Looking for standard NB8B rwkw figure

mazmad · Postby **mazmad** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 3:04 pm

I hear you.

In reality it is more to do with how your torque curve changes, and how that suits your driving needs (road, track etc).

evil_weevil · Postby **evil_weevil** » Fri Jan 11, 2013 9:00 pm

slightly off topic...
but same dyno/different day

my r33 mate 255rwkw and MX5 75rwkw
haha

mazmad · Postby **mazmad** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 5:20 am

And I don't think that difference is due to atmospheric changes :shock:

geofiz · Postby **geofiz** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 9:21 am

mazmad wrote:And I don't think that difference is due to atmospheric changes

I think you will find it is all to do with the atmospheric change. The R33 just has more atmospheres than the MX5

mazmad · Postby **mazmad** » Sat Jan 12, 2013 10:34 am

Quite right sir

mazmad · Postby **mazmad** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:53 pm

Post up a scan if you get it.

pcmx5 · Postby **pcmx5** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 1:57 pm

If it's a standard SE that is unbelievably high if it is RWKW .I am pretty sure standard SP's made around 114 RWKW at the Vic Club days over a 3 year period and they had around 30 more flywheel KW than the SE.

As always ,different dyno etc....

Peter.

Edit Just found Techno's records from 2003,4&5 Vic Club dyno days.

Peter.

Stock NA6's generally 58- 62 RWKW, NA8's 62-64 RWKW,NB8A's 66-69(a couple up around 72 but may have had mods,although Matty's made this power stock at another day)), NB8B's70-72, SP's 110-113. Some cars in each group made more but from my memory the quoted ranges are for standard cars averaged.

I know Chris Hoskin,s NB8B made70.3 in 2003 and about 74 later and then with exhaust and high flow cat got 82RWKW.All figures are from a Dyno Dynamics dyno

.

93_Clubman · Postby **93_Clubman** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 2:31 pm

nbse2 wrote:just had mine checked, mines an SE and it only registered 107kw which is pretty poor.

Presumably that's 107KW @ the rear wheels - if so that's good for a car that was rated at 121KW @ the flywheel. Deduct 10% for drive train losses gives you 109RWKW.

mazmad · Postby **mazmad** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 6:40 pm

10% loss is good given standard models lose 30%.

70rwkw yikes, bit grim isn't it.

Still, it's not what you've got but how you use it right? (been using that line on my wife for years.... :shock:

)

Hjt · Postby **Hjt** » Mon Jan 14, 2013 7:00 pm

The SE should be around that figure, it was pretty piss weak in standard format.

93_Clubman · Postby **93_Clubman** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 1:03 am

mazmad wrote:10% loss is good given standard models lose 30%.

Indeed it's too good! Meant to say 20% approximation.

pcmx5 · Postby **pcmx5** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:05 pm

93_Clubman wrote:
mazmad wrote:10% loss is good given standard models lose 30%.

Indeed it's too good! Meant to say 20% approximation.

Techno's figures over almost 40 cars that were stock or lightly modified show a average loss of 30% plus,always assuming that the cars had the flywheel KW that mazda claimed in the first place!

Peter.

pcmx5 · Postby **pcmx5** » Tue Jan 15, 2013 5:05 pm

93_Clubman wrote:
mazmad wrote:10% loss is good given standard models lose 30%.

Indeed it's too good! Meant to say 20% approximation.

Techno's figures over almost 40 cars that were stock or lightly modified show a average loss of 30% plus,always assuming that the cars had the flywheel KW that mazda claimed in the first place!

Peter.

93_Clubman · Postby **93_Clubman** » Wed Jan 16, 2013 10:36 am

pcmx5 wrote:Techno's figures over almost 40 cars that were stock or lightly modified show a average loss of 30% plus, always assuming that the cars had the flywheel KW that mazda claimed in the first place!

Pete, aware of Techno's figures, but I was going on Blackster etc figures which were SE specific.