Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Clearly nobody is actually opening their eyes and reading the graph.
It says "Wheel torque ft lb", NOT flywheel. Now considering the gearbox is a torque multiplier and it doesnt mention Engine torque, why is it so silly?
Im guessing its just some funky old RR that calculates the power slightly differently that modern day stuff. You clearly arent going to peak at 160 odd bhp with a Fly torque of 350 ft lb. (duhhh)
Divide the 350ft lb's through the ratio of the gear it ran in, then by the final drive, and maybe a few other numbers and its pretty obvious you will engine up with the torque figure everyone is expecting.
It's probably really something like that. We had simmilar problem once (with my ex car), dyno operator did one mistake and we had numbers something like 110 hp instead of 110 kW. And then he asked me if car feels OK.
But I guess he'd like to know if the torque delivery (line) is OK or it should be more flat, if it dropps to quick etc..
Cheers Laine16v, atleast someone pays attention! But yes SymonSi84, as I stated I wasn't worried about peak figures just the way the powers being delivered, seems abit all over the place! Guy doing it said it needed a map for more fuel in the air/fuel ratio, but he is a superchips supplier so I took that with a pinch of salt!