enough. More information, transparency and a actual catalog would be nice.

tim radley

Great input here guys keep it coming.

ant@indigo-gt

An Evo may well loose 25% of its power at stock HP as the rotating mass of the tranmission will have a requirement of horse power to accelerate the parts.

This is not to say the when the power is increased the the transmission losses wil increase in a linear fashion, far from it.

The losses through the transmission will stay fairly constant as the parts will have remained the same.

Saying a 500bhp car loses more power through the transmission than a 300bhp car is nonsense as the parts are the same and the frictional losses will be minimal.

tim radley

That would agree with what Spyros said about the stock car losing 56bhp, that's actually 14bhp per wheel which is at the bottom end of what i said about 15-25bhp. 25bhp being a racecar with larger wheels, heavy slicks and slightly increased transmission losses.

myMini

Hi all,

see below for definition's taken from Wiki:

Start quote:
The elementary properties of sliding (kinetic) friction were discovered by experiment in the 15th to 18th centuries and were expressed as three empirical laws:

• Amontons' First Law: The force of friction is directly proportional to the applied load.
• Amontons' Second Law: The force of friction is independent of the apparent area of contact.
• Coulomb's Law of Friction: Kinetic friction is independent of the sliding velocity.

Amontons' 2nd Law is an idealization assuming perfectly rigid and inelastic materials. For example, wider tires on cars provide more traction than narrow tires for a given vehicle mass because of surface deformation of the tire.
End quote:

and on Lubricated friction:

Start quote:
Lubricated friction is a case of fluid friction where a fluid separates two solid surfaces. Lubrication is a technique employed to reduce wear of one or both surfaces in close proximity moving relative to each another by interposing a substance called a lubricant between the surfaces.
In most cases the applied load is carried by pressure generated within the fluid due to the frictional viscous resistance to motion of the lubricating fluid between the surfaces. Adequate lubrication allows smooth continuous operation of equipment, with only mild wear, and without excessive stresses or seizures at bearings. When lubrication breaks down, metal or other components can rub destructively over each other, causing heat and possibly damage or failure.
End quote:

So, more applied load generates more pressure/friction. That's how I learned it.

So what does more pressure/friction result in?
Heat would be one thing.
Is heat signaling that we are loosing power?
If heat is increasing that means that we are applying more load/power to what ever thingy is getting hotter. This would be true either it's a mechanical part or current (amp's) through a load on a voltage supply (a resistor getting hotter means more current is flowing).

So, can we still say that the losses in a drive train are the same no matter what HP the engine is producing?

Quote from a post here (and my reason for writing this post):
Saying a 500bhp car loses more power through the transmission than a 300bhp car is nonsense

Is this statement true? If so, what is the definition for proofing it?
It would mean that the increased friction/pressure would not affect anything, or?

It would be really interesting to see your answers (with proof backing it up please), I'm always on the lookout to learn more.

Sorry for being a bit of topic, but I couldn't help myself when I saw that statement I quoted above.

More HP to the people!
/M

kelesha

No, they are not.....

"hp" is the peak engine horsepower output at the clutch (net power)


That losses calculation is not correct. 227whp with 283fhp are 20% losses not 25%. You have engine with 283hp on flywheel and if you say losses are 25% then on wheels you need to have 283-25%=212.25, but you have 227whp so calculation is 283-20%=226.4
When you calculate losses you need to follow power vector i.e from engine to wheels and not opposite way.

Correct calculation formula is flywheel power = wheel power / X

where
X = 0.90 for 10% loss
0.85 for 15% loss
0.80 for 20% loss
0.75 for 25% loss
............

Anyway when we talk about Dynapack dyno then "wheel power" is not correct to say, we can say "hubs power" because we havent wheels on the car when we meassure it on Dynapack and there are not friction losses between tyres and rollers. You know that car meassured on Dynapack will show lower wheel power if we put it on every rolling road dyno