200R4 Trans With Stage motor
- Thread starter NJTurbo
- Start date
Rob Raymer
Member
- Joined
- Jan 3, 2002
I've got one of Lonnie's 200R4's in my Stg 2 Buick. Works great with perfect streetability. And I got 24mpg on my last tank of gas!
Lonnie's a great guy to deal with also. 200R4 gets my vote.
Lonnie's a great guy to deal with also. 200R4 gets my vote.
L
LikeMy6
Guest
HP loss is due to heat and friction, the more power you make the more you lose!Sad but true. Cars that make 2000 flywheel HP only make around 1600 wheel HP!
Anyone that wants that 200-4R video can get it here:
http://www.speeddirect.com/Products/Videos/Automotive/Transmission/transmission.html
I recommend it. Has been very useful and informative.
HTH
Frank
Anyone that wants that 200-4R video can get it here:
http://www.speeddirect.com/Products/Videos/Automotive/Transmission/transmission.html
I recommend it. Has been very useful and informative.
HTH
Frank
If an engine is making 2000 hp but only 1600 hp make it to the wheels, where is the 400 hp being lost? Why is it that just because an engine is making more power there has to be greater loss through the drivetrain? If it takes 50-60 hp to turn a 200 4R and 8.5" rear when making 260 flywheel hp, why would it take 100-120 hp if the engine is making 520 flywheel hp. I think most people have fallen into the trap of believing that there is a 20% loss across the board when running a car on a chassis dyno. Yeah there is when that car is making about 200-300 hp. But as the HP goes up the percentage of loss goes down. Granted, a loose torque converter would increase the loss a bit. Besides, if a tranny and rear had to disipate the heat of the 400 hp it would take to spin them, they would most likely burn up in the process of making a single run.
There's two kinds of loss here going from engine to rwhp: friction and rotational inertia. If 200 or 400 hp total went into frictional losses for 10-15 seconds the trans would be a smoking puddle on the track. The frictional losses from bearings and sliding seals are fairly small and don't change with engine flywheel hp (I think I've read less than 5 hp for all of this). The pump takes some hp to turn and I'm not sure if that changes much because of the bypass regulator. The big frictional loss is slippage in the torque converter and this is a percentage, on the order of 2-3% for a very efficient unit well above stall to 8-10% for a poor one just over stall (and 0% for a lockup 
). All of this loss does go into heat in the fluid. The other big loss is the rotational inertia. An automatic transmission is a pretty big flywheel compared to a manual trans. A manual flywheel and clutch weigh what, 10-20 lbs? The flexplate and converter and fluid add up to 40 lbs or more, plus the greater rotational inertia of all those clutches and planetary gears. At a constant rpm none of this matters but trying to accelerate down the track all of this flywheel weight has to be spun up in each gear. You do get some of the stored energy back on each shift - have you ever seen a dyno trace that includes shifts? There is a big upwards spike at each shift as the internal flywheel slows down to match the new engine rpm after the shift. Anyway, that big flywheel effect is why an automatic trans takes more engine hp than a manual trans to give the same et. Now, as you add engine hp, the whole point is to accelerate the car faster. This means that that big flywheel has to be spun up faster, which sucks off more power (hp required is proportional to moment of inertia and inversely proportional to acceleration rate). That's why this part of the total losses really is a percentage of the engine hp (to repeat, the more engine hp, the faster the engine will rev and the faster the big flywheel spins up and the more hp is used to spin up that flywheel). That's the Reader's Digest version, anyway .
). All of this loss does go into heat in the fluid. The other big loss is the rotational inertia. An automatic transmission is a pretty big flywheel compared to a manual trans. A manual flywheel and clutch weigh what, 10-20 lbs? The flexplate and converter and fluid add up to 40 lbs or more, plus the greater rotational inertia of all those clutches and planetary gears. At a constant rpm none of this matters but trying to accelerate down the track all of this flywheel weight has to be spun up in each gear. You do get some of the stored energy back on each shift - have you ever seen a dyno trace that includes shifts? There is a big upwards spike at each shift as the internal flywheel slows down to match the new engine rpm after the shift. Anyway, that big flywheel effect is why an automatic trans takes more engine hp than a manual trans to give the same et. Now, as you add engine hp, the whole point is to accelerate the car faster. This means that that big flywheel has to be spun up faster, which sucks off more power (hp required is proportional to moment of inertia and inversely proportional to acceleration rate). That's why this part of the total losses really is a percentage of the engine hp (to repeat, the more engine hp, the faster the engine will rev and the faster the big flywheel spins up and the more hp is used to spin up that flywheel). That's the Reader's Digest version, anyway .Re: Carbon Fiber Is The "Mack-Daddy"
The reason i ask about the Alum shafts is i have seen some S2 at ET racing with them, i would think 750HP or above they would just twist. However i would be interested in carbon fiber if you have information on Oh mighty one.
Originally posted by Two Lane
Quote from NJTURBO: Are you guys running Alum shafts or factory driveshaft
NJ,
I don't think you'll be satisfied until you get a Carbon Fiber shaft...
good grief, for your Buick, silly!!
HTH
The reason i ask about the Alum shafts is i have seen some S2 at ET racing with them, i would think 750HP or above they would just twist. However i would be interested in carbon fiber if you have information on Oh mighty one.
Aluminum is doubtful beyond 300-350 hp, according to some reports.
Carbon fiber shafts are mega-light & strong, far beyond aluminum.
They are in the $800.00 range & up.
____________________________________________
I'll send you some links on suppliers later...Right now, I'm being chased by housewives sent over to seduce me out of my GN by their husbands...one from NJ...whoops!! I meant NY!!
Gotta go!!
Carbon fiber shafts are mega-light & strong, far beyond aluminum.
They are in the $800.00 range & up.
____________________________________________
I'll send you some links on suppliers later...Right now, I'm being chased by housewives sent over to seduce me out of my GN by their husbands...one from NJ...whoops!! I meant NY!!
Gotta go!!
Originally posted by Two Lane
Aluminum is doubtful beyond 300-350 hp, according to some reports.
Carbon fiber shafts are mega-light & strong, far beyond aluminum.
They are in the $800.00 range & up.
____________________________________________
I'll send you some links on suppliers later...Right now, I'm being chased by housewives sent over to seduce me out of my GN by their husbands...one from NJ...whoops!! I meant NY!!
Gotta go!!
I wondered were she went. 800.00 and up Holy S... MAN
Well, I still don't think the loss is in the 20% category. I'll give you an example.
My TR ran 126 mph in the 1/4 a few years back. It was a 40* day with pretty good air. Although the air was good my car was not really tuned in. Here's the build-up:
86 TR weighing 3600 lbs w/driver
bone stock suspension (sway bars and all)
stock front rims and 27x10 slicks and 8" Welds on the back
stock gears, slipping tranny (flared good on both shifts) 2600-2800 stall stock size converter ( unlocked )
9" K&N cone filter, stock maf (1 screen removed), 3" MAF pipe
T-63E turbo, Kenne Bell big boy intercooler, stock t-body, hemco 62 mm bonnet
rebuilt stock block, .020 over JE pistons, ESP stage 4 cam (on it's way to flatsville), fully ported stock heads and intake
ported exh. manifolds, 3" ATR downpipe run open
55 lb injectors, Red's 107 chip, (get this) 307 pump, adj reg
C-16 in the tank
27 psi boost in 1st and 2nd gears, 30 psi in 3rd gear
42 psi static fuel pressure spiking to 70 psi in 3rd gear
car was a pig in 1st and 2nd gears and then leaned out big time in 3rd (it popped 4 times in 3rd gear due to lean condition)
ran 97 mph in the 1/8 and 126 in the 1/4. 97 in the 1/8 should be a 121 in the quarter, like I said a pig in the first 2 gears.
If we were to allow for a 20% drivetrain loss I would have needed to make 640 hp to achieve 126 mph with the air conditions that day. Who here thinks my combo was making that much power?
Not me.
My TR ran 126 mph in the 1/4 a few years back. It was a 40* day with pretty good air. Although the air was good my car was not really tuned in. Here's the build-up:
86 TR weighing 3600 lbs w/driver
bone stock suspension (sway bars and all)
stock front rims and 27x10 slicks and 8" Welds on the back
stock gears, slipping tranny (flared good on both shifts) 2600-2800 stall stock size converter ( unlocked )
9" K&N cone filter, stock maf (1 screen removed), 3" MAF pipe
T-63E turbo, Kenne Bell big boy intercooler, stock t-body, hemco 62 mm bonnet
rebuilt stock block, .020 over JE pistons, ESP stage 4 cam (on it's way to flatsville), fully ported stock heads and intake
ported exh. manifolds, 3" ATR downpipe run open
55 lb injectors, Red's 107 chip, (get this) 307 pump, adj reg
C-16 in the tank
27 psi boost in 1st and 2nd gears, 30 psi in 3rd gear
42 psi static fuel pressure spiking to 70 psi in 3rd gear
car was a pig in 1st and 2nd gears and then leaned out big time in 3rd (it popped 4 times in 3rd gear due to lean condition)
ran 97 mph in the 1/8 and 126 in the 1/4. 97 in the 1/8 should be a 121 in the quarter, like I said a pig in the first 2 gears.
If we were to allow for a 20% drivetrain loss I would have needed to make 640 hp to achieve 126 mph with the air conditions that day. Who here thinks my combo was making that much power?
Not me.
The Ultimate Driveshaft
Here's the shaft you'd like, NJ... ...no, it's for the Buick, silly boy!!
http://www.pstds.com/images/carbonfiber-big.jpg
from: www.pstds.com
HTH
LOL!!
Here's the shaft you'd like, NJ...
...no, it's for the Buick, silly boy!!http://www.pstds.com/images/carbonfiber-big.jpg
from: www.pstds.com
HTH
LOL!!
Re: The Ultimate Driveshaft
That is the way to go let me tell you brother.
Originally posted by Two Lane
Here's the shaft you'd like, NJ...
http://www.pstds.com/images/carbonfiber-big.jpg
from: www.pstds.com
HTH
LOL!!
That is the way to go let me tell you brother.
Well, your 126 mph would be a 10.76 on average, and with constant acceleration and 3600 lbs that takes 570 rwhp. The fact that your bottom end was poor means your peak was well over that. For 20% loss I get 710 flywheel hp. According to Precision's web site the turbo will support 690 hp. The only way to cross check is the injectors - 55 lb/hr * 6 / .5 lb/hr/hp = 660 hp, and you did say that you were going lean enough to pop ...
So you see what I mean? No way was it producing that kind of power. I wish. But it was lean popping due to the lone 307 pump, not the injectors. The 307 is a 255 L but it's output drops off sharply when it hits 70 psi or so. A 340 would have cured the popping problem. 55 lb injectors should be good for 700 hp due to the elevated fuel pressure of 70 psi. I would venture to say that the driveline losses would be in the 80 hp range max at that hp level. That's why I don't follow the 20 % rule.
I can only imagine what she would have ran if the 1/8 mph would have been a 102-103 as is the norm for a 126 in the 1/4. A cold air kit, double pumper w/340 pumps, V1 intercooler, 10.5" ProTorque converter (locked), max effort chip, gutted maf, 1500* EGTs and front skinnies.......hmmm.....I'm figuring 130 mph maybe a little bit more. Hey, I got all those things now. Just gotta get one of them.....roundtoits.
But it was lean popping due to the lone 307 pump, not the injectors. The 307 is a 255 L but it's output drops off sharply when it hits 70 psi or so. A 340 would have cured the popping problem. 55 lb injectors should be good for 700 hp due to the elevated fuel pressure of 70 psi. I would venture to say that the driveline losses would be in the 80 hp range max at that hp level. That's why I don't follow the 20 % rule. I can only imagine what she would have ran if the 1/8 mph would have been a 102-103 as is the norm for a 126 in the 1/4. A cold air kit, double pumper w/340 pumps, V1 intercooler, 10.5" ProTorque converter (locked), max effort chip, gutted maf, 1500* EGTs and front skinnies.......hmmm.....I'm figuring 130 mph maybe a little bit more. Hey, I got all those things now. Just gotta get one of them.....roundtoits.
L
LikeMy6
Guest
NJ if you dont want to go with carbon fiber then heres a link that has Chromemoly steel and BIG aluminum shafts that can handle BIG HP!
http://emporium.markwilliams.com/prodlist.asp?catid=1005
4Times according to Joe Lubrants Power chart your car is making around 550+GROSS HP and should run 10.80s w/t traction. This means w/t a 20% loss you are making 440 NET HP. This is very possible w/t your combo. the 20% is an average, some cars lose more some less. Remeber Red Armstrong ran 10.80s w/t a TA49!! which is advertised to only support around 550HP max! and everone knows Red Maxes out everything he uses. Sorry you dont belive the losses but its true more power = more loss.
http://emporium.markwilliams.com/prodlist.asp?catid=1005
4Times according to Joe Lubrants Power chart your car is making around 550+GROSS HP and should run 10.80s w/t traction. This means w/t a 20% loss you are making 440 NET HP. This is very possible w/t your combo. the 20% is an average, some cars lose more some less. Remeber Red Armstrong ran 10.80s w/t a TA49!! which is advertised to only support around 550HP max! and everone knows Red Maxes out everything he uses. Sorry you dont belive the losses but its true more power = more loss.
on the drive shaft topic, if you have a current mark williams catologe it has a chart with all the critaical speeds of drive shaft materials vs length and diameter, amum is the lowest on the cart, then mild steel 3 inch, chrome moly 3 in, then moly 4 inch then carbon fiber, i wanted to run an alum drive shaft, not now, i am going with a 4 inch chromemoly, best bang for the buck.
Grant J Farmer
Grant J Farmer
Likemy6, if you think you can run 126 mph in a 3600 lb brick with 440 rwhp well then good luck. I'd like to see you do it. Maybe if the car had a stick and weighed 3200 lbs. The 20% rule is a guideline used by Dynojet. There are other chassis dyno companies out there. Take for instance the Mustang dyno. I saw it in a mustang magazine and the dyno gets hooked directly to the rear wheel lugs. No wheels and tires. Yet, it's readings are usually lower than those of a Dynojet, even though the losses of spinning the wheels and tires is not there. They're reciprocating just as the coverter is, right? The 20% rule is not an absolute, it's an approximation used by Dynojet. It's real purpose is to make the car owner who's car is being dynoed feel better when the numbers he was told his combo would produce don't materialize.
PS Correlating ET with HP or MPH is not very accurate. Many cars that run 126 mph run in the 10.5s some even quicker as in the case of Kent Rudbeck. I ran an 11.39 at 126. No spinning. A tight converter, slipping tranny, no suspension mods and way too much fuel downstairs will do that. If you were to use a quarter mile jr program or similar and enter 640 hp and a 20% drivetrain loss and all the rest of the pertinent info I listed, you'd come up with 126 mph. You can run a 10.8 with a 121-122 mph trap speed. Like you said Red maxes everything out. Maybe the turbo was a little ported. Maybe the car didn't weigh 3600 lbs. Maybe he was using oxygenated fuel. Lots of maybes! But one thing's for sure, his combo was alot more tuned-in and massaged than mine.
PS Correlating ET with HP or MPH is not very accurate. Many cars that run 126 mph run in the 10.5s some even quicker as in the case of Kent Rudbeck. I ran an 11.39 at 126. No spinning. A tight converter, slipping tranny, no suspension mods and way too much fuel downstairs will do that. If you were to use a quarter mile jr program or similar and enter 640 hp and a 20% drivetrain loss and all the rest of the pertinent info I listed, you'd come up with 126 mph. You can run a 10.8 with a 121-122 mph trap speed. Like you said Red maxes everything out. Maybe the turbo was a little ported. Maybe the car didn't weigh 3600 lbs. Maybe he was using oxygenated fuel. Lots of maybes! But one thing's for sure, his combo was alot more tuned-in and massaged than mine.
