ChrisSD, on Oct 31 2009, 04:43 PM, said:
You can't work numbers like that, espcially when STD was used and not SAE. The "rule of thumb" is basically a crock, total BS made up number. The only way to determine flywheel HP is to pull the engine and hook it up to an engine dyno.
If you took 4 dif models of Dynojet, a Mustang Dyno, and a Dyno Dynamic dyno, and did 6 runs with same car on the same day, same condtions, you'd have a 50 HP spread across all the various readings.
Can add that the tuners there said under conditions of the day, the difference in my STD measurment and SAE would be 1% to 2% tops. Did not ask if that was up or down. This is a respected Mustang specialty shop. Since there were a number of other cars dynoed, they also had the opportunity to benchmark their measurements today with cars that were dynoed at other Dynojet facilities. All of the owners said today's numbers were right on with their other dyno runs.
Once STD and SAE conditions are normalized, if done right then, the major differences between results are then more from dyno types (e.g., Dynojet vs Mustang).
For the final piece, don't agree that a rule of thumb for drive train loss is without value. They have been derived for various vehicle types from empirical measurements. Until transmission and gear technologies change much they are good enough for rough calculations. Like for example trying to estimate if the 540HP standard rating seems high or low. This is especially true if a number of data points are correlated on a normalized basis. Agree that getting to a really precise answer takes an engine hook up, but that is not what most people seem to be talking about.