2017 Civic Type R puts down 295WHP bone stock on the dyno

[Solis#1730]

Sponsored

 

[DougNuts]

Is that was true then they would have amazingly achieved 5% drive-train loss, and VW would have achieved negative drive-train loss based on the GTI, and so has Nissan based on the Sentra NISMO dyno.

Either that or somehow everyones dynos have started to read high.

Honda knows what it can make, they are purposely saying it makes less than it does.

 

[zx2down]

Honda knows what it can make, they are purposely saying it makes less than it does.

Thats my point.

 

[totopo]

Honda knows what it can make, they are purposely saying it makes less than it does.

Thats my point.

You are not allowed to underrate by more than 1% by SAE net standards.

 

[zx2down]

You are not allowed to underrate by more than 1% by SAE net standards.

Tell that to the 2003-04 Cobra, and all the new turbo Civics, and the GTI..... If they are all making at the wheel the same as their rating then how do you explain that other than they are rated at the wheel?

 

[mc1200s]

If these numbers hold true, then this beast is putting down more power than a APR stage 1 gti and will trap at approximately 110mph.
If these numbers hold true this will set a new standard for the hot hatch by blowing everyone else out of the water.

 

[styxrogan]

this "thang" is a BEAST!!!...makes my car look like a PUZZY!

 

[Banshee]

ok, so how much drivetrain loss would you say there realistically is? as low as 5%, or closer to the older losses at around 10-12%?
It could be hard to tell in my eyes, as I am not an "engin"eer, (LOL, that worked out) but transaxles should have less losses than an AWD or RWD system. Maybe they are using technology that is like a direct drive system, but that could be hard on an engine.

 

[totopo]

ok, so how much drivetrain loss would you say there realistically is? as low as 5%, or closer to the older losses at around 10-12%?
It could be hard to tell in my eyes, as I am not an "engin"eer, (LOL, that worked out) but transaxles should have less losses than an AWD or RWD system. Maybe they are using technology that is like a direct drive system, but that could be hard on an engine.

who knows? It depends on how you measure. If you do it at steady state, then it should be in the <5% range. I don't want to pay for SAE papers but this guy did:
http://www.superstreetonline.com/how-to/engine/modp-1005-drivetrain-power-loss/

I think it has to do with all the stupid fudging and correction factors that most dynos do. Why do different dynos give wildly different measurements? Very few dynos actually give steady state measurements and usually do inertial calculations which don't really represent reality. They also try to fudge away all the power loss in rotational mass. I think the steady state dynos that actually measure power usually report super low numbers, which probably more accurately reflect the truth.

 

[Vaders CTR]

The dyno numbers are really impressive. Honda is typically a conservative company, but that much difference in HP/torque surprises me. Hats off Honda

It isn't that there is less drivetrain loss. The CTR is simply making more power than the 306 HP rating from Honda. You can safely assume 12%-18% drivetrain loss on a FWD vehicle. That's why the normal benchmark is 15%.

There are lots of reasons for manufacturers to advertise lower HP ratings than the real number. Insurance is one big one, secondly for competitors. Who remembers the BMW 335 that came out in 2006? That 335 was rated at 300 HP. I bought a M3 that year that was rated at 333 HP. Hard to have a car that your selling for less money make the same or more power than you performance model. However, in a straight line they were almost identical 0-60 and 1/4 mile times. Bottom line the 335 made more power than BMW claimed. There are many examples you can go on. With the horsepower wars between competing manufacturers you will have this. This has been going on for decades. Buick Grand Nationals were rated at 240 HP in 1987, but they were much faster despite weighing several hundred pounds more than the Corvette with less horsepower. GM engineers knew it made more power and they lowered the advertised HP to not take sales from their Halo car...the Corvette. Watch the video "Black Air" on youtube and the GM employees talk about it. There are lots of scenarios from various manufacturers that this happens.

I like to look at the magazine times. Check the HP and lb-ft ratings and claimed curb weight. Compare those two to the MPH in the 1/4 and you'll know if it makes sense or not. It will be interesting how the car tests.

Someone mentioned the MPH for a Type R being 110+. Seems high. Even with these dyno numbers. I competent driver I would guess the CTR (stock) will trap in the 104-107 MPH depending on the ETA. That is still really respectable. Whenever mine actually gets here, I'll let you guys know Sorry for the babbling history lessons.

 

[Banshee]

The dyno numbers are really impressive. Honda is typically a conservative company, but that much difference in HP/torque surprises me. Hats off Honda

It isn't that there is less drivetrain loss. The CTR is simply making more power than the 306 HP rating from Honda. You can safely assume 12%-18% drivetrain loss on a FWD vehicle. That's why the normal benchmark is 15%.

I'll let you guys know Sorry for the babbling history lessons.

So, assuming a 15% drivetrain loss, if it was putting out 350hp at the crank, drop 15% is 297.5 at the wheels. But I read that usually no more than 1% for that SAE standard?
Don't worry about babbling, a.) that's what forums are for. b.)I babble an AWFUL lot

 

[Vaders CTR]

So, assuming a 15% drivetrain loss, if it was putting out 350hp at the crank, drop 15% is 297.5 at the wheels. But I read that usually no more than 1% for that SAE standard?

Admittedly, I know nothing about the SAE ratings and no more than 1 % standard you mentioned. What I do know: How much HP/Torque was actually measured on a dyno!

Using various drivetrain losses in percentage with the known HP rating on a dyno, you could compute an estimated HP/Torque rating. Time for some math:

Known HP 288

12% Drivetrain loss:
288 x 1.12 = 322.56 HP at the Flywheel (loss of 34.56 HP due to drivetrain)

15% Drivetrain loss:
288 x 1.15 = 331.20 HP at the Flywheel (loss of 43.2 HP due to drivetrain)

18% Drivetrain loss:
288 x 1.18 = 339.84 HP at the Flywheel (loss of 51.84 HP due to drivetrain)

Using averages, you could say that the CTR that was videoed being dynoed is making around 330 HP at the flywheel.

It would be interesting to see what octane was used and what gear they were in when they tested the car. How many pulls were made on the dyno? Those will have an impact on the HP/torque ratings for sure. Hopefully that helps?

Numbers have been from 288whp - 301whp that I've seen. Although I doubt the credibility of the 301. No evidence of it being a CTR that I've seen.

 

[Joescivic]

If this k20c1 loses as much power as most previous K-series drivetrains, which from my experience has shown 10-12% drivetrain loss, I'd say this Type R may be closer to 335-340hp to the crank. That's just what I think.

Underrated power figures still happen. Like I mentioned earlier today, if you have a 2015 Si rated at 205hp that dynod 175-180whp on your local dynojet, then on that same exact dyno it makes 195-200whp with a 2017 Si rated at 205hp as well, then you have to assume the 2017 was underrated. Whether it is allowed or not, it still happens.

 

[Banshee]

I measured the opposite way, so I was wrong. But I would have figured that you start at the flywheel, yes it is unknown right now. But isn't losses measured from the higher number, then you subtract the losses. But if you have gains, you start at the lower number?
so lets say you had 350 at the FW, 15% loss
350 x .85 = 297.5 at the wheels
but if you start at the known:
297.5 x 1.15 = 342.125
So two different numbers, so we would go with the most conservative one?

 

[Vaders CTR]

I measured the opposite way, so I was wrong. But I would have figured that you start at the flywheel, yes it is unknown right now. But isn't losses measured from the higher number, then you subtract the losses. But if you have gains, you start at the lower number?
so lets say you had 350 at the FW, 15% loss

It isn't wrong. You can do the math either way. Your numbers are just higher and I was trying to be more conservative Normally you come up with around 5 HP at the flywheel difference. If the bigger numbers is your style, why not

Sponsored