5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003) Learn more about the 5th Generation Maxima, including the VQ30DE-K and VQ35DE engines.

Crank HP to WHP loss for 5.5 gen 4AT?

Thread Tools
 
Search this Thread
 
Old Apr 22, 2010 | 06:26 PM
  #1  
jowo9's Avatar
Thread Starter
Senior Member
iTrader: (1)
 
Joined: Nov 2008
Posts: 1,022
From: Alberta, Canada
Crank HP to WHP loss for 5.5 gen 4AT?

Hello all...
Well I've been looking all over (searching) to try to find out how much power the 5.5 gen Maxima (specifically the 4AT, but 6 speed as well) loses from crank to wheels... There are so many different claims that I don't know what is accurate. The majority of opinions have stated that it's somewhere around 20%... Maybe more. Is this correct?
Old Apr 22, 2010 | 06:29 PM
  #2  
byrdman164's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 311
From: Long Island, NY
20% of 255 = 51. That leaves 204. So...maybe?
Old Apr 22, 2010 | 06:43 PM
  #3  
Mr. Brett's Avatar
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Feb 2009
Posts: 4
From: Nashville, TN
I've seen dynos as low as 190 WHP on a 5.5 gen.
Old Apr 22, 2010 | 06:58 PM
  #4  
03BlkSETE's Avatar
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,414
From: Central Jersey
To calculate the loss you have to start with an accurate starting point. I know, back in the day it was believed that our engines were overrated on HP and really only produced 240hp, not the 255 claimed by Nissan.

And the 02-03 4AT dyno's between 190-200 whp. So do the math.

Here's a thread about the underrated thing:

http://forums.maxima.org/5th-generat...thread-15.html
Old Apr 22, 2010 | 07:17 PM
  #5  
Scottwax's Avatar
That's Mr. Detail to you
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,016
From: Arlington, TX
Originally Posted by 03BlkSETE
To calculate the loss you have to start with an accurate starting point. I know, back in the day it was believed that our engines were overrated on HP and really only produced 240hp, not the 255 claimed by Nissan.

And the 02-03 4AT dyno's between 190-200 whp. So do the math.

Here's a thread about the underrated thing:

http://forums.maxima.org/5th-generat...thread-15.html
Didn't consumers go after Ford for the Mustangs not making advertised power?
Old Apr 22, 2010 | 07:39 PM
  #6  
03BlkSETE's Avatar
Supporting Maxima.org Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Sep 2002
Posts: 1,414
From: Central Jersey
Originally Posted by Scottwax
Didn't consumers go after Ford for the Mustangs not making advertised power?
Yup on one of the Cobra's if I remember correctly, and they won.
Old Apr 22, 2010 | 08:02 PM
  #7  
Scottwax's Avatar
That's Mr. Detail to you
iTrader: (8)
 
Joined: Nov 2007
Posts: 4,016
From: Arlington, TX
Originally Posted by 03BlkSETE
Yup on one of the Cobra's if I remember correctly, and they won.
Nissan should give us all a set of Cattman headers to make up for it.
Old Apr 22, 2010 | 08:21 PM
  #8  
byrdman164's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (4)
 
Joined: Mar 2009
Posts: 311
From: Long Island, NY
Originally Posted by Scottwax
Nissan should give us all a set of Cattman headers to make up for it.
Agreed.
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 12:28 AM
  #9  
CMax03's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 9,587
From: Houston, Tx
That's pretty close 202-206 whp
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 01:07 AM
  #10  
avciugroar's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 487
From: Baton Rouge, LA
every car should be advertised by its wheel hp, not crank hp... the engine produces 255hp, GREAT! you only get to feel 80% of it. not so great. plus, hp sells cars anyway. torque wins races.
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 05:58 AM
  #11  
Unklejoe's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,147
From: Gloucester County NJ
Originally Posted by avciugroar
every car should be advertised by its wheel hp, not crank hp... the engine produces 255hp, GREAT! you only get to feel 80% of it. not so great. plus, hp sells cars anyway. torque wins races.
Ugh, I hate that saying. Check out my post in the tl vs maxima thread reguarding torque and Horsepower.

I heard those tractor trailors are pretty quick, they have upwards of 1000 ft/lbs of torque

I fully agree that cars should be rated based on their wheel horsepower. They just use crank horsepower as a marketing ploy. If every manufacturer used wheel horsepower, then all would be good, as different drivetrain layouts have different losses (awd, rwd, fwd).
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 06:06 AM
  #12  
NmexMAX's Avatar
dot dot dot ...
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 34,576
From: Santa Fe, NM
Depends on the DYNO.
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 06:15 AM
  #13  
Unklejoe's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,147
From: Gloucester County NJ
The margin of error between various dynos is smaller than the total loss from the drivetrain.
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 06:19 AM
  #14  
NmexMAX's Avatar
dot dot dot ...
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 34,576
From: Santa Fe, NM
Originally Posted by Unklejoe
The margin of error between various dynos is smaller than the total loss from the drivetrain.
No, I meant more as in TYPE of dyno, sorry I should have clarified.
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 06:23 AM
  #15  
sparks03max's Avatar
DO NOT DO BUSINESS WITH THIS MEMBER - OWES PEOPLE MONEY
iTrader: (7)
 
Joined: Jan 2008
Posts: 3,468
From: Greensboro, NC
The only way you could definitively test your drivetrain loss is to go straight from a engine dyno to a wheel dyno that are very well calibrated to read properly, even then you're going to have fluctuations between what each dyno reads.

I would take a wild guess at 17-20% drivetrain loss on a FWD auto, though.
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 07:33 AM
  #16  
Rhyno02's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (12)
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 0
From: Long Island, NY
Don't the auto makers have a margin of error that is allowed regarding horsepower?
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 10:46 AM
  #17  
Unklejoe's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,147
From: Gloucester County NJ
Yeah, 15-20% sounds about right for a FWD auto. Maybe 12-18% for a manual transmission.

Rear wheel drive may be 18-22% and all wheel drive is probably like 22-30%.


This is just my wild guess.
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 11:19 AM
  #18  
avciugroar's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Sep 2009
Posts: 487
From: Baton Rouge, LA
Originally Posted by Unklejoe
Ugh, I hate that saying. Check out my post in the tl vs maxima thread reguarding torque and Horsepower.

I heard those tractor trailors are pretty quick, they have upwards of 1000 ft/lbs of torque

I fully agree that cars should be rated based on their wheel horsepower. They just use crank horsepower as a marketing ploy. If every manufacturer used wheel horsepower, then all would be good, as different drivetrain layouts have different losses (awd, rwd, fwd).
LOL I was just waiting to get flamed for that statement... and yeah they would all be different, but that's what we automatically assume anyway, right?
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 02:51 PM
  #19  
Unklejoe's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,147
From: Gloucester County NJ
Come to think of it, every vehicle should be rated in Horsepower/Pound.

That would be much more useful.
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 04:45 PM
  #20  
NmexMAX's Avatar
dot dot dot ...
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 34,576
From: Santa Fe, NM
That's how motor trend rates their road tests.
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 05:41 PM
  #21  
5 ltr. beater's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,756
From: Fontana, CA
Originally Posted by Scottwax
Didn't consumers go after Ford for the Mustangs not making advertised power?

i believe it was the 99 cobra's that were in question. people were reporting that brand new GT's and Cobra's were neck and neck at the dyno and at the track.
if i remember correctly i think the was a TB recall for that year. rumor was that's why there wasn't a 2000 cobra and there was a 2001. supposedly they went back to "fix" whatever issues were wrong with the 99's.
situation was reversed however with the "terminator" cobra's. they were rated at 390 but were putting down 370-390 bone stock! which would translate to around 430 at the crank.

Last edited by 5 ltr. beater; Apr 24, 2010 at 10:32 AM.
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 06:05 PM
  #22  
5 ltr. beater's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,756
From: Fontana, CA
Originally Posted by Unklejoe
I fully agree that cars should be rated based on their wheel horsepower. They just use crank horsepower as a marketing ploy. If every manufacturer used wheel horsepower, then all would be good, as different drivetrain layouts have different losses (awd, rwd, fwd).


Old Apr 23, 2010 | 08:19 PM
  #23  
Grand_hustle17's Avatar
Senior Member
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Dec 2006
Posts: 7,825
Why does it matter? Not tryna be smart about the question but I'm just curious
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 09:11 PM
  #24  
NmexMAX's Avatar
dot dot dot ...
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 34,576
From: Santa Fe, NM
If any of you rookies had been here back when, we (A33B owners) just about class acted Nissan for said Altima 240/Maxima 255/ Pathfinder 240 HP values ..

Old Apr 23, 2010 | 10:27 PM
  #25  
hot_wax_tree's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 1,044
From: Minnesota
HP is a measurement of torque, so maybe they should advertise torque.
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 10:47 PM
  #26  
NmexMAX's Avatar
dot dot dot ...
iTrader: (22)
 
Joined: Dec 2000
Posts: 34,576
From: Santa Fe, NM
x10^e10
Old Apr 23, 2010 | 11:22 PM
  #27  
DrunkieTheBear's Avatar
Turbo'd Saab
iTrader: (17)
 
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 35,856
From: Albany, NY
WOW....

I agree with NMexMax
Old Apr 24, 2010 | 10:28 AM
  #28  
5 ltr. beater's Avatar
Senior Member
 
Joined: Apr 2004
Posts: 1,756
From: Fontana, CA
Originally Posted by hot_wax_tree
HP is a measurement of torque, so maybe they should advertise torque.


:metalmax:
Related Topics
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
MAXSE5SPD
General Maxima Discussion
33
Sep 17, 2022 04:00 AM
mvm062
Infiniti I30/I35
3
Nov 30, 2020 09:00 AM
97_GXE
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
5
Sep 15, 2015 06:47 AM
rnb754
4th Generation Maxima (1995-1999)
6
Sep 14, 2015 11:39 PM




All times are GMT -7. The time now is 03:26 PM.