Interesting article

[csmaster09]

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0508/17/A01-283759.htm

 

[xcsti]

Hmm, wasn't the first generation miata well overstated in the hp department. The rx-8 had it's rating rolled back after release.

 

[csmaster09]

not sure about the miata, but i remember the RX-8 power mishap

 

[VTRacing]

That's a lot of writing for what is really a small story.

And when the journalist is quoting internet forums to back up the story, you have to worry (yeah I know, I see the irony )

It seems that the point of the story (at least, the message I get from here in the antipodes) is that the good ol' American boys have been getting hoodwinked by those nasty Asian companies. And now they've had their comeuppance.

The thing I don't understand is the allegation that the Japanese have been running their cars on premium fuel or half-full of oil etc to get better horsepower figures. If that is the case, what on earth were Ford et al doing before to now get rated at higher figures? Were they deliberately sabotaging their engines and now they're running them correctly?

And I love the fact that "experts" consider that it will take a number of years before customers understand the changes. Surely it's not too hard to understand that the same engine will produce the same amount of power?

Finally, there have been a number of Japanese vehicles where the horsepower figure has been deliberately under stated to stay under the "gentleman's agreement" of Japanese manufacturers. The Mitsubishi Evo series (from about the Evo 5) springs to mind. Ostensibly it was rated at 206 kW (276 bhp) but when owners put them on the dyno they would be up around 225 kW.

I don't think this article is very good (you may have gathered that) and I wouldn't be surprised if it was written on behalf of the U.S motor industry.

 

[csmaster09]

your getting awful defensive there. What's so hard to believe about the Japanese overrating their power, and the big 3 underrating theirs? Its been proven, considering Cobalt SS's are rated at 205 crank hp and bone stock have been putting 230 to the wheels.

 

[niky]

Dodge Neon SRT4s... oops, I mean Dodge SRT4 ACRs get much more than 215 to the wheels. In fact, they're getting HP at the wheels that match the new 235 bhp claim.

I'm not surprised at Toyota. The claims for some of their engines, like in the XRS Corolla were always awfully hard to swallow, as that car just wasn't as fast as its horsepower claimed it should be... wonder what it's rated as now?

I'm surprised about Acura, however... Honda is notorious for understating performance figures, and their new engines dyno much higher than previous engines rated at the same or higher horsepower... what's up with that?

I've noticed Nissan isn't in there, yet, or Mazda... I'm betting Nissan's "other" 3.5V6 installations are understated, as an Altima is almost as fast as a 350Z, despite having "only" 245hp. But these new tests will likely give Mazda a fit.

Our country doesn't have SAE-corrected HP claims. Toyota, for example, claim that their bog-standard Corolla 1.8 gets 145 hp, whereas in the US they get 130 hp... bet it's around 120 or 125 under new SAE guidelines.

A better article: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_5_41/ai_n13815480

"The SAE amended its horsepower rules to eliminate some elements in the previous test regime that were open to interpretation, including the quantity of lubricant in a crankcase, the calibration of engine controls, and fuel quality."

Also, the hydraulic steering pumps have to be fully connected now during testing.

Most Japanese and European cars would also appear to be overstated, as they are conversions of DIN standards (in the case of Japanese) and direct statements of metric hp (in the case of Euros)... plus you guys in the Mainland US have pretty crapulent gasoline (low low LOW Octane!)... so a lot of engines are bound to lose HP due to the SAE revisions... if they ever adopt them.

What a damn headache... they should just make one figure available internationally...

 

[a6m5]

Dodge Neon SRT4s... oops, I mean Dodge SRT4 ACRs get much more than 215 to the wheels. In fact, they're getting HP at the wheels that match the new 235 bhp claim.

I'm not surprised at Toyota. The claims for some of their engines, like in the XRS Corolla were always awfully hard to swallow, as that car just wasn't as fast as its horsepower claimed it should be... wonder what it's rated as now?

I'm surprised about Acura, however... Honda is notorious for understating performance figures, and their new engines dyno much higher than previous engines rated at the same or higher horsepower... what's up with that?

I've noticed Nissan isn't in there, yet, or Mazda... I'm betting Nissan's "other" 3.5V6 installations are understated, as an Altima is almost as fast as a 350Z, despite having "only" 245hp. But these new tests will likely give Mazda a fit.

Our country doesn't have SAE-corrected HP claims. Toyota, for example, claim that their bog-standard Corolla 1.8 gets 145 hp, whereas in the US they get 130 hp... bet it's around 120 or 125 under new SAE guidelines.

A better article: http://www.findarticles.com/p/articles/mi_m3165/is_5_41/ai_n13815480

"The SAE amended its horsepower rules to eliminate some elements in the previous test regime that were open to interpretation, including the quantity of lubricant in a crankcase, the calibration of engine controls, and fuel quality."

Also, the hydraulic steering pumps have to be fully connected now during testing.

Most Japanese and European cars would also appear to be overstated, as they are conversions of DIN standards (in the case of Japanese) and direct statements of metric hp (in the case of Euros)... plus you guys in the Mainland US have pretty crapulent gasoline (low low LOW Octane!)... so a lot of engines are bound to lose HP due to the SAE revisions... if they ever adopt them.

What a damn headache... they should just make one figure available internationally...

I remember that before Nissan Altima 2.5s came out(4 banger), they were supposed to be 180hp/180lbs torque. At launch however, it was 175hp/180lbs. I don't know if it had anything to do with what article said. Either way, it really doesn't change anything. I have the 2.5s and while it's a crappy car, I love the engine. 👍

As for the Toyota inflating the horsepowers, it makes sense to me. Like you said, Toyota's always been slower than what the car's horsepower suggested(damn Celicas ). Plus, they seemed to get great gas mileage. I don't know how true this is, but our local Toyota dealer commercial(in Oregon/USA) is claiming 4 cylinder Camry gets 35 mile to a gallon of gas on highway. If this is true, I'm getting it.

 

[VTRacing]

your getting awful defensive there. What's so hard to believe about the Japanese overrating their power, and the big 3 underrating theirs? Its been proven, considering Cobalt SS's are rated at 205 crank hp and bone stock have been putting 230 to the wheels.

To be honest I don't know what a "Cobalt SS" is. I am assuming a GM product.

The point I was trying to make is that there is are examples of Japanese manufacturers understating their power outputs, just as there are most likely examples of American manufacturers overstating their power outputs.

MY problem with the article (and I will emphasise that this is what I think) is that the author seems to be displaying some bias against certain Japanese manufacturers in favour of American manufacturers. I don't think this issue should be covered in such a simplistic manner. I would suggest that this is an issue that all manufacturers will need to deal with.

But frankly, this is quite a minor issue. Once the new testing regime is integrated, the manufacturers will determine how to get around it again.

EDIT: I just read that second article, which provides a much better description of what this is about. I especially like the part that said that the man responsible for the new SAE regulation was a technical-fellow of GM Powertrain!

This is a storm in a teacup.

 

[niky]

The main problem is, whether or not overstating is intentional, that testing regimes and conditions differ wildly. A japanese car may well make 10-20 hp more in Japan under testing conditions, but I'm willing to bet about 5-10 hp of that goes down to the fact that they're on premium gas, while SAE probably requires regular octane.

The US is on 91... I've never put less than 95-octane in my current car... ??? ...I remember one journo complaining about test-driving the Miata in the US, about how the car ought to be more powerful if it weren't tuned for and running on that "crappy" gas. European and Japanese cars are designed overseas for higher octane, and understandably make less power when tuned to and running on American gas. I know of one guy with a Korean car who had to have it overhauled because he put in the low-octane stuff. Poor stiff.

 

[Famine]

US 89 "Octane" is roughly the same as everywhere else's 93RON. Similarly 91 = 95 and 93 = 98.

The US uses "Pump Octane Number" (PON). This is a combination of two other measuring regimen - "Research Octane Number" (RON) and "Motor Octane Number" (MON). The differences between the two tests are:

MON:
Inlet air temperature: 148.9 C
Engine jacket temp: 100 C
Engine RPM: 900

RON:
Inlet air temperature: 65.6 C
Engine jacket temp: 100 C
Engine RPM: 600

RON gives a higher number (that is the fuel burns less readily and is "more stable", because of the lower temperature and rpm) than MON (which is a better indicator of real world use). 95RON could be equivalent to 87MON*.

The US PON rating is equal to (PON+RON)/2, or the average of the two numbers. So while "91 Octane" may seem crap, it's actually the same as the 95RON the rest of the world is using.

*However 91 Octane may be BETTER than 95RON. 95RON is only the equivalent of 91PON IF the MON number is as you'd expect. With using only the RON rating, there is nothing to stop fuel companies adding octane booster to fuel to get an artificially high RON at the expense of MON, and MON is what you really want for real world use. So putting in 95RON which is really 92RON with octane booster, you're using 85MON instead of 87MON for the equivalent of 89 Octane, not 91 Octane - more explosive, less stable fuel than you think you're using, which can result in engine damage (especially in high compression engines).

Bored yet?

 

[VTRacing]

Not at all, thanks Famine.

We have this problem in Australia, where the regular unleaded (91 RON) has roughly the same burning properties as dishwater. Every high-performance Japanese car in Australia needs to be detuned to run on our fuel.

For the same reason, Australia doesn't see the high-po diesel European cars. Our diesel is much too high in sulphur. Plus Australians are suspicious of diesel cars after some terrible ones were released in the 1970s. Which is a shame because they should be well suited to this country.

 

[niky]

US 89 "Octane" is roughly the same as everywhere else's 93RON. Similarly 91 = 95 and 93 = 98.

The US uses "Pump Octane Number" (PON). This is a combination of two other measuring regimen - "Research Octane Number" (RON) and "Motor Octane Number" (MON). The differences between the two tests are:

MON:
Inlet air temperature: 148.9 C
Engine jacket temp: 100 C
Engine RPM: 900

RON:
Inlet air temperature: 65.6 C
Engine jacket temp: 100 C
Engine RPM: 600

RON gives a higher number (that is the fuel burns less readily and is "more stable", because of the lower temperature and rpm) than MON (which is a better indicator of real world use). 95RON could be equivalent to 87MON*.

The US PON rating is equal to (PON+RON)/2, or the average of the two numbers. So while "91 Octane" may seem crap, it's actually the same as the 95RON the rest of the world is using.

*However 91 Octane may be BETTER than 95RON. 95RON is only the equivalent of 91PON IF the MON number is as you'd expect. With using only the RON rating, there is nothing to stop fuel companies adding octane booster to fuel to get an artificially high RON at the expense of MON, and MON is what you really want for real world use. So putting in 95RON which is really 92RON with octane booster, you're using 85MON instead of 87MON for the equivalent of 89 Octane, not 91 Octane - more explosive, less stable fuel than you think you're using, which can result in engine damage (especially in high compression engines).

Bored yet?

Not really, very educating... was aware of the PON / RON dichotomy, but not the MON. Thanks for that! ... I am humbled by your purple greatness.

Not at all, thanks Famine.

We have this problem in Australia, where the regular unleaded (91 RON) has roughly the same burning properties as dishwater. Every high-performance Japanese car in Australia needs to be detuned to run on our fuel.

For the same reason, Australia doesn't see the high-po diesel European cars. Our diesel is much too high in sulphur. Plus Australians are suspicious of diesel cars after some terrible ones were released in the 1970s. Which is a shame because they should be well suited to this country.

We're only starting to get the better Euro-diesels... so far, only BMW has taken the plunge with their 3.0 twin turbo... our diesel pumps are crappy with sulfur, too. Our gasoline just got downgraded in rating, as the government wanted to crack down on inaccurate octane advertising, but it's still RON. AFAIK, "regular" 89-91 here has reportedly damaged some engines, and a lot of cars feel pretty bogged down on 93 octane.... crap gas!

But Japanese performance cars imported to other markets (like ours) without being "chipped" for local conditions suffer TERRIBLY on anything less than 95RON.

Anyone know the difference in permissible octane ratings for SAE testing and DIN?

 

[Emohawk]

For the same reason, Australia doesn't see the high-po diesel European cars. Our diesel is much too high in sulphur. Plus Australians are suspicious of diesel cars after some terrible ones were released in the 1970s. Which is a shame because they should be well suited to this country.

You just described perfectly the situation in north america as well. I didn't know Australia had it the same.

 

[Jay]

Not at all, thanks Famine.

We have this problem in Australia, where the regular unleaded (91 RON) has roughly the same burning properties as dishwater. Every high-performance Japanese car in Australia needs to be detuned to run on our fuel.

Everyone I know including myself runs their high performance import on 98RON fuel, does the job. Not quite asgood as the Japanese high octane fuel but gets by.

A petrol station here in Adelaide sells 100 RON fuel but its costly.

 

[VTRacing]

Everyone I know including myself runs their high performance import on 98RON fuel, does the job. Not quite asgood as the Japanese high octane fuel but gets by.

A petrol station here in Adelaide sells 100 RON fuel but its costly.

Sure, the 98RON fuel here is pretty good. I even run my rally car on it with no real problems.

We used to run a Shell "racing fuel" (basically Avgas) in the rally cars but we're not allowed to do that anymore. Something about leaded fuels But to get the same performance these days we need to run Elf WRF or similar which is roughly $6.00 per litre, and that's costly.

 

[retsmah]

Our country doesn't have SAE-corrected HP claims. Toyota, for example, claim that their bog-standard Corolla 1.8 gets 145 hp, whereas in the US they get 130 hp.

The engine in my Toyota was rated (in 1987) as 112hp here, while it was around 125hp in Japan and other places. Our emissions laws take away some of the power... a Corolla engine in America isn't necessarily exactly the same as a Corolla engine in another country.

""We tried to tighten language that was open to interpretation," said Dave Lancaster, a technical fellow at General Motors Corp. who chaired the SAE committee that wrote the new requirements. "

So the new rules they wrote cause the Japanese to have to lower their horsepower numbers, while the GM vehicles increase. The guy who is in charge of writing the new rules works for GM. Yeah, no conflict of interest there

 

[xcsti]

I just read that the cadillac deville lost power on the change.

 

[neanderthal]

all the article says is that some factors that were open to interpretation, like octane rating of fuel, oil level etc have been standardised.

one would have to be a fool to think thier 2003 camry is faster/ more powerful than the 2005 with the same engine

 

[KurtisGSXR]

As a quick aside, the Japanese have been, "massaging", the power figures of their bikes for years. Kawasaki claim 182bhp for the ZX-10R, but this is a crank value, and with ram air effect assistance. Put the wheel on a dyno and typical results are 155-160bhp dependant on the dyno, conditions and manufacturing differences. Yam and Kwaka are the worst for it, but they all do it.

It's the same with the weights, before weighing their bikes they remove the battery, and drain the water, oil, fuel and even the brake fluid. This gives them what they call a "dry weight".


Kurtis.

 

[skip0110]

This is why "performance" decisions should be based from a independent 3rd party's acceleration tests. There is so much more to how an enigne behaves than it's peak horsepower. Compare the S2000 and the GM Supercharged 3.8 V6, which have similar ratings but entirely different personalities.