My car us pretty much stock, its only got the alternator left, and no cats i havent had a chance to take it to the strip cause im workin on it still, does anyone have an est 1/4 its a 1986 base model power nothing, but the sunroof and it has mnaual rack and pinion. Thanks

 

when my 86 na was stock it was at 150 rwhp and ran mid 16s in the quater

 

umm... no.
when your 86 was stock you had 145 bhp not RWHP.

 

when i got the car it already had intake so thats where the extra 5 came from. And buy break hp do you mean dumping the clutch @7,000 from a stop? b/c the 150 was @ 7,000

 

what do you mean its only got the alternator left? as far as mods dont expect to dump some money into an na and have a 13 sec car it wont happen. think t2 or new motor. an na can be fairly quick with the right stuff first thing to do is intake and exaust.

 

break HP is at the Fly wheel.

 

Brake horsepower is the measured horsepower at the engine's flywheel as measured by an engine brake (steady state) dynameter. To say that it is HP at the flywheel is technically incorrect, because an inertial engine dynameter would give a different value. In fact, an engine brake dyno can give a value up to 20% lowert than an inertial dyno. Engine dyno's are also not affected by changes to the reciprocating mass, whereas lightening the reciprocating assembly will give a higher horsepower output on an inertial dyno.

 

only retards use the word "Technically" it makes them feel smart.
it is a Torque * RPM / 5252 reading taken from the engine only. so it is HP at the flywheel.
the reason i said what i did was simply a S4 has 145Bhp he said his car with a cone filter hade 150RWHP, I told him that BHP is from the fly wheel. the end. If you where to say you cant take BHP and subtract 15% or so and get RWHP i would agree.

 

O and bye the way it is possible to get an n/a into13s, it just costs more than a TII.

 

O and by the way it is possible to get an n/a into13s, it just costs more than a TII.

 

instead of asking if you can get an NA into 13s its better to ask how much power you want to make. driver matters a lot as far as 1/4 mile goes, some poeple plain suck. tires and suspension setup matter but otherwise an NA at 180whp and a few things missing to lower the weight can run 13s IF YOU ARE GOOD.

 

so if a stock na had 145 at the flywheel it would put around 120 to the groud? thanks for clearing that up i was just trying to give the guy an idea of what an na would do i know they can be in the 13s my best time in mine was 14.6 but that was after alot of work. street port,intake,full exaust, light flywheel,bonez street comp clutch, fc1000 ingnition, proboost ecu chip, underdrive main power pully and some wr. i had never heard flywheel hp called break hp thanks

 

Well, since you were the one who was wrong, I wouldn't exactly be pointing fingers about which one of us is retarded.
I am telling you flat out that if you bolted an identical engine to a brake (steady state) dynameter and took a reading, and then bolted the same engine to a inertial engine dynameter, you would get a large difference in horsepower. They both measure hp at the flywheel. To be correct, you have to say that 146 BHP is 146 hp measured at the flywheel on an engine brake dyno. If you try to argue this, you are either ignorant or stupid, take your pick.

If I were to say that you could subtract 15% power from the BHP measurement and you would get the RWHP measurement, then I truly would be retarded.
Nearly all of the RWHP measurements are found using an inertial dyno. It is moot to compare an engine measurement found on a brake dyno to an inertial chassis dyno with a given percentage. Example: If you chassis dyno a car on an inertial dyno and then add a lighter flywheel to the engine and then redyno the car, the chassis dyno reading will be increased. If you took took the engine out and ran it on an brake dyno before and after the lightweight flywheel, the readings would be identical... so how can the brake horsepower remain a contsant, yet the rear wheel horsepower increase, with a cvontsant drivetrain loss of 15%? To even ATTEMPT to apply a constant drivetrain loss percentage, you would first have to ensure you were using either a brake engine dyno and a brake cvhassis dyno OR a inertial engine dyno and a inertial chassis dyno for both testings.
To go even further onto this point, power loss through the drivetrain is not a contant percentage... it depends on power. With a 200bhp engine putting down 170 RWBHP, you ahev your 15% loss. Now, replace the engine with a 1000BHP engine... do you really think the RWBHP will now be 850 RWBHP? Of course not. It will likely be closer to a 60hp loss through the drivetrain, much lower than 15%.
Even worse, at sotck power levels, different drivetrains will have a different frictional loss... depending on the transmission type and design, as well as how worn the transmission is.
To simply say there exists a 15% power loss through the drivetrain is assinine... the only way to state a drivetrain loss in terms of a percentage would be by stating, "At the XBHP level, there existed a YRWBHP loss, which equates to a Z% drivetrain loss".

Now here is the difference between someone who knows what they're talking about, and someone who does not.

 

Its bareblock, ex. i took off the ac and the smog pump

 

I dont know what all it might have done to it but i think it will be a lot faster then mid 16s, i raced a later model eclipse AWD turbo 2.0 with header, exhaust, cold air intake, and a racing intake manifold and he only beat me by 5-6 car lengths or about half a second, i would expect that setup in an eclipse to do a LOT better then a 16

 

wow, your arguing my point.
BHP is from the fly wheel not drive wheels. Simple as that the location it is taken from nothing else.

"when my 86 na was stock it was at 150 rwhp"
me "when your 86 was stock you had 145 bhp not RWHP"
"when i got the car it already had intake so thats where the extra 5 came from. And buy break hp do you mean dumping the clutch @7,000 from a stop? b/c the 150 was @ 7,000"
me "break HP is at the Fly wheel"
you "They both measure hp at the flywheel" {so like i said BHP is at the fly wheel.}

As for "measured at the flywheel on an engine brake dyno" Bhp stands for brake horsepower. so saying BHP on an engine brake dyno is like saying the two story house has two floors.... duh.

Sounds like you did not read the thread all the way or you just learned this crap and wanted to flex nuts.

 

ok yall(yes im from louisiana) are saying the exact same thing bhp is from the flywheel and you CANT subtract a given % from x bhp and get z whp due to diffrent drive trains and there condition so an 86 na will put about 130 to the ground.

 

it should depend on how he is tuned " psi, fuel all that **** " mod your **** then put 5-6 cars on him

 

imo BHP is bull. it's not a good way of giving a reading. It became the standard back when thats all there was. BHP has nothing to do with any kind of power you will get when driving. so no you can not use %-X=Z. I know that dyno jets can graph drive train loss and i would think mustang dynos can too, the same would apply z+average% is not BHP. that is why you need to say BHP or Fly wheel Horsepower. My car did well with loss i have an average loss from 45mph to 107.5 MPH "my 4th gear pull" of 12.2% with a pull of 114rwhp @5850 Rpm "no back pressure to open axu. ports" i should have about 129 Hp thats how the equation is used "but no, because I was using average not instantaneous (sp?) loss."

 

Yah that would be nice, im hoping in in the mid-low 15s as is right now if i could hit mid 14s i would be happy with my car, most people that street race here wouldnt keep up with that.