Nissan lists the HP at 287HP. I thought most manufacturers these days use rear wheel horse power in their specs. Is this 1967 all over again?

 

i remember people dyno'ing at about 240whp

 

i don't know of any manufacturer that lists RWHP. It would suffer in the message board spec-sheet races.

 

Most manufactures list HP at the Crank, in 67 they listed Crank without any ancillary devices on it, alternator, power steering pump, whatever, just motor.

Chris

 

I've never seen a manufacturer list whp. Its always bhp.

 

Alternator? Power steering pump? Pfft, you can take those off, you don't need 'em!

 

Actually, Dodge/Chrysler do list certain cars @ WHP. i.e. SRT-4.

 

You sure their engines aren't just underrated instead of listing whp?

 

All the manufacture rated HP is at the crank

 

Yeah, the Supra and GT-R have underrated HP too. I've heard most people saying 240-255 to the wheels for the Z.

 

I dynod at 252.9. Another guy with a stock Z dynod at 249, same day

 

That seems to be the norm, though Dodge did pretty much posted up actual similiar WHP around 230 for the SRT-4.

 

The SRT-4's by year:

03's will dyno roughly 210 - 222 FWHP and are advertised as 215 HP.

04's will dyno roughly 220 - 230 FWHP and are advertised as 230 HP.

I don't think they are underrated, rather just how Dodge/Chrysler rates HP on some cars (seems like manual ones). The automatic cars are BHP I think.

 

Definitely 238-245rwhp for an average 350Z on a Dynojet dyno, SAE corrected, on the east coast in the U.S.A. Slightly lower for west coast 350Z's...

 

Right on...I was between 238-242 SAE corrected in MD on a dynojet when I was stock.

 

03-04 Cobra mustangs and 01 02 SS and WS6 were very underrated cars like the srt-4

almost all cars are crank hp nowadays

 

they published cars at lower power outputs for insurance purposes.