For the gearheads, i see the stoke/bore, how is the # 188 from the shaft or crank or whatever? Thats 3x what im pushing on a 800cc motor.

These are car #'s, which i like.... some1 plz leak some #'s? thx

 

how can u guys think it is 188inlbs?? my cordless drill has that. figure 30% drivline loss, fwd automatic cars avg. about 20% loss between motor to the wheels. So for an auto belt type cvt tranny, and those cv angles, 30-35% loss should cover it. and im betting close to 80hp at the crank.

ALL ATV MANUFACTURES CLAIM THEIR NUMBERS FROM THE CRANK!

 

double post

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: AC4LIFE

double post</end quote></div>

except when comparing their quads to other manufacturers........ polaris claims the pred has 0.12power to weight ratio and the trx450r and yfz450 have only a 0.10 power to weight ratio....

That is about 48hp for the pred, and 35.5hp for the trx and yfz.... thats probably what they are making at the wheels

 

dont yell at me lol, thats what the brochure says, read it and you can ask yourself how and why or whateever else lol

 

lol sorry i wasnt yelling, but just wanted to clear things up, b/c there was confusion between output shaft vs crank, in lbs vs ft lbs and everything else, just putting my .02 in.

 

I've popped this in before ..and even at the crank, pure un-reduced, unaffected by driveline losses. 188ft-lbs of torque is a phenominal amount of torque to claim from a twin 950cc. As someone else pointed out before, a 1600CC v-twin harley only puts down in the 90's lbs ft. of torque. And the HP formula of Torque x RPM / 5252 puts the output of this thing at around 180hp presuming it makes max. torque @ 5000rpm. I still stay it's a typo and agree with the other poster's # of 88ft lbs .. which is still amazing.

 

im guessing it will run at around 70-75hp with about 60-65ft/lbs of torque.... unless it has been turbocharged........


Another thought, if AC wants the most power, why dont they go with a 2stroke turbocharged diesel?? that would have soo much power

 

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: crazy1291

<div class="FTQUOTE"><begin quote>Originally posted by: Quasar



Careful guys, they are trying to trick you with the torque value. The engine crank is the way to compare enignes. The output shaft's value will always be much higher and different between models. 1st they only say 188lbs., so ft-lbs or in-lbs? Probably ft-lbs. But then they say that is at the output shaft. The Can-am's Rotax 800 is 53ft-lbs at the crank, so the 950 would be doing good to have 60ft-lbs. at the crank.</end quote></div>



You are making NO sense at all, the power and torque ratings are ALWAYS higher at the crank than at the wheel..... unless it has 110%efficiency in converting its engine rpms into wheel rpms without losing any power</end quote></div>

What?? What do you think a transmission does? Torque is multiplied by the gear ratio's. If you have 50ft-lbs. at the crank, and use a 4:1 gearset, you will have 200ft-lbs minus some loss after the conversion.

 

I see where you're going with that, and yeah, perhaps that's what they're aiming for. Perceived torque through reduction gearing, not actual engine output. That 188lbs-ft of torque would likely be measured at a very low RPM thereby keeping the HP number real. It's still misleading though to claim 188lbs-ft of torque when everyone else reports torque at the crank.

That would be a super-low gear though.