Listen, this is the exact reason I'm calling you a half-wit, I gave you the reason why I said what I said about GRWHP, I repeated myself more than a few times, I even hinted at it later on (even here) yet here you go again...

Just let it go, as I said read my previous posts regarding 1969 vs 1972 and maybe just maybe a hint of understanding will flow over you, but I doubt it. Since you're incapable of letting go, I'll do it, good bye.:banghead:

 

GRWHP?

ROTFL

Who runs their car with no alternator, no other engine accessories, no fan (they were driven by the engine back then), no air cleaner and no exhaust system under IDEAL atmospheric conditions?

This "350 HP" 396 only made 288 HP @ the flywheel with NO MUFFLERS or PIPES! That's ~ 245 RWHP - with NO mufflers or pipes...

 

What the hell are you talking about? Do you know what grwhp is? Or are you just making this up as you go along??

 

http://www-unix.oit.umass.edu/~tcroy/horsepower.htm

NET HP VS GROSS HP:
Contrary to what many will tell you, Gross and Net Power are BOTH measured at the flywheel! Gross is atmospherically corrected to dry air, 59 F, and sea level; Net is corrected to 32% humidity, 77 F, sea level. There's a 3% difference right there in power quotes. Many people argue that there's no place on earth with totally dry air at sea level so I applaud the Net correction made in 1972. If your dyno tests were done at elevation and temps other than this, then they need to be corrected to NET conditions. Check to see if the dyno shop already has done so and see what conditions they correct to. Everyone likes big numbers, so lots of 59 degree days are still used.

The biggest difference between Net and Gross is the accessories that are omitted for Gross testing. Net is measured with full exhaust system, full intake system, v-belts on, mechanical fan on, all accessories installed but not operating (ie a/c). We should all compare Net power because it provides direct comparison with all production vehicles since 1972. The Gross stuff in pre '72 generally is around 25% higher but that number really varies... it depends heavily on the test engineer's methods; some would leave on the fan and water pump, others would remove them and use an electric motor, some would use stock cast iron manifolds, some would use open headers, etc.. Most everyone would run very good gas and tweak the distributor at each rpm point to find a max - even though that might not represent the factory ignition curve. You get the picture.

WHEEL HP:
Now let's discuss "Wheel" HP. Additional losses occur between the flywheel and the tire, primarily from losses in the transmission and differential. The difference between Net and Wheel power should only be around 3% (stick shift) to 8% (automatic). But because most dynos utilize rapid acceleration to determine power, the inertial requirements push this up to universally accepted numbers of 15% to 20%. Here are the details:

TRANSMISSION AND DRIVESHAFT:
We typically find a 1.5% power loss in the 'gear section' of the trans and driveshaft (i.e., a stick shift or the non-converter section of an automatic). A torque converter's losses depend on the slip ratio, but up near the power peak well over stall speed for this argument, the slip ratios usually result in a power loss of around 4% to 5% for a stock converter. If you have a lock-up converter that is locked during the test, that's a 0% loss.

DIFFERENTIAL:
Also around 1.5% power loss.

INERTIAL REQUIREMENTS:
OK, so far we've accounted for a 3% (stick) to 8% (auto) power loss from "Net" to rear wheel. The other loss (that is incorrectly labeled 'inefficiency') is the inertial power requirements of accelerating all the rotating hardware in the system during the test; crank, flywheel, converter, even the two drive wheels.. etc. If the test could be done at a zero rpm per second accel (like on a hill, or like the factories test for Net!) then there would be 0% loss here. But the whole concept of an inertia dyno is to accelerate a known inertia (the drum) and calculate what power is required to do so. The guys at DynoJet simply do not add on the extra inertia of your wheels, axles, driveshaft, trans parts or crank-related hardware because they vary on every vehicle, and they don't want to mess with it... so they get a lower number. I've done lots of work in this area and turn all of these extra inertias into "pounds" and just add it to the vehicle weight with very good results. When testing on a DynoJet, of course, the gear ratios and all come into play, but as long as the test isn't in low gear, this 'extra mass' is commonly in the 7% to 15% range. This gives us the "15 to 20%" rule mentioned by others.

[color-blue]BOTTOM LINE:
Unless you want to do the specific inertial math, I tend to use 82.5% for automatic cars with stock converters and 86.5% for stick shift cars or automatics that were tested with the converter locked up. Thus a manual-trans car that was rated around "265 Gross HP" previous to 1972 would have been rated "200 Net HP" after that change, and would typically see a peak of 170 to 175 "at the wheels" on an inertial dyno.[/color]

 

Norse...why do you entertain this dumbass? It's obvious he's clueless.

 

Yes, I'm well aware of these facts. But you have not dealt with the fact that the TL started XXX feet in front of the Corvette, and it takes XXX feet to make that up, even if the other car is accelerating much faster. That is the entire point of the original post (in case you have forgotten, the original post had nothing to do with how much horsepower an aluminum block puts out compared to iron).

 

How nice, you posted the exact same article that I posted. Now go back, read a few of the early posts and see if something finally sinks in.

This is my last post on the subject, you're old news and you refuse to read and learn. Out with the old, in with the new, drop the Gross VS Net because as many times as it's been explained to you what I was trying to tell you, the more you don't get it.

So, it's 2004, everybody and thier mother uses NET, we'll both use NET, stop using cars built 35 years ago that used GROSS both in reporting horsepower and rear wheel horespower since they have no bearing on today.

Compare something that is in direct competition and maybe if you don't compare cow farts to your camaro people will debate an actual issue with you and maybe for once take you seriously.

 

Gee whiz, look at that. His scanner does color, too. How nice of him to add all those pretty pictures to this thread as he singlehandedly flushes it straight down the toilet.

 

UminChu,

Do you have the lip spoiler on your TL?

 

There's no elevation to be achieved from arguing with a troll, guys. He will only drag you down to his level, that's his whole purpose for being here.

He's not here for camaraderie, to inform, or to participate; he's here to gain attention by causing discord and anger and then feeding into it.

Ignore him (as hard as it can be, since the troll will sense the absence of attention and become more desperate in his attempts to gain some, eventually resorting to shrill personal attacks) and he will move on to other more fertile feeding grounds.

Mike

 

So let me get this straight, if a train with iron cylinders leaves New York travelling south at 55 mph and another train leaves New Jersey with aluminum heads...

 

Well apparently I didn't make myself clear enough with my last post.

Stay on the thread subject without personal attacks and name calling, or you will not like the results of what will follow!

 

Z factor, why are you so reluctant to ban somebody that does nothing but irritate and annoy everyone else? An occasional disagreement is fine, but when somebody's sole purpose is to be a troll, it's time for the boot. Problem solved.

 

Man, did I start all this? I will keep my stories to myself in the future, that is for sure!

 

Nope, sorry, all mine has are mud flaps. Did you see one recently that you thought may have been mine?

 

This has become the point of this thread!!

 

Do an internet search on "Gross Rear Wheel HP" and see how many links you get.

The accepted standard for "rear wheel HP" of a street vehicle is what it produces at the rear wheels, on a chassis dyno, as equipped to run on the street (with all engine accessories and full exhaust in place).

Period.

The "375 HP" 396 (SAE GROSS) produced ROUGHLY 275 HP SAE NET (the way engines built after the 1971 model year are rated) and ROUGHLY 230 rear wheel HP - REGARDLESS of which "factory" heads is had on it (iron or aluminum).

Period.

Apples to apples, a stone stock LS1 makes more REAL power. The LS1 would have been rated @ ~ 435 HP (SAE GROSS) in 1969 if it were built at that time. How much "gross rear wheel HP" would that equate to?????

And aluminum heads don't "magically" add power. Their primary advantage is weight reduction. Aluminum has become far more common in modern automobiles because it has become cheaper (relative to inflation), is lighter (helps with CAFE) and is easier to machine/much easier on cutting tools.

Period.

 

Hey Daviddww, don't think 60 year old guys don't push their cars.
I am a 74 year old ex-stock car driver, and I love to push my TL to redline. I add 100 rpm for every year I age so in a few years my car will need a 9000 rpm redline.

 

Keith, I regretted that comment the second I wrote it. I hope I am like you and still racing punk kids in Acura's when I am in my 70's!

 

According to those dicks at the corvette forum the c5 can never lose regardless of what the other guy has or how much of a head start.I have a c5 and unless the other vehicle is a slug,its not quick enough to make up this much of a lead.

 

The guy claimed this "race" happened @ elevated speeds (~ 110 MPH).

Any properly running C5 is a LOT faster than a TL between ~ 60 MPH and 110 MPH.

 

But obviously not fast enough to make up the lead.

 

Apparently you didn't read what the initiator of this thread eventually wrote (back on page 2):

That's not a RACE. It's a FARCE.

 

I think this discussion has runs it's course.

A Vette and the TL are two totally different cars, so comparing them seems senseless. While Vettes can be beaten by Vipers and a few other cars, they are still one of the fastest sports cars out there. A TL, is very fast for a sports sedan, but cannot hope to compete with a Vette speed wise, just as a Vette cannot compare with the TL interior room wise.

Go ahead and make a few final posts to this thread if you wish, then it is time to let it go by the way side.

 

I did read the whole thread and realize the initial lead is what produced the final outcome.Give me enough of a lead over a set distance and Ill clean your clock riding my bike.The reality is that mr c5 couldnt catch up and is probably wondering what happenned especially if he believes like you apparently do that the c5 can never lose.

 

The reality is that the 60 year old man wasn't even aware that he was racing.

I own an '04 Accord V6...that's in the same general acceleration category as an Acura TL (30 HP less, but 191 pounds lighter) - particularly @ highway speeds.

I also own a '99 1LE 6 speed Camaro that uses the same LS1 engine as that C5.

Of course a C5 can lose, just as my LS1 Z28 can lose...But neither is going to lose to a TL in anything that remotely resembled a fair race and where both drivers were aware that it was a "race."

 

daviddww i hope u do post ur races just bc there are pple that believe u. Good Job On the Kill . The Cocky corvette driver got what was comin to him. NEVER MESS WITH A TL. thats all i gotta say

 

A '91 Corvette would give a TL the run of its life and that's back when 'Vettes made 100 full HP less than they make today (250 vs 350 SAE NET).

 

I have lost 4 minutes of my precious life reading this thread and have learned NOTHING from it. Thanks.

BTW, I beat Carl Lewis in a foot race back in 1984. I did have a 200 meter lead but the point is I won.

 

Thank you, thank you, thank you. While you're at it, would you puh-leeese kill the "2004 TL or Accord" thread also?