clio 200 rolling road result

[kenny172]

Had the 200 rolling roaded at sitech racing in blair atholl today very pleased with the result tbh.

156.4 BHP at the wheel + the estimated 28% transmission loss = 201bhp

Torque 132.2 at the wheel + loss = 169

more or less what renault claim anyways so not bad for a car with 1700 miles on the clock. will get it redone after 10k and see what difference it makes.

Will get the graph up tomorrow.

Meant to say the guy also said the figure is on the low side. Because it kept wheelspinning on the rollers they had to strap it down further meaning more friction and a lower reading, no idea how much of a difference it makes though

 

[Tom@JMS]

Good result, looses seem a little high, 156 ATW would usually equate to nearly 190 ATF (but that's the joy of ATF figures, everyone calculates them differently :dapprove

Either way that engine WILL wake up as you get the miles on it. I saw a 200 yesterday get 192 which is about right.

200 is also a figure in PS, not BHP.

The PS was adopted by the Deutsches Institut für Normung (DIN) and then by the automotive industry throughout most of Europe, under varying names. In 1992, the PS was rendered obsolete by EEC directives, when it was replaced by the kilowatt as the official power measuring unit. It is still in use for commercial and advertising purposes, as many customers are not familiar with the use of kilowatts for engines.

 

[lbrench]

i dont underrstand the 'transmission loss' what does this mean?

can someone explain without making me feel like an idiot lol
:S

 

[Poopensharten]

i dont underrstand the 'transmission loss' what does this mean?

can someone explain without making me feel like an idiot lol
:S

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/trans.htm

 

[Weeman]

Roffle at RR'ing a Std 1700 mile old car, was it suppose to have lost 50 hp in those miles, or gained em? lol

 

[Plummer]

Roffle at RR'ing a Std 1700 mile old car, was it suppose to have lost 50 hp in those miles, or gained em? lol

Well the standard 1*2's didn't make power, so I don't see the harm to check if the car makes what it is claimed to have.

 

[Munson]

I don't see the point in RRs unless a few very important conditions are met;

You always use the same rollers, run by the same people with no motives. You are doing it to compare before & after.

Otherwise it's just a coin flip between pissing yourself off with low readings, or boosting your ego when telling your mates in the pub about the inaccurately high ones.

 

[tandino]

28% trans losses is about the highest ive ever heard of for a FWD,
What rollers were they?, only explanation i can think of is if it was a twin roller set up where the drive wheels sit in two roller vs single roller where the drive wheels sit on one large roller.
Still they are still very high imho but as long as it goes ok and fuelling was good thats the main thing..

 

[franx]

I don't see the point in RRs unless a few very important conditions are met;

You always use the same rollers, run by the same people with no motives. You are doing it to compare before & after.

Otherwise it's just a coin flip between pissing yourself off with low readings, or boosting your ego when telling your mates in the pub about the inaccurately high ones.

+1 ^

and 28% transmission loss !? I'm guessing they kept on raising percentage untill the 201 was reached, sorry..

Your loss should have a MAX of 15% with a fwd car. I've been told 12% actually

 

[172Ben]

As above, they defo have raised it to 28% just to make it reach 201bhp.

There 200ps, so what, 197 standard, and your running 201 with only 1700 miles on the clock!!! LOL.

Probably 180-185 maybe with the correct loss percentage used.

 

[KMB]

That's the third RR result I have seen where a Clio 200 has made book power, it seems to me that renault have adjusted a few things so they make what they should?

The results are only useful as comparitive measures on RR days, so if standard 182's etc make their usual 165-170bhp on the same day we can draw a little truth from the results

 

[KMB]

Let's take a look at the whp and wheel torque graph

 

[172Ben]

book power is 197, as 200 is in ps. To make 201 on only 1700miles, is abit, MEH imo.

 

[Gorms]

Let's take a look at the whp and wheel torque graph

Posting about a 200 you gotta expect at least half the thread to be full of haters and posting about rr results you got to expect half the thread to be full of haters. So all in all this thread is full of hate for the 200 and its ugly face and slow engine. i wouldnt even bother as said before save it for your mates down the pub

Gorms

 

[KMB]

:star: Not half wrong there Gorms... I wish the motoring press would stop bigging up our motors, we can secretly enjoy our significantly more powerful ugly cars more then

 

[172Ben]

Its not about being a hater, id love one if i could afford one.

The figures posted by the OP speak for themself really. 28% transmission loss!!!! LOL

4wd average transmission loss is about 22%.

http://www.pumaracing.co.uk/POWER3.htm

184.88bhp is the correct figure for the op - FWD cars - add 10 bhp to the wheel figure and divide the result by 0.9

 

[franx]

^^ nono, in my case i'm no hater of the 200 , kind of liking it in fact (also like the 197) They look a lot better than me Clio (some do anyway)


I'm always reading up on other RR results as mine has also just been on RR, always the same one and years in between too. So always interested in other RR results. When reading about the 28% loss i just could'nt keep quiet

 

[KMB]

I admit the calculation for losses seems very high, when my S2000 was RR'd that made 190whp which calculated to 232bhp at fly, this is RWD and only works out 18% loss. FWD should be less, although I know nothing on the calculation used or the type of rollers etc Best thing is comparison against other cars on the day

 

[KMB]

In fact I just checked my RR graph for my Rev 3 MR2 Tubby (RWD) and that also got 233whp which calculated to 280 bhp at fly, same loss as the S... mmm

 

[Gorms]

Oh well its always gonna go the same speed regardless of what the RR states.

Gorms

 

[480bhp.com]

It depends on the RR used.

Some are able to calulate the losses on the coast down, others just use a calculation as input by the technician.

Ones that rely on a calculation are only any good for wheel horse power, the ones that measure coast down are more accurate for flywheel figures although a lot depends on the operator and his run down technique, i've seen the brakes applied lightly before, this as a result will increase the losses measured, and increase the fly figure.

It's all relative anyway, good for comparing with each other on the day, but that's about it.

Chris

 

[Poopensharten]

f**king lol at this, honestly!

Its the same nonsense non stop on here.

It was a Fiesta Zetec S day although their was a few other cars present (Audi 2.0t/Honda b16b8/MR2 etc

All the cars that were standard more or less made book figures. Why do people find it hard to accept that the figures might be a true representation to the car?

I went with Kenny on the road up and im in no doubt his is a strong one, i just laugh at some of the explanations on here.

If the bhp figure from a Clio is higher bhp power the rollers are f**ked.

If the figure is low your cars f**ked, you really canny win. CS mentality FTL!

 

[Revels]

It's not 'CS mentality' it's logic.

RR a car on 1700 miles is pointless. Believing the figure when you've done far fetched sums to get there is deluded.

A generous RR gets people happy and makes them want to come back. It's good business sense and then the clueless lap up the results and give more publicity for the RR. It's a good business exercise, it tells you nothing about your car.

 

[tandino]

f**king lol at this, honestly!

Its the same nonsense non stop on here.

It was a Fiesta Zetec S day although their was a few other cars present (Audi 2.0t/Honda b16b8/MR2 etc

All the cars that were standard more or less made book figures. Why do people find it hard to accept that the figures might be a true representation to the car?

I went with Kenny on the road up and im in no doubt his is a strong one, i just laugh at some of the explanations on here.

If the bhp figure from a Clio is higher bhp power the rollers are f**ked.

If the figure is low your cars f**ked, you really canny win. CS mentality FTL!

So you think that 28% losses are correct for a FWD car then?,
My impreza had lower rolling losses than that % wise.
Believe what you want to believe but those losses are silly for a 2wd car...
Surely the aim was to get as accurate figure as possible not to make good pub figures?

 

[brisa4984]

poor result imo. 150 odd at the wheels.. wtf

 

[Poopensharten]

It's not 'CS mentality' it's logic.

RR a car on 1700 miles is pointless. Believing the figure when you've done far fetched sums to get there is deluded.

A generous RR gets people happy and makes them want to come back. It's good business sense and then the clueless lap up the results and give more publicity for the RR. It's a good business exercise, it tells you nothing about your car.

But when the figures are consistent then whats not to believe? I know their are plenty of variables in RR's but of all the ones ive been to id say this one was actually pretty well set up. The lad running it i believe used to work closley with Mclaren Racing team, a pretty good reputation to boot tbf/

Im not saying its absolutley bang on but it must be close...!

To add, why is it deluded to do it on 1700 miles? Kennys planning to get it done agan in around 10k miles, personally dont see whats the problem.

You know yourself the F4R engine come along nicley with miles provided they are well maintained!

 

[Revels]

How is it consistent? You mean everyone gets figures they like? Well that's just good business sense. Nothing else.

Same RR. Same set up. Before and after mods. Then that's great. Using it as a one off and taking it as gospel is stupid.

1700 is barely run in. It's pointless. Exactly, they get better. Not at 1700 miles. No doubt when he gets it redone at 10k he'll be back to boast that it's actually running 250bhp

 

[Poopensharten]

Im out!

 

[172Ben]

If i had 28% transmission loss, id be running 222bhp.

MINT

 

[alanc1000]

A 200 was done at the CS RR meet yesterday, got 192BHP on a dyno dynamics which is fairly reliable, no idea what mileage it was on. I got 189.9 out of my 197, so i'd deffo expect a 200 to be low 190's.

 

[MarkCup]

A 200 was done at the CS RR meet yesterday, got 192BHP on a dyno dynamics which is fairly reliable, no idea what mileage it was on. I got 189.9 out of my 197, so i'd deffo expect a 200 to be low 190's.

It's just coming up for 4,000 miles. Sounds about right to me, will loosen up nicely over the next 10k and probably get closer to book.

LOL at 28%!!! Does sound a bit far fetched.

 

[.GAZ.]

These threads always turn into pathetic squabbling!

 

[Poopensharten]

These threads always turn into pathetic squabbling!

+1

Utter joke

 

[tandino]

+1

Utter joke

no mate, thats the RR set up...

If your mate is happy then fine, id be asking questions to the RR myself

 

[franx]

f**king lol at this, honestly!

Its the same nonsense non stop on here.

It was a Fiesta Zetec S day although their was a few other cars present (Audi 2.0t/Honda b16b8/MR2 etc

All the cars that were standard more or less made book figures. Why do people find it hard to accept that the figures might be a true representation to the car?

I went with Kenny on the road up and im in no doubt his is a strong one, i just laugh at some of the explanations on here.

If the bhp figure from a Clio is higher bhp power the rollers are f**ked.

If the figure is low your cars f**ked, you really canny win. CS mentality FTL!

+1

Utter joke

The biggest joke being the high percentage of transmissions losses being used by this RR to get the car up to "book" powers

You'll learn someday..

 

[franx]

It depends on the RR used.

Some are able to calulate the losses on the coast down, others just use a calculation as input by the technician.

Ones that rely on a calculation are only any good for wheel horse power, the ones that measure coast down are more accurate for flywheel figures although a lot depends on the operator and his run down technique, i've seen the brakes applied lightly before, this as a result will increase the losses measured, and increase the fly figure.

It's all relative anyway, good for comparing with each other on the day, but that's about it.

Chris

This man speaks the only sense to make up the 28%.. could be that the RR use high percentages to make up strangely low power/torque results on ALL cars

 

[polarbert]

What is the purpose of rolling roading a standard car after 1,700 miles? Surely it would be more fun to spend the time and petrol on actually driving the thing?

 

[Poopensharten]

The biggest joke being the high percentage of transmissions losses being used by this RR to get the car up to "book" powers

You'll learn someday..

Look pal, dont shoot the messanger!

This guy used to work with/for Mclaren racing team!

Im hardly in any position to start raising questions against a man of that calibre's judgement am i?

 

[Jasey]

Not sure what all the fuss is with the RR etc.

Seems an unhealty obsession with numbers - use your fuel to see how fast you can get you from A to B - not tryng to find out if the French are lieing b@stards or not - we all know the answer to that one

 

[tandino]

Maybe he made the Tea there?

My mum nearly worked at Mclaren in Wokingham but she doesnt know alot about rolling roads...




She was applying for a PA job though!!