hp to hw

ONBA1L · 30-11-2007, 12:53 AM

hi just wondering if anybody knows how much 200rwhp is in kws???
or how much hp in a kw cheers

Bent8 · 30-11-2007, 12:58 AM

200rwhp=149rwkw

1.341hp=1kW

ExAreSix · 30-11-2007, 01:04 AM

Do some people just not know how to spell 'google'? I dunno...

ONBA1L · 30-11-2007, 01:05 AM

thanx 4 that

FTGAutosalvage · 30-11-2007, 01:13 AM

746watts in a horsepower

dishpig · 30-11-2007, 01:14 AM

get this program it'll convert anything you ever need to.

http://joshmadison.com/software/convert/download.php

fmc351 · 30-11-2007, 02:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by FTGAutosalvage

746watts in a horsepower

watt?

nommic · 30-11-2007, 02:16 PM

http://www.google.com.au/search?q=20...ient=firefox-a

GTP534 · 30-11-2007, 08:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

watt?

1hp is equivalent to 746 Watts or 0.746kW. Normally it is rounded up to 0.75kW.

boss-290 · 30-11-2007, 08:59 PM

http://www.wentec.com/unipower/calculators/kw_hp.asp

Paxton · 30-11-2007, 09:08 PM

What's a HW? Horse Watt?

Steffo · 30-11-2007, 09:25 PM

200hp = 149kW.

fmc351 · 30-11-2007, 10:51 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by GTP534

1hp is equivalent to 746 Watts or 0.746kW. Normally it is rounded up to 0.75kW.

It was a joke mate, but thanks. Yeah I know, it wasnt funny.

SpoolMan · 30-11-2007, 11:02 PM

Good table here.
http://www.tdiclub.com/misc/conversions.html

Nostalgia · 30-11-2007, 11:17 PM

All correct.
kilowatt (kw) x1.34 = Horsepower x 0.746 = kw. And what does hp to hw mean.

Yellow_Festiva · 01-12-2007, 12:21 AM

I know its not 100% correct but I just divide HP by 4, then multiply the answer by 3 for KW.

Or divide KW by 3 then multiply by 4 for HP...

So 200hp/4=50. 50x3=150kw.

Doing this for most cars will get you 1-2 kw / hp to the 'correct' number.

Steffo · 01-12-2007, 12:23 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

I know its not 100% correct but I just divide HP by 4, then multiply the answer by 3 for KW.

Or divide KW by 4 then multiply by 3 for HP...

So 200kw/4=50. 50x3=150kw.

Doing this for most cars will get you 1-2 kw / hp to the 'correct' number.

After seeing the correct equation repeated in this thread so many times you give an incorrect one because....

:

Yellow_Festiva · 01-12-2007, 12:25 AM

Caus 3 and 4 are easier to remember. Rather than 'x1.34 = Horsepower x 0.746 = kw'.

Do you not agree?

[Tonko] · 01-12-2007, 12:27 AM

I have this one saved in my favourites.... has other good conversions aswell

http://www.mr2ownersclub.com/converter.htm

fmc351 · 01-12-2007, 01:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

After seeing the correct equation repeated in this thread so many times you give an incorrect one because....

:

It may not be perfect but its not a bad method. Wont be useful in all situations, its good for a rough translation where you arent dropping your pants to compete over points of a kw or hp.

100 hp is 74.57kw. Using his method, he would get 75kw. Sounds pretty close.

600 hp is 447.42kw. Using his method, he would get 450kw.

Conversely,
75 kw is going to come out at 100 hp
450 kw is going to come out at 600 hp

Steffo · 01-12-2007, 01:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Caus 3 and 4 are easier to remember. Rather than 'x1.34 = Horsepower x 0.746 = kw'.

Do you not agree?

Nope. 1.34 is a very easy conversion rate to remember.

As is the kW to PS (Pfederstarke) 1.359. And the HP to PS 1.014.

206kW = 276hp = 280ps... for example.

Also doing something like 100*1.34=134 is a one step equation, whereas 134/4*3 = 100.5 is not only incorrect but its more complicated.

juve_fan14 · 01-12-2007, 01:32 AM

^Yeah ok man, i know you're just trying to prove your point but all you did is picked the only number (100) that suited your equation cause all you had to do was move the decimal two places, now you honestly think to your self, what's easier to work out in your head 170x1.34 or 170/4x3.

Pedro · 01-12-2007, 01:51 AM

reminds me of that old limerick:-

there was a young man named Paul
who had a rectangular ball
the size of his date
plus his pen*s times eight
was three fifths of five eighth
of all

... well at least it's an arithmetical equasion. LOL

Yellow_Festiva · 01-12-2007, 02:14 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Nope. 1.34 is a very easy conversion rate to remember.

As is the kW to PS (Pfederstarke) 1.359. And the HP to PS 1.014.

206kW = 276hp = 280ps... for example.

Also doing something like 100*1.34=134 is a one step equation, whereas 134/4*3 = 100.5 is not only incorrect but its more complicated.

I actually stated that it was not the correct method....

Are you always so technically correct in all that you do??

And, no my method is not more complicated. You need to remember 2 numbers, not 2 numbers with 2 and 3 decimal places!

Oh, and as stated. Anyone can divide / multiply using 10's 100's etc in their heads.....

What will you do faster mentally? 144/4x3 or 144x1.34????

Steffo · 01-12-2007, 03:45 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by juve_fan14

^Yeah ok man, i know you're just trying to prove your point but all you did is picked the only number (100) that suited your equation cause all you had to do was move the decimal two places, now you honestly think to your self, what's easier to work out in your head 170x1.34 or 170/4x3.

170 * 1.34 = 227.8 = 228hp.

170/3 = 56.666666666666666666666666666667 * 4 = 226.66666666666666666666666666667 = 227hp = wrong.

You tell me, what's easier...

Steffo · 01-12-2007, 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

I actually stated that it was not the correct method....

Are you always so technically correct in all that you do??

And, no my method is not more complicated. You need to remember 2 numbers, not 2 numbers with 2 and 3 decimal places!

Oh, and as stated. Anyone can divide / multiply using 10's 100's etc in their heads.....

What will you do faster mentally? 144/4x3 or 144x1.34????

Yes. I am always technically correct. There shouldn't be permissable error when there is no need for it. Imagine if someone designing a car, designing a vital component, did an equation a 'simple way,' that 'is close enough to being correct,' (sorry, my 2:38am analogies are bad)... its not acceptable, is it? So why should incorrect methodology for converting kiloWatt to horsepower be?

144/4 = 36 * 3 = 108

144*1.34 will turn kW into horsepower so that's wrong.

144/1.34 = 107.46 = 107kW.

Your method isn't always so simple, it depends heavily on the number you're trying to convert. And its especially so when backwards converting (kW into hp rather then hp into kW). Look at my previous post (170kW into hp) and try to tell me that's simple...

Yellow_Festiva · 01-12-2007, 04:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Yes. I am always technically correct. There shouldn't be permissable error when there is no need for it. Imagine if someone designing a car, designing a vital component, did an equation a 'simple way,' that 'is close enough to being correct,' (sorry, my 2:38am analogies are bad)... its not acceptable, is it? So why should incorrect methodology for converting kiloWatt to horsepower be?

Are you serious? I bet when someone asks the time you say, 7.44 and 26 seconds rather than a quarter to 8?

And i'm sure you weigh 75kg and 276 grams when someone asks?

Seeing as you are always technically correct?

We are not talking about vital components...

Your splitting hairs.......

And I really think you shouldn't be giving me this much crap for offering my answer......

Yawn.... goodnight

fmc351 · 01-12-2007, 04:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Steffo

Yes. I am always technically correct. There shouldn't be permissable error when there is no need for it. Imagine if someone designing a car, designing a vital component, did an equation a 'simple way,' that 'is close enough to being correct,' (sorry, my 2:38am analogies are bad)... its not acceptable, is it? So why should incorrect methodology for converting kiloWatt to horsepower be?

144/4 = 36 * 3 = 108

144*1.34 will turn kW into horsepower so that's wrong.

144/1.34 = 107.46 = 107kW.

Your method isn't always so simple, it depends heavily on the number you're trying to convert. And its especially so when backwards converting (kW into hp rather then hp into kW). Look at my previous post (170kW into hp) and try to tell me that's simple...

*head explodes.

Dude, the guy came in here, asked what was the way to translate kw to hp or vice versa. He obviously isnt building a space shuttle or a nuke reactor. A small tolerance of error is OK dude, relax. He was already offered the more technical answer. Now he ADDITIONALLY has an easy head calc of a rough translation.

170/3=56 roughly. 56x4=224. If want it closer just use 57 and get 228.

God youre pedantic.

Steffo · 01-12-2007, 05:05 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Yellow_Festiva

Are you serious? I bet when someone asks the time you say, 7.44 and 26 seconds rather than a quarter to 8?

And i'm sure you weigh 75kg and 276 grams when someone asks?

Seeing as you are always technically correct?

We are not talking about vital components...

Your splitting hairs.......

And I really think you shouldn't be giving me this much crap for offering my answer......

Yawn.... goodnight

I say what my clock says. Most of the time being my mob phone. Which doesn't read seconds. :P

I weigh 111.5kg... that's as accurate as the scale was.

:

Quote:

Originally Posted by fmc351

*head explodes.

Dude, the guy came in here, asked what was the way to translate kw to hp or vice versa. He obviously isnt building a space shuttle or a nuke reactor. A small tolerance of error is OK dude, relax. He was already offered the more technical answer. Now he ADDITIONALLY has an easy head calc of a rough translation.

170/3=56 roughly. 56x4=224. If want it closer just use 57 and get 228.

God youre pedantic.

Why be wrong when you don't have to be? Why voluntarily support the wrong answer? It doesn't make sense? *brain melts trying to comprehend

Disciple · 01-12-2007, 09:29 AM

There are so many varying factors when talking about dyno numbers to begin with, that a small margin for error (or large in some cases) is totally acceptable. Additionally, when car manufacturers quote power and torque figures for their cars, they're quoting the AVERAGE output of their engines, and not a finite number produced by each and every engine replicated hundreds of times to an exact and accurate figure. Again, small amounts of tolerance are allowed. Take for example my EVO. I've got an exhaust and a tune and have 192kwatw. On the same dyno, same day, same car (mine) my tuner could of easily got me 220kwatw simply by changing a setting or two in the software, but that's not accurate is it, and this is where a heap of tolerance is required.

So my point is, even if by doing someones equation you get 227kW, then doing it another way you get 228kW, is it really that different? 1 freakin kW man, WOAH, STEP BACK, THE NUCLEAR REACTOR BLEW UP!!! Just for the record, I've always worked it out like; HP / 1.34 = kW.