Just in case you missed this post, it was buried in a thread you know where: Take it or leave it.


Re: Torque Final on www.nissandriven.com? where?
Author: ZISME (---.nissan-usa.com)
Date: May 29, 1:25pm

The comparison you refer to is using estimated specs from a while ago. There is a press embargo on spec and driving impressions until July 3. We are working on a plan to get final specs to pre-sell customers prior to the embargo date.

 

The 350Z's carbon fiber driveshaft will definately help to reduce loss of hp through the drive train. Time will tell.

 

I know it is in spanish, but the number quoted is 260CV!
http://www.terra.com.ar/canales/autos/43/43602.html

 

RxO, is that an official number?

Anyone, how do you convert ISO CV to HP?

 

Is that metric HP? If so that is 256.4 hp. If that is a dyno # then that is 301 hp at the crank with an assumed 15% loss. All of this is an assumption. . . you know what that means! Sorry to make an *** out of everyone (and myself). From the looks of the site, I dont think they were giving us rear wheel power. It was fun while it lasted.

 

Just looked up CV. It is metric HP (1 horsepower = 1.014 metric horsepower). If I had to guess about the figure on that web site, I'd say it's the original 260+HP figure that Nissan originally quoted for the car way back when.

 

Manufacturers almost always quote HP at the crank, not at the wheel.

My understanding is that most people ballpark drive-train loss at 10%, not 15%.

 

BrianZ,

Not to disagree, but my gs400 has about 20-21% drivetrain loss. Someone in the CLublexus forums posted a dyno sheet. I'll try to find it and show you guy's

IMO 10-15% is a little low.....maybe 15-25%.

 

I believe you.

I don't have any actual evidence, so thanks for looking for the dyno charts. I might check around on the Internet so I'm more educated.

I just know guys I run around with and whenever we dyno our bikes or cars we estimate 10%. Maybe that figure is only good for our bikes!

The cars-only guys in my crowd have been lying all these years....

(Oh, BTW, that's why I said "my understanding is..." just in case my understanding is wrong! I don't know everything, that's why I'm here!)

 

Okay, after looking around seems like abou5 15% to 16% is more usual. Some were as high as 22%, and some as low as 12%. Some of the tests with higher than 22% drivetrain loss were attributed to inflated crank dyno numbers rather than large drivetrain losses.

I'll keep looking.

 

does anyone else think this post is very un-RxO-like? i dunno, seems really speculative for our Trusted Z Source.

 

i noticed that too pekkle. he's a very trusted source, and for him to speculate that the car is going to have 260cv - very odd. oh wells... laughing - i don't even know what 260cv is ... hehe...