SAE horsepower ratings...
11-16-05, 03:37 PM
#16
Lexus Test Driver
It is a very well known fact by now that GM and Ford underrated their engines. The Corvette C5 Z06 put out around 15 HP more than it was rated at, Dodge Neon SRT-4 dynos at 230 whp while the actual crank HP rating was 230 HP as well, which means it was underrated by around 20 HP or so, the C6 Z06 has been underrated as well and so no. As a result, with the new protocol they lost power, but due to the underrating it seems like they actually gained some power with the new protocol. It does not matter what the factory ratings are for a car. SAE corrected dynos (not STD dyno) tell the exact truth about the car. I have seen Toyota and Honda dynos i.e. Lexus IS300, Corolla XRS, Celica GTS, RSX Type S, Accord V6, TSX, TL etc. with my own eyes and they show they put out very close to what they are supposed to be when factoring the 15% powertrain loss. Nissan is far below Toyota and Honda since their engines dyno way too low for what they are rated i.e. G35 Coupe and 350Z dyno between 220 - 230 whp when they are actually rated close to 300 HP. Either the powertrain loss is too high or they overrate their engines.
Originally Posted by mkaresh
The numbers do not necessarily go down. For Honda and Toyota they've gone down, but for GM and Ford they've actually gone up a bit in a few cases. It depends on how conservative Nissan's testing policies were. What the new standards do is remove some loopholes, and not everyone was exploiting these loopholes.
It is quite likely, though, that Nissan's numbers will drop, as otherwise they'd just go ahead and switch. Ditto for Chrysler. A friend who does engine testing at an automaker told me a year or so ago that Honda, Toyota, and Chrysler engines weren't putting out what they were supposed to. Ford, on the other hand, has been very conservative in its procedures ever since the Mustang Cobra mess a few years ago.
Finally, I've driven the IS 250. There's not much torque there, regardless of the numbers.
It is quite likely, though, that Nissan's numbers will drop, as otherwise they'd just go ahead and switch. Ditto for Chrysler. A friend who does engine testing at an automaker told me a year or so ago that Honda, Toyota, and Chrysler engines weren't putting out what they were supposed to. Ford, on the other hand, has been very conservative in its procedures ever since the Mustang Cobra mess a few years ago.
Finally, I've driven the IS 250. There's not much torque there, regardless of the numbers.
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 11-16-05 at 03:41 PM.
11-16-05, 03:49 PM
#17
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 79
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by 05RollaXRS
It is a very well known fact by now that GM and Ford underrated their engines. The Corvette C5 Z06 put out around 15 HP more than it was rated at, Dodge Neon SRT-4 dynos at 230 whp while the actual crank HP rating was 230 HP as well, which means it was underrated by around 20 HP or so, the C6 Z06 has been underrated as well and so no. As a result, with the new protocol they lost power, but due to the underrating it seems like they actually gained some power with the new protocol. It does not matter what the factory ratings are for a car. SAE corrected dynos (not STD dyno) tell the exact truth about the car. I have seen Toyota and Honda dynos i.e. Lexus IS300, Corolla XRS, Celica GTS, RSX Type S, Accord V6, TSX, TL etc. with my own eyes and they show they put out very close to what they are supposed to be when factoring the 15% powertrain loss. Nissan is far below Toyota and Honda since their engines dyno way too low for what they are rated i.e. G35 Coupe and 350Z dyno between 220 - 230 whp when they are actually rated close to 300 HP. Either the powertrain loss is too high or they overrate their engines.
11-16-05, 04:31 PM
#18
Rookie
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: CA
Posts: 69
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by skynite
So you're saying that if you dyno a IS350 it will be close to 306?
Around 260 whp according to him.
11-16-05, 04:58 PM
#19
Originally Posted by spwolf
actually, most ppl that post this dont understand that Toyota tested all of their cars with 87 octane fuel, which is reason for most of the drops, because before cars were tested using Premium fuel. This is not defined in SAE testing procedures, just what Toyota wanted to do to clear things up due to a lot of people using 87. Most other manufacturers still test with higher octane fuel (for example Honda on new SI) even though if they "reccomend" 87.
This is the reason for any of GR series engines dropping, such as 4Runner (which "required" premium before 2006), or Avalon (same thing), and probably had a lot to do with Camry's drop - for example Camry V6 SE engine dropped from 225 to 210 on 87 octane, while ES330 dropped to 218 on Premium. Both were rated the same previously at 225hp.
On the other side, I believe GM did not test all of their engines, just ones that they felt were good for them and Ford certainly didnt test theirs and specifically said that they dont care.
I think Toyota did the right thing, right away, because as much as I know, it is only manufacturer that tested all of their cars and with reccomended fuel.
This is the reason for any of GR series engines dropping, such as 4Runner (which "required" premium before 2006), or Avalon (same thing), and probably had a lot to do with Camry's drop - for example Camry V6 SE engine dropped from 225 to 210 on 87 octane, while ES330 dropped to 218 on Premium. Both were rated the same previously at 225hp.
On the other side, I believe GM did not test all of their engines, just ones that they felt were good for them and Ford certainly didnt test theirs and specifically said that they dont care.
I think Toyota did the right thing, right away, because as much as I know, it is only manufacturer that tested all of their cars and with reccomended fuel.
The real reason for the drop is the testing methods used, Honda, Toyota and Nissan took advantage of the old SAE standards that allowed minimal oil in the crankcase and simulated exhaust systems, no manufacturer was accused of doing anything wrong but under the new rules a number of Japanese models have lost horses while American cars generally have gained. Examples: Cadillac XLR-v was rated at 440HP now at 469HP, Dodge Viper went from 500 to 510HP, Lexus LS430 and Toyota Avalon both lost 12HP, SAE also no longer allows rounding up of HP numbers such as Civic si can no longer claim 200HP, it will have to claim 197, these are just a few examples, you can read the full article in November issue of Motor Trend.
11-16-05, 04:59 PM
#20
Driver School Candidate
Thread Starter
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Alberta
Posts: 40
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by tqlla3k
Hmmm, I am not sure why you would want to compare the two powerwise.
The numbers may be off, but even if the G35x was rated under the new SAE rules, it would still have 60HP+ more than the New IS250 AWD.
204 vs 280 is bad. 204 vs 265 is still bad
I would compare the two on looks, ride comfort and luxury.
The numbers may be off, but even if the G35x was rated under the new SAE rules, it would still have 60HP+ more than the New IS250 AWD.
204 vs 280 is bad. 204 vs 265 is still bad
I would compare the two on looks, ride comfort and luxury.
11-16-05, 05:08 PM
#21
Guest
Posts: n/a
Guys, seriously, HORSEPOWER IS A MEASUREMENT. Even with the new SAE ratings, its old and outdated. And since its a MEASUREMENT, it doesn't matter if ANY car gained or LOST power, acceleration times WON'T CHANGE ONE BIT!!!
Now TORQUE can be calculated and that is what you really want.
All this PEAK HORSEPOWER CRAP is now old. Its tiring seeing people argue and see carmakers post peak HP numbers.
WHEN DO YOU drive at 66000 RPM?????
Now, tell me about your torque and if your peak torque is available down low, like 2-3000rpm and you get a
Now TORQUE can be calculated and that is what you really want.
All this PEAK HORSEPOWER CRAP is now old. Its tiring seeing people argue and see carmakers post peak HP numbers.
WHEN DO YOU drive at 66000 RPM?????
Now, tell me about your torque and if your peak torque is available down low, like 2-3000rpm and you get a
11-16-05, 05:39 PM
#22
Originally Posted by 1SICKLEX
Guys, seriously, HORSEPOWER IS A MEASUREMENT. Even with the new SAE ratings, its old and outdated. And since its a MEASUREMENT, it doesn't matter if ANY car gained or LOST power, acceleration times WON'T CHANGE ONE BIT!!!
Now TORQUE can be calculated and that is what you really want.
All this PEAK HORSEPOWER CRAP is now old. Its tiring seeing people argue and see carmakers post peak HP numbers.
WHEN DO YOU drive at 66000 RPM?????
Now, tell me about your torque and if your peak torque is available down low, like 2-3000rpm and you get a
Now TORQUE can be calculated and that is what you really want.
All this PEAK HORSEPOWER CRAP is now old. Its tiring seeing people argue and see carmakers post peak HP numbers.
WHEN DO YOU drive at 66000 RPM?????
Now, tell me about your torque and if your peak torque is available down low, like 2-3000rpm and you get a
Hey Sick you don't want your torque to peak that early in the powerband because the rest of the way up to your shift point your'e basically just coasting, I do agree that all this talk about 15-20 HP one way or the other is just that talk, however the one car that really fudged the numbers(not the way you think) was the Z06, 500 HP was claimed but the real world numbers are said to be in the 550 range, now that' a real difference.
11-16-05, 09:47 PM
#23
Guest
Posts: n/a
Originally Posted by Indio
Hey Sick you don't want your torque to peak that early in the powerband because the rest of the way up to your shift point your'e basically just coasting, I do agree that all this talk about 15-20 HP one way or the other is just that talk, however the one car that really fudged the numbers(not the way you think) was the Z06, 500 HP was claimed but the real world numbers are said to be in the 550 range, now that' a real difference.
11-17-05, 01:03 PM
#25
Originally Posted by Indio
The real reason for the drop is the testing methods used, Honda, Toyota and Nissan took advantage of the old SAE standards that allowed minimal oil in the crankcase and simulated exhaust systems, no manufacturer was accused of doing anything wrong but under the new rules a number of Japanese models have lost horses while American cars generally have gained. Examples: Cadillac XLR-v was rated at 440HP now at 469HP, Dodge Viper went from 500 to 510HP, Lexus LS430 and Toyota Avalon both lost 12HP, SAE also no longer allows rounding up of HP numbers such as Civic si can no longer claim 200HP, it will have to claim 197, these are just a few examples, you can read the full article in November issue of Motor Trend.
Of course, this doesnt change a thing for Avalon, still faster than anything else in its class, by wide margin...
And we are all aware about GM V8, what about other engines? I find it curious that they did not restest others...
Germans did not retest.
11-17-05, 02:15 PM
#26
Lexus Test Driver
I agree that nothing has changed in reality since the cars still dyno with same wheel horsepower. Not all cars are tested using premium unless explicitly mentioned. High compression ratio cars like RSX Type S, Corolla XRS, Acura TL etc. are still tested using premium Octane gas because that is the minimum required. Yet, they all lost some HP.
The reason why HP was lost officially, because of some equipment did not used to get installed before measuring HP i.e power steering, pumps, airconditioning etc. All of these components suck horsepower. The new SAE standard requires cars to be tested AFTER such equipment is installed.
The reason why HP was lost officially, because of some equipment did not used to get installed before measuring HP i.e power steering, pumps, airconditioning etc. All of these components suck horsepower. The new SAE standard requires cars to be tested AFTER such equipment is installed.
Originally Posted by spwolf
lol, no. Read my post again. Drop for some engines has been because of the different measurments, but at the same time, most of the Toyota drops (and all of the GR engine series - like Avalon and 4Runner) is because they started testing with 87 octane fuel, instead of premium.
Of course, this doesnt change a thing for Avalon, still faster than anything else in its class, by wide margin...
And we are all aware about GM V8, what about other engines? I find it curious that they did not restest others...
Germans did not retest.
Of course, this doesnt change a thing for Avalon, still faster than anything else in its class, by wide margin...
And we are all aware about GM V8, what about other engines? I find it curious that they did not restest others...
Germans did not retest.
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 11-17-05 at 02:22 PM.
11-17-05, 02:30 PM
#27
Really. Like 1Sick pointed out. Crank HP doesn't mean crap. Who cares if you have the best crank HP if you have a very innefficient transmission that soaks up all the power? My Honda motor is rated at 270 HP under the old rating system and still puts down 240 HP to the wheels with a manual transmission. Now does that mean the motor was underrated or does it mean I have an efficient transmission? Who cares? As long as it performs they way it supposed to. 
11-17-05, 03:12 PM
#28
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ON
Posts: 1,430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
SICK is right, it's just a measurement - the car is still as fast or as slow as it was under new or old SAE, though I admit it is interesting to have the more "accurate" rating. Dynos seem to vary quite a bit so the only way to really measure cars relative to eachother is to put them on the same dyno or... *gasp* race them. 
Oh, and those 298hp G35's aren't dyno'ing 230rwhp. The lowest I've seen, of ~50 or so, was 255, the highest was 271. Of course those were on different dyno's, I am sure I could find a dyno that would give a 230rwhp result, but then it would probably measure everything low. My G35 is a 280hp model - it's been on 4 dyno's and has been measured as low as 253 and as high as 265.
On the other hand our 2002 330i (rated 225) has measured from 208 to 214.
Oh, and those 298hp G35's aren't dyno'ing 230rwhp. The lowest I've seen, of ~50 or so, was 255, the highest was 271. Of course those were on different dyno's, I am sure I could find a dyno that would give a 230rwhp result, but then it would probably measure everything low. My G35 is a 280hp model - it's been on 4 dyno's and has been measured as low as 253 and as high as 265.
On the other hand our 2002 330i (rated 225) has measured from 208 to 214.
11-17-05, 03:44 PM
#29
Lexus Test Driver
Originally Posted by picus
Oh, and those 298hp G35's aren't dyno'ing 230rwhp. The lowest I've seen, of ~50 or so, was 255, the highest was 271. Of course those were on different dyno's, I am sure I could find a dyno that would give a 230rwhp result, but then it would probably measure everything low. My G35 is a 280hp model - it's been on 4 dyno's and has been measured as low as 253 and as high as 265.
On the other hand our 2002 330i (rated 225) has measured from 208 to 214.
On the other hand our 2002 330i (rated 225) has measured from 208 to 214.
Here is an SAE Corrected dyno done by Injen performance parts company where you can see the baseline and with the cold airintake dynos. It is consistent with all the other dynos I have seen. Stock, the G35 coupe does dyno at 230 whp:
03 G35 Coupe Manual dyno (stock: 230 whp):
http://www.injen.com/webpages/testin...nal/RD1992.jpg
03 350z Manual (stock: 230 whp):
http://www.injen.com/webpages/testin...age%20gain.jpg
04 Acura TL (Stock: 213 whp):
http://www.injen.com/webpages/testin...%2004%20TL.GIF
IS300 (Stock: 180 whp):
http://www.injen.com/webpages/testin...heatshield.jpg
Celica GTS (Stock: 163 whp):
http://www.injen.com/webpages/testin...nal/RD2046.jpg
Last edited by 05RollaXRS; 11-17-05 at 03:49 PM.
11-17-05, 04:01 PM
#30
Lexus Test Driver
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: ON
Posts: 1,430
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Well if you're going to play that game - 2003 G35 coupes were 280hp, not 298hp. Anyway, you can have the last word, I shouldn't have bothered saying anything aside from "SICK is right, it's just another measurement". The cars are as slow or as fast as they are regardless of how you measure them.