Home
What's new
Latest activity
Authors
Store
Latest reviews
Search products
Forums
New posts
Search forums
What's new
New posts
New listings
New products
New profile posts
Latest activity
Members
Current visitors
New profile posts
Search profile posts
Log in
Register
Cart
Cart
Loading…
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
New posts
Search forums
Search titles only
By:
Menu
Log in
Register
Navigation
Install the app
Install
More options
Change style
Contact us
Close Menu
Forums
Cobra Forums
2020+ Shelby GT500 Mustang
Demon on the Loose...
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="tt335ci03cobra" data-source="post: 15656250" data-attributes="member: 68944"><p>4 cam, using so many numbers was very (unintentionally) overly simplifying my point. I was using numbers to draw correlations. The only absolute in any of that is relative constant of torque needed to actually spin the transmission. It's just coincidence that the v6 camaro and gt350 seem to lose almost the exact same power while using the same transmission.</p><p></p><p>You say I failed to mention it, but I did, regarding externalities. I stated that wheel weight, tire height, rear gear, driveshaft weight/length, etc all play into it. I think I used the exact phrasing of wheel/tire weight and height, drivetrain layout, etc etc all take up 1wtq here and 2wtq there. I didn't get very specific though. </p><p></p><p>I supplied the idea in what I thought was pretty general but example rich ways to paint a broad picture. I also said guestimations about an na mod mill spun by a tr6060 to 7k vs a big block roots car spinning 4500 with a munch as an apples vs girrafs comparison because there simply are so many variables that play into it all. </p><p></p><p>The underlying premise is that the transmission itself requires a certain amount of torque to be spinning at xyz rpm. The remaining torque that will be lost will be directly affected by the remaining factors, much like engine hp is directly related to what accessories are in play on the accessory system, their pulleys, what amount of heat sink or blower slip is present, how well the compression ratio plays with the combustion chambers, how port velocity impedes flow, what exhaust tubing limits or optimizes scavenging, how accurately the spark distribution is working, how the atomization of fuel is forming, on and on and on and on.</p><p></p><p>I'm a realist, not a scientist or even an engineer. But the general concept that 15% is the loss seems ridiculous to me because every person with a 700whp car claims to have 805 crank hp. And every guy with 1000whp says it's an 1150hp engine...</p><p></p><p>If the car makes has a 1000tq capable drivetrain/trans and a nice trans cooler, and makes 500whp on 5psi and red lines/fuel cuts at 7500rpm, losing let's say 75tq to do so, taking that car to 10psi and making let's say 750whp should not mean that the car loses an addition 37tq in my honest opinion. Let's say this is all generalized example. Yes I'm using numbers to state the idea, but I'm not saying these numbers are stone or iron clad, I'm just painting the idea with realistic numeric examples. </p><p></p><p>Thermal stress/deflection might mean the 750whp pull is experience 1-2% deflection, let's say an addition 3-5tq, sure I can get behind that, but assuming trans temp is the exact same, I'd need to see an analysis of what physical strain and deflection the transmission experiences as the force gets closer and closer to the rated tolerance. The tq capacity rating criteria would also come into play, as would environmental ambiance and so many variables. My point is just as power increases, tq loss to drive the system doesn't necessarily remain the percentage of loss at let's say 700wtq that it was at 500wtq in the exact same car or very similar car.</p><p></p><p>****, I'm bored of this. I'm going to sleep.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="tt335ci03cobra, post: 15656250, member: 68944"] 4 cam, using so many numbers was very (unintentionally) overly simplifying my point. I was using numbers to draw correlations. The only absolute in any of that is relative constant of torque needed to actually spin the transmission. It's just coincidence that the v6 camaro and gt350 seem to lose almost the exact same power while using the same transmission. You say I failed to mention it, but I did, regarding externalities. I stated that wheel weight, tire height, rear gear, driveshaft weight/length, etc all play into it. I think I used the exact phrasing of wheel/tire weight and height, drivetrain layout, etc etc all take up 1wtq here and 2wtq there. I didn't get very specific though. I supplied the idea in what I thought was pretty general but example rich ways to paint a broad picture. I also said guestimations about an na mod mill spun by a tr6060 to 7k vs a big block roots car spinning 4500 with a munch as an apples vs girrafs comparison because there simply are so many variables that play into it all. The underlying premise is that the transmission itself requires a certain amount of torque to be spinning at xyz rpm. The remaining torque that will be lost will be directly affected by the remaining factors, much like engine hp is directly related to what accessories are in play on the accessory system, their pulleys, what amount of heat sink or blower slip is present, how well the compression ratio plays with the combustion chambers, how port velocity impedes flow, what exhaust tubing limits or optimizes scavenging, how accurately the spark distribution is working, how the atomization of fuel is forming, on and on and on and on. I'm a realist, not a scientist or even an engineer. But the general concept that 15% is the loss seems ridiculous to me because every person with a 700whp car claims to have 805 crank hp. And every guy with 1000whp says it's an 1150hp engine... If the car makes has a 1000tq capable drivetrain/trans and a nice trans cooler, and makes 500whp on 5psi and red lines/fuel cuts at 7500rpm, losing let's say 75tq to do so, taking that car to 10psi and making let's say 750whp should not mean that the car loses an addition 37tq in my honest opinion. Let's say this is all generalized example. Yes I'm using numbers to state the idea, but I'm not saying these numbers are stone or iron clad, I'm just painting the idea with realistic numeric examples. Thermal stress/deflection might mean the 750whp pull is experience 1-2% deflection, let's say an addition 3-5tq, sure I can get behind that, but assuming trans temp is the exact same, I'd need to see an analysis of what physical strain and deflection the transmission experiences as the force gets closer and closer to the rated tolerance. The tq capacity rating criteria would also come into play, as would environmental ambiance and so many variables. My point is just as power increases, tq loss to drive the system doesn't necessarily remain the percentage of loss at let's say 700wtq that it was at 500wtq in the exact same car or very similar car. ****, I'm bored of this. I'm going to sleep. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Forums
Cobra Forums
2020+ Shelby GT500 Mustang
Demon on the Loose...
Top