Toyota/Honda cheat on HP ratings

[SkiD]

Interesting information, it seems Toyota and Honda have been overestimating the amount of horsepower their engines produce by as much as 20%, as in the case of the Toyota Camry. Whereas the domestics have typically been underestimating their ratings.

Toyota, Honda must fess up to less vroom (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060313/AUTO01/603130350/1148/BIZ)

Here were the "Top" 5 worst cars

1. Toyota Camry
3.0L V6
2005 HP - 210
2006 HP - 190
-20% difference

2. Toyota Sienna
3.3L V6
2005 HP - 230
2006 HP - 215
-15% difference

3. Toyota Highlander
3.3L V6
2005 HP - 230
2006 HP - 215
-15% difference

4. Toyota Camry
3.3L V6
2005 HP - 225
2006 HP - 210
-15% difference

5. Toyota Avalon
3.5L V6
2005 HP - 280
2006 HP - 268
-12% difference

[seftonm]

Whoever calculated those percentages should have paid more attention in high school. I'm pretty sure the main reason for the lower output is because they ran the tests with regular unleaded fuel. Running premium would cause the output to be very similar to the 2005 ratings.

[lumlum1013]

They probably lower the hps so that it has better fuel milage?
correct me if i'm wrong...

[Alvito]

hp and gas milage dont always have a correlation. The lexus 300 or something is like 200+ hp and has 30mpg+

[wylie]

I believe the reason for the differences is that this is the first year that all manufacturers have adopted a new standard method for rating horsepower. Different machine I guess. Can't remember the details

[dablackgoku1234]

hp and gas milage dont always have a correlation. The lexus 300 or something is like 200+ hp and has 30mpg+

uhh....wrong!!

The amount of gas directly affects the amount of hp u get. IS300 spits out 215 horses at 5800rpm. At 5800rpm, no way are you getting 30+ mpg. More like 10mpg.

If you are getting 30+ mpg, you are probably revving at 2000rpm, no where even close to 215 horses.

[gilboman]

Interesting information, it seems Toyota and Honda have been overestimating the amount of horsepower their engines produce by as much as 20%, as in the case of the Toyota Camry. Whereas the domestics have typically been underestimating their ratings.



it's just different method of calculating horsepower. the actual power a driver would feel and of the car is no different between the years.

[gilboman]

Interesting information, it seems Toyota and Honda have been overestimating the amount of horsepower their engines produce by as much as 20%, as in the case of the Toyota Camry. Whereas the domestics have typically been underestimating their ratings.

Toyota, Honda must fess up to less vroom (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060313/AUTO01/603130350/1148/BIZ)

Here were the "Top" 5 worst cars

1. Toyota Camry
3.0L V6
2005 HP - 210
2006 HP - 190
-20% difference

2. Toyota Sienna
3.3L V6
2005 HP - 230
2006 HP - 215
-15% difference

3. Toyota Highlander
3.3L V6
2005 HP - 230
2006 HP - 215
-15% difference

4. Toyota Camry
3.3L V6
2005 HP - 225
2006 HP - 210
-15% difference

5. Toyota Avalon
3.5L V6
2005 HP - 280
2006 HP - 268
-12% difference

did they ever take elementary school math? :lol: :lol:

you should change title to detroit people failed elementary school math :lol:

[bluetroll]

it really depends... honda/toyota probably use the PERFECT conditions to output that much power... and it also depends on the dyno... they're not all calibrated exactly the same.

[toolin4]

hp and gas milage dont always have a correlation. The lexus 300 or something is like 200+ hp and has 30mpg+

better yet, the Corvette has 400hp, and can get awfully close to 30mpg :lol:
Thanks real tall 6th gear for that.

[TrevorK]

it really depends... honda/toyota probably use the PERFECT conditions to output that much power... and it also depends on the dyno... they're not all calibrated exactly the same.

Honda and Toyota developed their own condition to output their previous horsepower ratings. However, the new rating are all the same conditions among all the automotive manufacturers:
The revised ratings comply with standards adopted by the Society of Automotive Engineers.

The standards specify which components and accessories should be on during testing and what kind of oil and fuel to use. To claim an SAE-certified rating, an automaker also must conduct tests in the presence of an independent witness.

Now that they are all using the same rating system, the horsepower has dropped for many models. However, the article does state some actually went up for Honda:
...Various Accord styles had slight gains...

From this point forward, it would appear that they will all be using the same measurement, so now everyone will be on an even playing field, instead of letting people decide on their own what number to put down without it being necessarily equivalent to the other makes/models.

[M-e-X-x]

it's just different method of calculating horsepower. the actual power a driver would feel and of the car is no different between the years.

so true... a civic will always feel weak to me :D

[gilboman]

so true... a civic will always feel weak to me :D

unless it's a civic SI :lol:

[konfusion666]

unless it's a civic SI :lol:

i can't tell if your joking or serious :cheesygri

[otaque]

so true... a civic will always feel weak to me :D

Most cars would feel too weak for the 'tame racing driver' that you are ... wouldn't they? ;)

[B0000rt]

I would like to see the Nissan Sentra SE-R with the new SAE rating system.

And on the opposite side of the spectrum, I'd like to see the SRT-4 on the new system.

The first will undoubtbly drop horses significantly, while the 2nd will gain a bunch.

[Action Jackson]

The SRT-4 when it first came out was underrated. Dodge said it had 215hp. Some people put the car on the dyno and in stock trim, it delivered something like 238'ish hp to the wheels.

Assuming a 15% drivetrain loss, that puts it around 274 crank hp.

[mudmojo]

Some more reading here (http://store.ihs.com/specsstore/controller?event=DOCUMENT_DETAILS&docId=XNFZFBAAAAAAAAAA)

What I really want to know is, who's fibbing on the torque figures? Anyone have any laboratory numbers?

With some of these previously variable factors now pegged, I would love to see "corrected" dynamometer graphs being associated with all new cars.

It's a start to weeding out companies who subscribe to unconscionable business ethics (and in some cases, flat out misrepresentation), by presenting some semblance of an "even playing field".

I can see consumers benefitting all around unless the manufacturers start tacking on the cost of the independent testing unilaterally across all models and handing the bill over to buyers.

[Evil Techie]

hp and gas milage dont always have a correlation. The lexus 300 or something is like 200+ hp and has 30mpg+


which 300?
IS300? GS300? SC300? RX300?

my GS300 has 220hp but only 19mpg
i cant think of any lexus 3L i6 engine that gives 30mpg

they only dont have a correlation if you are comparing fuel injection to a none-fuel injection or natural breathing vs forced induction

[B0000rt]

The SRT-4 when it first came out was underrated. Dodge said it had 215hp. Some people put the car on the dyno and in stock trim, it delivered something like 238'ish hp to the wheels.

Assuming a 15% drivetrain loss, that puts it around 274 crank hp.
Yeah, exactly, I wanna know what the actual crank numbers are with the new standard :D

Sentra SE-R VSpec on the other hand was grossly overrated.

[Narci]

It's a new SAE rating for calculating horsepower that was implemented this year.

Why?

Because this new SAE rating benefits pushrods more then OHC cars.

[B0000rt]

It's a new SAE rating for calculating horsepower that was implemented this year.

Why?

Because this new SAE rating benefits pushrods more then OHC cars.
It does? How/why is it favour OHV engines over OHC engines?

[SkiD]

Because this new SAE rating benefits pushrods more then OHC cars.

The drop in results have nothing to do with the type of engine (there are OHC domestics you know and not all Honda's for example went down in rating).

The cars that "lost" horsepower was because their manufacturers tested their engines under ideal conditions. They did things like use a different oil, use higher octane gas, no accessories attached (steering pump, AC, etc.) and other things.

All the SAE test does is level the playing field by having them test their vehicles in a real world situation.

[FastFokker]

http://www.autoblog.com/2006/03/14/new-sae-testing-methods-admonish-toyota-honda-to-hold-their-hor/

New SAE testing methods admonish Toyota, Honda to hold their horses
The dust continues to settle from the introduction of new horsepower testing standards by the Society of Automotive Engineers, and Japanese automakers are finding a few less ponies in their stables. It turns out that the new testing procedures have resulted in lower horsepower ratings for a number of Toyota and Honda models, while American carmakers have gone largely unaffected.
This thread sucks.. nobody cheated.

[konfusion666]

It does? How/why is it favour OHV engines over OHC engines?

he probably thinks that only Honda/Toyota uses OHC engines and NO-ONE else does... rofl.

[belgiangenius]

so true... a civic will always feel weak to me :D

If a Civic feels weak, you're not driving the manual version or you're not abusing it enough.

Civics like to be redlined. Mine lives at the redline. Almost 200,000 km on it, and still runs like the day I bought it. :)

If you drove a Chevy or Chrysler that way, you'd blow something up by 50,000km.

[mudmojo]

If a Civic feels weak, you're not driving the manual version or you're not abusing it enough.

Civics like to be redlined. Mine lives at the redline. Almost 200,000 km on it, and still runs like the day I bought it. :)

If you drove a Chevy or Chrysler that way, you'd blow something up by 50,000km.

How is it you're an expert on what other people feel? I could drive a new M3 and it would be weak... nevermind an overachieving econobox.

There are some people whose cars are considerably quicker than 600CC motorbikes. It all depends on what one is accustomed to.

Get inside their heads! :)

[SkiD]

If a Civic feels weak, you're not driving the manual version or you're not abusing it enough.

Civics like to be redlined. Mine lives at the redline. Almost 200,000 km on it, and still runs like the day I bought it. :)

If you drove a Chevy or Chrysler that way, you'd blow something up by 50,000km.

Probably the start of a whole new thread (horsepower vs. torque) but I have always wondered about cars that need to be "redlined" for performance and how much their fuel mileage is hurt by this "real world" usage.

[gilboman]

Probably the start of a whole new thread (horsepower vs. torque) but I have always wondered about cars that need to be "redlined" for performance and how much their fuel mileage is hurt by this "real world" usage.

it's not affected since a civic at say 6k consumes as much as a cobalt at 3k . the epa figures aren't skewed by this.

[Narci]

Ok..i could be wrong. I just assumed (which I should not have done and I admit it) that it benefits OHV engine because of the torque they produce. We all know Toyota/Honda car's torque is pretty anemic. Here's the SAE J1349 new standard calculations which takes Torque into consideration.

http://wahiduddin.net/calc/cf.htm


Horsepower and Torque:

Power is the rate at which work is done. When the engine torque is turning the crankshaft and power is being delivered, the resulting horsepower may be expressed as:

http://wahiduddin.net/calc/images/density/cf.htm2b.gif

which can be simplified as

http://wahiduddin.net/calc/images/density/cf.htm3b.gif


where: hp = horsepower, hp
t = torque, ft-lbs
rpm = engine speed, revolutions per minute


This is a great formula. Basically it says that if you can keep the same amount of torque, then the more rpm you can turn, the more horsepower you get!

Again..i apologize. Please correct if i'm wrong..i'm no math major haha.

[Sylvestre]

damm, I wish I could calculate my pay increases with the same math those ppl calculated their percentages.

makes me not bother reading the rest. if you can't get something simple like that correct, the rest is just questionable.

[konfusion666]

most lexus vehicles use toyota engines which have greater Torque than Horsepower (last i checked...) and they're all DOHC, so i'm not sure what your point is?

i think the IS series' engines have hp > torque, but certainly the GS and LS series have torque > hp.

same with the V6 camry.

it's really just honda which has this perpetual hp > torque problem :twisted:

[Narci]

My point was OVC cars like Honda's and Toyota's don't benefit from the new rating because the engine's torque is directly calculated into the HP equation where as the pushrod cars like the Northstar engine do benefit.

The OHC cars have a curvy torque and the pushrod cars have a realtively flat torque.

I could be wrong though like I said. I'm no rocket scientist.

[JAC]

I'm pretty sure the main reason for the lower output is because they ran the tests with regular unleaded fuel. Running premium would cause the output to be very similar to the 2005 ratings.
LOL @ Fanboy.

AFAIK, regular unleaded is recommended for all the cars he listed.

Do you even understand the purpose of higher octane?

[JAC]

where as the pushrod cars like the Northstar engine do benefit.

Northstar is a 4.6 DOHC V8.

[gilboman]

LOL @ Fanboy.

AFAIK, regular unleaded is recommended for all the above cars.

Do you even understand the purpose of higher octane?

i thought the 3.3L V6 toyota's took premium?

[JAC]

i thought the 3.3L V6 toyota's took premium?
Maybe, that's why I said AFAIK. :)

I found one website that listed it as regular, but it may have been wrong.

[gilboman]

Maybe, that's why I said AFAIK. :)

I found one website that listed it as regular, but it may have been wrong.

well now u know differently...they take premium

[Narci]

Northstar is a 4.6 DOHC V8.

hehe ok..my theory is out the window. Sorrie for the posts.

[konfusion666]

well now u know differently...they take premium

Last time I read my Camry's manual... it said that premium fuel (actually it listed the octane number) was recommended for either of the 2 V6 engines (3.0 or 3.3) and regular fuel was recommended for the i4 engine.

Of course... how many Camry owners probably follow that... who knows

[radeonboy]

The only reason why one car would need premium or not is in the case of its compression ratio.

No, using premium on a regular car won't make the car run "cleaner". Thats a big misconception. Actually doing that on a car needing regular fuel octane will hurt the engine more than help it. The compression doesn't justify using higher octane. Its going to throw things out of wack.

[FastFokker]

But more critically is an engine which requires high(er) octane fuel, but the owner continuously fills it with regular.

T'is a no-no.

[seftonm]

LOL @ Fanboy.

AFAIK, regular unleaded is recommended for all the cars he listed.

Do you even understand the purpose of higher octane?

I would have dismissed your comments as those of an uninformed poster if you didn't call me a fanboy. I am very interested to see the logic used to deduce I'm a fanboy based on one sentence. Even if somebody says something completely inaccurate, it's hardly an indication of being a fanboy. Sometimes people are just wrong. Note that I said "I'm pretty sure...", not "It's a fact that" or anything else. Replace "I'm pretty sure..." with "AFAIK" if that helps your understanding. I do understand the purpose of higher octane very well. I know high octane is not what I want for my car. My car likes high centane :cheesygri

Motor Trend March 2006 says the Avalon needs premium unleaded. 3.3 is a toss-up but I was pretty sure that it wanted premium and most people here seem to agree. The 3.0 in my mom's van is only rated at 194 hp and premium is recommended, so I figured the newer, higher output version would need premium as well.

Turns out that I wasn't as accurate as I thought: this article (http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0508/17/A01-283759.htm) indicates that any vehicle could be tested with premium fuel, not just vehicles that require it. It actually makes a bit more sense to me like that.

Hopefully this post isn't as full of fanboyism as my last one. :lol:

[JAC]

It was unjustified, I admit. Sorry. :)

It just seemed incongruous at the time for you to suggest that a test would deliberately be performed with regular when the specifications called for premium. From that I erroneously inferred the typical blind support of a product inherent of a fanboy. My mistake.

[Sonbuster]

perhaps the higher number hp [claim] are the bhp and the lower number hp [actual] is the whp. more info about bhp and whp can be found here:
http://www.sportscarforums.com/f13/what-does-bhp-whp-stand-2377.html

hope that helps

[gilboman]

perhaps the higher number hp [claim] are the bhp and the lower number hp [actual] is the whp. more info about bhp and whp can be found here:
http://www.sportscarforums.com/f13/what-does-bhp-whp-stand-2377.html

hope that helps

no that is not it. sae corrected hp is still at crank.

[pandaharo]

I think I remember there were some issues about car companies posting at engine and at wheel horsepower and also some were testing hp without the cat converter etc. I believe the gov just recently implemented a standard measuring method for hp, fuel consumption and etc.

[FastFokker]

Is this not the explanation?

http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/showpost.php?p=2993606&postcount=24
Previous rating procedures were vague in many areas, allowing automakers a great deal of latitude in testing methodologies-- which type of fuel and oil were used, which components and accessories were running during testing, etc. In tightening the rating procedures, the SAE has adopted methods commonly used by U.S. manufacturers. As a consequence, vehicles produced by the Big Three remain largely unaffected by the change.

[atLANtic]

Interesting information, it seems Toyota and Honda have been overestimating the amount of horsepower their engines produce by as much as 20%, as in the case of the Toyota Camry. Whereas the domestics have typically been underestimating their ratings.

Toyota, Honda must fess up to less vroom (http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060313/AUTO01/603130350/1148/BIZ)

Here were the "Top" 5 worst cars

1. Toyota Camry
3.0L V6
2005 HP - 210
2006 HP - 190
-20% difference

2. Toyota Sienna
3.3L V6
2005 HP - 230
2006 HP - 215
-15% difference

3. Toyota Highlander
3.3L V6
2005 HP - 230
2006 HP - 215
-15% difference

4. Toyota Camry
3.3L V6
2005 HP - 225
2006 HP - 210
-15% difference

5. Toyota Avalon
3.5L V6
2005 HP - 280
2006 HP - 268
-12% difference
Where did you find % ,it says HP.Did you ever take elementary school math?

[atLANtic]

did they ever take elementary school math? :lol: :lol:

you should change title to detroit people failed elementary school math :lol:
READ THE TITLE,nothing wrong to Detroit ppl,it's canadian math :)

[SkiD]

Where did you find % ,it says HP.Did you ever take elementary school math?

God is it so hard to RTFA, I didn't calculate the numbers, they came from the article. For people that can't click on a HTML link, here is the article the numbers came from.

http://www.picfury.com/0/bilde-1-th.jpg (http://www.picfury.com/0/bilde-1.html)


It turns out Toyota Motor Corp. isn't as strong as it appears in at least one area -- under the hood.

Testing under stricter new horsepower standards reveals that most of the models in Toyota's lineup have less oomph than the company has advertised. Even though the engines are unchanged, the automaker had to lower the horsepower ratings on all but few 2006 Toyota, Lexus and Scion models. The reductions range from 4 to 20 horsepower compared with 2005 models.

Honda Motor Co., the No. 2 Japanese automaker, also has downgraded the horsepower ratings on several models, including most of its Acura luxury brand.

But while the Japanese automakers overstated their power, an analysis of data compiled by Edmunds.com shows domestic vehicles have generally been testing at or slightly above previously stated horsepower. The testing suggests Detroit's automakers may have suffered unfairly in the battle of perceptions.

While drivers may not notice the difference, said George Peterson, president of consulting firm AutoPacific Inc, "it does matter to the manufacturers because each one is engaged in what I would call a brochure war where they're competing for the best specifications. And the average American likes a bigger horsepower number than a smaller one."

Most notably for Toyota, the rating for its top-selling Camry, when equipped with a 3.3-liter V-6 engine, had to be reduced to 190 horsepower from 210.

The V-6 version of Toyota's Highlander sport utility vehicle dropped from 230 to 215, and the Lexus LS and SC 430 decreased by 12.

The revised ratings comply with standards adopted by the Society of Automotive Engineers.

The standards specify which components and accessories should be on during testing and what kind of oil and fuel to use. To claim an SAE-certified rating, an automaker also must conduct tests in the presence of an independent witness.

"The intent of the revision was to tighten up the specifications," said Gary Pollak, an SAE program manager. "There were a lot of areas that were loose and subject to interpretation."

Peterson doesn't expect Toyota or Honda to face the same kind of backlash that Hyundai Motor Co. did after inflating the horsepower ratings of its U.S. vehicles by as much as 10 percent for more than a decade. The South Korea-based automaker agreed in 2004 to pay $30 million to settle a lawsuit filed on behalf of 858,000 owners.

But for consumers who covet powerful engines and allow horsepower ratings to influence which vehicles they purchase, the revisions could chip away at Honda and Toyota's reputations.

Consumers haven't taken kindly to overhyped claims.

In 2001, Nissan Motor Co. came under fire after overstating the acceleration of its Infiniti Q45 sedan. Ford Motor Co. admitted overstating the horsepower rating of its 1999 Mustang Cobra R, and Mazda Motor Corp. did the same with the 2001 Miata roadster. Buyers of both cars were offered compensation.

The new rating also could make some vehicles less appealing to consumers who start shopping by researching specifications on the Internet. The V-6 Camry's 190 horsepower pales next to competitors such as the 221-horsepower Ford Fusion, although that will change soon when the 2007 Camry is introduced with 268 horses.

Toyota spokesman John McCandless noted that the company was proactive in testing all of its vehicles under the new standards.

"We've never really been big on promoting horsepower," McCandless said. "The proof in the pudding is driving the car."

Darren Seeman, who runs the Web sites ToyotaLife.com, LexusLife.com and ScionLife.com from home in Portland, Ore., doesn't think people who bought a Toyota before the latest tests were conducted will feel misled or cheated. "Honestly, I don't think a lot of people buy a Toyota brand for the horsepower," said Seeman, 29. While Toyota and Honda have subjected their entire lineups to the new standards, Detroit's automakers are mostly retesting vehicles with new powertrains.

Eventually, all vehicles are expected to be rated according to the new standards.

"What we put in place were pretty much common practice at GM, and at Ford and Chrysler as well," said Dave Lancaster, a technical fellow at General Motors Corp. who chaired the committee that developed the standards. GM has submitted results from 11 engine lines -- covering popular vehicles such as the Chevrolet Malibu and Impala, Pontiac G6 and Cadillac DTS -- to SAE for certification. The tests bumped up the horsepower ratings for the Malibu, Impala and G6 by 1 for 2006.

DaimlerChrysler AG has retested its higher-performance vehicles, including the Dodge Viper and those equipped with a Hemi engine. The Viper went from 500 horsepower to 510, while the ratings for most others changed less than 4 percent, Chrysler Group spokesman Cole Quinnell said.

Under the previous guidelines, Quinnell said, "a lot of times we chose to publish a number that was lower than what another manufacturer might choose."

Ford has found virtually no changes in testing under the new standards. Company officials say the new 3.5-liter V-6 planned for the 2007 Ford Edge, Lincoln MKX and Lincoln MKZ will provide at least the 250 horsepower it has promised.

"It's not in our best interest to give customers an inaccurate picture of what kind of power their car has," Ford spokesman Nick Twork said.

Honda saw the horsepower ratings on the Odyssey minivan and Pilot SUV fall from 255 to 244. The CR-V and Element went from 160 to 156. Various Accord styles had slight gains. Six of the seven Acura models were downgraded, including the RL, TL and MDX.

Honda spokesman Chuck Schifsky said the company wanted to be up-front with customers by retesting all of its vehicles, even though that meant reducing many of the horsepower ratings. "We're still pretty darn competitive with all of our vehicles, even with the new specs," Schifsky said.

Honda and Toyota have been educating dealers about the changes. Dan Hurd, a salesman at LaFontaine Toyota in Dearborn, said, "They're more concerned with the drive and the fit and finish."

Seeman, who operates the Web sites, said he doesn't feel any differently about his Lexus SC 430 knowing that it was downgraded from 300 horsepower to 288. "I'm still going to tell people it's 300."

[galanz]

God is it so hard to RTFA, I didn't calculate the numbers, they came from the article. For people that can't click on a HTML link, here is the article the numbers came from.

You misquoted the numbers as percentages when they clearly were not. Just like how you claimed that Toyota and Honda were cheating when they clearly were not. It's your own fault that people don't take you seriously.

[Kenneth]

What Edmunds fails to mention is that the Japanese manufacturer's voluntarily provided the new updated SAE ratings on ALL there vehicles. The American manufacturers (with the exception of Chrylser I believe) only provided the new SAE specs for there vehicles with a higher ratings. They magically forgot to publish any vehicles with any major loss in measured HP.

SAE ratings is not mandatory by the DOT; but only the Japanese 3 and the Germans have complied for model year 2006.

Edmunds also forgot to report Japanese vehicles that increased in power like the Honda 3.0 engine that increased by 4~ HP and the 2.4 engine that increased by 6~.

[r1lee]

well now u know differently...they take premium

Is this the same engine that is in the Lexus RX330? the 3.3l v6? cause if it is.. it's regular...

[FastFokker]

Is this the same engine that is in the Lexus RX330? the 3.3l v6? cause if it is.. it's regular...http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_MZ_engine

Appears the 3MZ-FE takes 87octane unleaded.

[atLANtic]

God is it so hard to RTFA, I didn't calculate the numbers, they came from the article. For people that can't click on a HTML link, here is the article the numbers came from.

http://www.picfury.com/0/bilde-1-th.jpg (http://www.picfury.com/0/bilde-1.html)
Yes ,you didnt calculate,but it's HORSEPOWER ,not %.Title says ---Here are some of the vehicles with the biggest loss in horsepower under the new standard.To make it simple,for Acura TL loss is only 3%.

[gamer123]

lol SkiD if only you didn't add the "%" yourself you won't get flamed

[plucky duck]

Hmmm...I wonder what the true SAE ratings are for the 5th gen Prelude. Cause it definitely feels slower than its 200HP - 156 ft/lb rating. Either that or the fact that this thing weighs a friggin tonne!

[fredsmith]

Who gives a d*mn about crank horsepower? That isn't what counts. The drivetrain is a system and what gets to the road is ALL that counts.

It's rear wheel HP/Torque that 'moves the meat'.

And so what if he added a % instead of spec'ing the difference in HP? It was an obvious error. Why ride him on it?

Suffice it to say that there are differences between last years' ratings and this years'. Apparently the US manufacturers have always published SAE HP specs, and the Krauts and Japs are finally doing the same so the numbers are directly comparable.

Doesn't make the car go any faster or slower - and you'll never notice the missing (or added) 4% - it's within the margin of error.

And if you think your car is slower than it 'should be', take it to a dyno shop and get it measured - not that it'll make a whit of difference. But if you want to blow your money, it's yours to do.

[sonyminidiscman]

hp and gas milage dont always have a correlation. The lexus 300 or something is like 200+ hp and has 30mpg+

That is SO WRONG...

Yes, IS300 is like 200+hp and has 30mpg+...

BUT it does not run at 30mpg+ WHILE producing 200+hp

[FastFokker]

Lol.. Alvito sure is getting slammed for his remark.

That's the problem with accepting manufacturers information anything.. 0-60, 1/4mile, fuel economy, horsepower, torque..etc.

You *CAN* get their numbers, but do not think you WILL get their numbers or that you HAVE their numbers all the time.

That's a beef we have in the SUV Stopping Distance thread, and it's a beef I have with people who complain about not getting manufacturers mileage.. it's because they are driving the vehicle with the exact same variables as used in the testing.

[D-Sisive]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_MZ_engine

Appears the 3MZ-FE takes 87octane unleaded.


http://www.v6performance.net/forums/showthread.php?t=30776

yes it can use 87 but some ppl notice hesitation so 89-91+ clears up that problem

we're just lucky theres e-timing to reduce pinging

[FastFokker]

Strange some people notice hesitation and others don't.

I would personally go with the manufacturer's recommendations, as they are the ones who design, built and test the engines with complex devices. They would know which fuel octane is suitable... of course there's no harm is bumping up to 89octane, other than the increased price.

[gilboman]

Is this the same engine that is in the Lexus RX330? the 3.3l v6? cause if it is.. it's regular...

no ..it needs premium.. i think you are confused in that it "will" take 87 but 91 is recommended, meaning to get the performance and fuel efficiency advertised, you need premium.

look at direct lexus figures. ;)
http://pressroom.toyota.com/presstxt/2003rel/lexus/2004es330.pdf

http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69684

[gilboman]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Toyota_MZ_engine

Appears the 3MZ-FE takes 87octane unleaded.


read above, it needs premium.

http://pressroom.toyota.com/presstxt/2003rel/lexus/2004es330.pdf
http://www.clublexus.com/forums/showthread.php?t=69684

[FastFokker]

http://pressroom.toyota.com/presstxt/2003rel/lexus/2004es330.pdfSounds like some real confusion, as from this link:

Fuel Requirement:
87 octane unleaded (premium 91 octane unleaded recommended for improved performance)Says 87 octane is required aka NEEDS 87 octane.

[gilboman]

Sounds like some real confusion, as from this link:

Says 87 octane is required aka NEEDS 87 octane.

aka AT MINIMUM NEEDS 87, but you really SHOULD PUT IN 91

i think anybody would readily agree that if the manufacture says 91 is recommended, that is what you should be putting in. :lol:

especially when they clearly state for improved performance which in this thread would apply to the hp figures.

[FastFokker]

aka AT MINIMUM NEEDS 87, but you really SHOULD PUT IN 91

i think anybody would readily agree that if the manufacture says 91 is recommended, that is what you should be putting in. :lol:

especially when they clearly state for improved performance which in this thread would apply to the hp figures.Yes for increased performance, they say 91.. but 91 is not required for the engine.. 87 is perfectly fine.

[galanz]

Yes for increased performance, they say 91.. but 91 is not required for the engine.. 87 is perfectly fine.

That's the way it is for any engine sold in North America. They are required to run on 87 octane, but if you want the full power you should run 91+ if recommended.

[FastFokker]

That's the way it is for any engine sold in North America. They are required to run on 87 octane, but if you want the full power you should run 91+ if recommended.You are saying every combustion engine sold in North America is required to run on 87 octane?

Do you have proof of some regulations which specifically state that all engines sold in North America must be able to run on 87 octane?

[galanz]

You are saying every combustion engine sold in North America is required to run on 87 octane?

Yes, I'd assumed it to be common knowledge.

Do you have proof of some regulations which specifically state that all engines sold in North America must be able to run on 87 octane?

You asking for proof? Ahahahaha, no really that's rich!

[radeonboy]

Its a conspiracy theory against the imports. The Domestics want them to have a bad name.

[Anessa]

Its a conspiracy theory against the imports. The Domestics want them to have a bad name.

Doesn't matter Toyota and Honda will still be number 1 and 2 in the automaker world soon enough.

[FastFokker]

Yes, I'd assumed it to be common knowledge.[QUOTE=FastFokker]You are saying every combustion engine sold in North America is required to run on 87 octane?I've flown many aircraft which all had combustion engines that required 100 octane (low lead). There were some that ran on mogas, but it's not that common.

I'm sure there's a comprehensive list of vehicles in North America which require at least 91octane.

[ES_Revenge]

I'm sure there's a comprehensive list of vehicles in North America which require at least 91octane.

Even vehicles that "require" 91 octane, usually only require that octane for their published performance figures. Any modern-day automobile engine will ****** the spark, if necessary, if lower octane gasoline is used. There might be some cases where 87 octane might cause so much knock (detonation) that even the maximum spark ****** the engine management can provide is not enough and to eliminate it. But that is an extreme case and I'd think you'd have to go well below 87 octane for that to actually happen (car manufacturers aren't stupid enough to allow you damage an engine with 87 octane in a car they made for 91). To get to engine-damaging detonation on a stock engine using 87 octane gasoline might be narrowly possible but it isn't really probable.

It would be much more likely on a modified car--higher compression, forced induction, different cams, reprogrammed PCM tables for spark advance, etc. But on a stock engine? Shouldn't be a problem.

As for Honda, Toyota and other import manufacturers fudging the HP numbers, this isn't a new discovery. The SAE found out about this like last year! Old news!

The good part is with the new rating system it is harder for them to do it. Note also that domestic manufacturers weren't overrating the numbers like Honda and Toyota. Instead, GM and Chrysler for example, were underrating in many cases with cars showing more actual horsepower than claimed. :)

[galanz]

[QUOTE=galanz]Yes, I'd assumed it to be common knowledge.I've flown many aircraft which all had combustion engines that required 100 octane (low lead). There were some that ran on mogas, but it's not that common.

I thought you knew that the rest of us were discussing automobiles here, sorry you're so confused.

I'm sure there's a comprehensive list of vehicles in North America which require at least 91octane.

Then I'm sure you won't have any problems finding one, I patiently await your results.

[gilboman]

Yes for increased performance, they say 91.. but 91 is not required for the engine.. 87 is perfectly fine.

no..NOT FOR INCREASED PERFORMANCE but for PUBLISHED performance figures.

91 octane is required to meet the published performance figures. with some execptions, most cars will be able to run on 87 octane but if they are supposed to be using 91+, it will cause engine damage in long run.

[ES_Revenge]

[QUOTE=FastFokker]
I thought you knew that the rest of us were discussing automobiles here, sorry you're so confused.


Actually I thought his response was more pointing out your error rather than him being confused, LOL.

You said "every combustion engine sold in North America"--far too broad... What you failed to consider (despite it perhaps being an oversight in wording) was the fact that there are internal combustion engines sold in North America that do not go in/are not made for automobiles. There are internal combustion engines sold in North America for aircraft, lawnmowers, generators... This list goes on, lol...

[galanz]

[QUOTE=galanz]

Actually I thought his response was more pointing out your error rather than him being confused, LOL.

You said "every combustion engine sold in North America"--far too broad... What you failed to consider (despite it perhaps being an oversight in wording) was the fact that there are internal combustion engines sold in North America that do not go in/are not made for automobiles. There are internal combustion engines sold in North America for aircraft, lawnmowers, generators... This list goes on, lol...


Uhmm do I really need to point out again that the topic at hand was AUTOMOBILE engines?

[ES_Revenge]

Uhmm do I really need to point out again that the topic at hand was AUTOMOBILE engines?

No. Do I really need to point out again that exactly what you said was "every combustion engine sold in North America"???

[galanz]

No. Do I really need to point out again that exactly what you said was "every combustion engine sold in North America"???

I'm sorry, I thought I was dealing with adults here, obviously not. :lol:

[seftonm]

Even if you were talking about just automobile engines (which you still should have stated), that statement is still inaccurate. It should say something more along the lines of every spark ignition automobile engine.

[galanz]

Even if you were talking about just automobile engines (which you still should have stated), that statement is still inaccurate. It should say every spark ignition automobile engine.

Even if I were? What's wrong with you people, can you not follow a conversation? Do you really need everything spelled out for you? Seriously get a grip here.

[seftonm]

I'm pretty sure we can follow a conversation, but when somebody says "All A are...", it usually means "All A are..." and not "All A which are being discussed are...".

This topic was specifically about Honda and Toyota engines, is your statement about only Honda and Toyota engines, all engines which lost power, all auto engines in North America, all engines rated by SAE, or what? Unless you state what you're talking about, it's open to interpretation, which is what happened.

[galanz]

I'm pretty sure we can follow a conversation, but when somebody says "All A are...", it usually means "All A are..." and not "All A which are being discussed are...".

This topic was specifically about Honda and Toyota engines, is your statement about only Honda and Toyota engines, all engines which lost power, all auto engines in North America, all engines rated by SAE, or what? Unless you state what you're talking about, it's open to interpretation, which is what happened.

Heheh, obviously you don't follow as well as you like to think if you really think what I said was 'open to interpretation'....
I'm guessing English isn't your first language.
First rule of holes here dude, when you find yourself in one quit digging. :lol:

[ES_Revenge]

First rule of holes here dude, when you find yourself in one quit digging. :lol:

Uh, I think you should be following that rule yourself. Admit you made an over general/overly broad/incorrect statement, and you shouldn't have and stop making excuses already. :rolleyes:

[FastFokker]

Thank goodness March break is finally over... & kids are gone back to school.

One thing I would love to pick up is some kind of device which will connect through OBD2 and give me real time information on EGT, Cyl. Head Temps, Manifold Pressure, fuel flow, fuel pressure..etc

It's really difficult understanding your engine when they supply such little (basically none) information on the dash. Something like a Palm Pilot connected through OBD2 and mounted on the dash.. anyone used such a device before?

[galanz]

Uh, I think you should be following that rule yourself. Admit you made an over general/overly broad/incorrect statement, and you shouldn't have and stop making excuses already. :rolleyes:

It wasn't overly broad if one is capable of following a conversation. That's why I told you to stop digging there dude.
I haven't been making excuses, you however have been trolling quite unsuccessfully. :lol:

[FastFokker]

ES_Revenge, seftonm and others: I just found this little beauty.. perhaps you might find it useful as well.

Add galanz to Your Ignore List (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=144)

;)

[galanz]

ES_Revenge, seftonm and others: I just found this little beauty.. perhaps you might find it useful as well.

Add galanz to Your Ignore List (http://www.redflagdeals.com/forums/profile.php?do=addlist&userlist=ignore&u=144)

;)

Bahahaha, Pwn3d!
I suppose it's easier to hide than having to back your claims eh skippy?

[ES_Revenge]

Thank goodness March break is finally over... & kids are gone back to school.

One thing I would love to pick up is some kind of device which will connect through OBD2 and give me real time information on EGT, Cyl. Head Temps, Manifold Pressure, fuel flow, fuel pressure..etc

It's really difficult understanding your engine when they supply such little (basically none) information on the dash. Something like a Palm Pilot connected through OBD2 and mounted on the dash.. anyone used such a device before?

Yeah there are a lot of tools that you can use with a Palm or PocketPC. There are the "DIY" kind "homebrew" style ones like the ElmScan (check out scantool.net) and other commercial ones. I've done quite a bit of research on them and though ElmScan is the cheapest and has a lot of free software (it's like open source the ElmScan) it isn't the best one out there. The one I found to be the best was the AutoEnginuity interface, and you can check out their website or look on eBay for them. A little more expensive than setting up an ElmScan but worth it, IMO.

Also note that most automobile engines do not have EGT or CHT sensors... The main temperature sensor in OBD-II automobiles is the CTS or coolant temperature sensor. Since you're coming from an aviation background I can understand why you'd think those would be there ;) However note with aircraft, usually the engines are air cooled and therefore there is no coolant to take the temperature of. CHT and EGT would be more accurate and more instantaneous, but they just aren't required and aren't part of the standard OBD-II sensor set (though they may be used if a manufacturer so chooses, there aren't many cars that would have those).

The cool little OBD-II "dashboards" you can get on the PDA, however, are well quite cool. You get tons of information from spark ******, manifold absolute pressure, trans temperature, oil pressure--pretty much whatever sensors your car has/supports that are within the "normal" OBD-II range, you get info for. Using time, speed and distance, you can also get information about 0-60 times, 1/4mile times, etc.

They also function as code readers. Note that these devices do not, however, normally read "manufacturer specific" DTCs (Diagnostic Trouble Codes) as they vary for each manufacturer. Though there is a huge set of standard OBD-II DTCs, other DTCs for ABS, AirBag, Body Control, and other supplemental systems are not readable by these in most circumstances. Some do support the extra codes but you have to buy additional software that is often costly.

If you have a GM vehicle, you can also get what is called an Interceptor gauge instead, from a company called Aeroforcetech. It's a standard 2 1/16" gauge (that goes in a pillar pod for example) and does pretty much everything you can do with a PDA interface, only smaller scale. The Interceptor actually reads GM-specific DTCs as well, IIRC :) Only for GM cars right now though :)

Anyway this is quite a bit OT I guess, haha...

[FastFokker]

Great information!

Interesting to hear many of the sensors I'm used to aren't even in the applicable to an automotive engine, guess I should have figured. It's just an odd feeling that the car completely runs itself (auto trans. too) and I'm just there to keep it between the lines. There's so much more I want to know, if even not even being able to control.

I love the idea of freeware on a PDA, definitely would like to take that route over pricey specialized programs. Although after you mentioned the Interceptor and the fact I do have a GM car, that looks very appealing! It's a little pricey(~$220US), but if it's plug and play and offers all that information, it's very tempting!

Apparently there is an Interceptor coming for Ford's right about now (Spring'06) as well!

http://www.aeroforcetech.com/sitebuilder/images/black_blue2-150x143.jpg
http://www.aeroforcetech.com/GMtech.html

In either event, that's a fantastic recommendation as I would never have even thought there was such a simple all in one, mountable display. Probably a few other users around here who would be interested in one. Now we just need a reputable retailer in Canada selling them at a reasonable price! After all this is RFD! :cheesygri

[gordholio]

The best thing to do is to just use these ratings as a guideline and take the cars you want to consider on test drives to see how they accelerate and drive and feel.