I understand HP can be underrated... but people are ALWAYS claiming that BS and I almost never see real evidence that supports it... people always come up with some stupid explanation as to why and it just never makes sense... They say the new mustang GT is underrated... that's funny I run with them just fine.... they say the STI is underrated... that's funny.. I run with them just fine.... they say the EVO is underrated.... that's funny.. I run with them just fine....

I also just noticed that was also from a dynapack... which will always read higher than a typical dyno.... so that explains the inflated numbers... but still... gimmie a break...

 

+1, the big block chevys from the 60's-70's, hemi's, etc..

 

Porsche jacked our wheel design!!! Or did the 35th come out after the Cayman?


A dyno is just a dyno... but even with variations in dyno, if it dyno's at the WHEELS close to what its supposed to at the CRANK, then its underrated. Bottom line.

 

wrong. s2000 and nsx are both rear wheel drive and can be set up to drift.

 

With a dyno one has to be careful because there are many correction factors for power conversion, altitude, air temperature to consider.

The SAE regulation for determing HP and Torque is to have a standard of all the essential and working parts of your car/engine connected to provide real-time crank power. This is to keep it fair. A civic can produce 300 crank HP if the power steering/air condition/alternator/radiator belts and components are not connected and running on the timing belt.

Yet, with the SAE requirements, the minimum number of components in place and running would yeild the HIGHEST possible HP and torque numbers for a given car and power application. With this method, the gap between - Crank HP and actual Wheel HP will be quite wide as the CHP numbers were very optimal and with little stress on the engine.

On the other hand, if the automotive manufacture runs and tests the car with maximum components running and connected, the yield gap between CHP and actual WHP will be smaller- IE Porsche- thus the UNDERRATED power cars.

Even with rather stringent standards set forth by the SAE - cars are sometimes not what they appear to be.

As a general finding across the board (this is by no means a blanket indication, but rather a general finding and observation through time)-

Japanese cars seem to have the highest Yield gap between CHP and WHP- thus OVERRATED.
While Euoprean cars seem to have the lowest yield gap between CHP and WHP- thus UNDERRATED.
Domestic cars are in between Japenese and European.

Yet, these factors tend to balance out the power curve becausae the power to weight ratio of japanese v. domestic. euoprean is still supreme that Japanese and RECENTLY domestic cars have higher PTWRs. So, even though European cars are mostly underrated with power ratings, their conservative power ratings are probably rather accurate becuase the extra power that is no rated in their numbers goes to compensate for the fact that they weigh a few hundred pounds more than Japanese cars.

Last thing.

Torque is measured
HP calculated

Given a choice, you'd probably want more torque rather than more HP- take the RX-8 for example. Not picking on it, but the torque range doesn't start until about 5000 RPM, where most of us peak in power, the RX-8 has just started to take off. At the same time, too much torque and not enough HP, will yield gains like a V12 van. It can spin tires all day and smash any car on the street for the first 0-60 ( now this is 0-60 FEET)- but after the Vtec picks up in a honda, the Van will be SOL. Left in the mud with 500 lbs/TQ but no HP.

It's a balancing act. A good measuring stick is to drive the car in all circumstances and terrains to see how it responds and drives- in traffic, on the freeway, up hills, down hills, in the wet. etc...

Cheers,
Allen

 

Some people are just igonorant about what they call ricers and 4 bangers. Ever hear of an S2000 2.0 liter with 240hp at the crank. I love my Z but, but I am also a honda fan.

 

Roast is bringing all sorts of brilliant insights to this thread. Value has been added to my day. ::sarcasm::

 

Yeah my Z was underrated too. It's putting down 300whp stock. Yeah it's believable...S2000's with 4 bangers have 240 crank hp, add 2 cylinders..you figure it out...360 at the crank! Just give me a minute to make a dyno sheet from my Windows Paint program. I WILL RAPE A STOCK SI. Even if his B.S. #'s were correct, he's still got only 140 tq...that ain't hsit.

 

Nah, I didn't get a chance to punch the kid in the neck and take his dyno sheet *shrug*

 

IMO the new Si has the same exact engine as the new 210hp RSX-S (obviously), but right down to the ecu and it's programming

 

while I doubt a stock si puts 195 at the wheels... its not that surprising that a FWD has less drivetrain loss than a rwd car....

fwd ftl btw

 

much concurage on my part....

 

Haha make sure to do that next time

 

deleted

 

Oh I will

 

You are half right. I'm not ignorant about what a 4 banger is, and I said nothing about rice. It *IS* a 4 banger and there was nothing wrong with me stating that. Yes the s2000 is a very impressive 4 banger. I like the s2000 very much, thank you.

Pot calling the kettle black. At least I'm not living a wet dream.

BTW, the dynapack attatches to the wheel so there is no contact loss like with a typical dyno, hence the inflated numbers.

 

It was originally rated at 200 HP until the new SAE Standard was released and they reduced the rating to meet compliance. They originally had every intention to sell it as 200 HP as evidenced by published pre production specs. Most people believe the SAE drop to 197 hurt them PR wise.

No -it's very close but there are some changes including a slightly different model designation and other differences such as a counterbalance, different cam profile, etc. ECU is different and the top aftermarket company that mods these was working furiously to hack the codes in early 06. I would have dig through some old info to list every difference. The RSX-S is now rated at 201 HP per the new SAE Standard compliance.

That's not the first dyno I've seen pushing over 190 at the wheels but this one had intake and exhaust mods. Video, charts, original baseline, step by step mod install documented etc. Others see more conventional numbers - a lot posted at clubsi.com.

I almost bought one - had a deposit down 2 or 3 months before their initial release.

Finally came to my senses and realized if I was going to drop 22-23K on it, why not dig a bit deeper and move up to a 350Z?!

No regrets - but would still like to take a new Si for a nice long spin.

 

By the way, it was the 1999 Cobra Mustang. Ford underestimated the power. Because of the bad publicity, Ford recalled the car to improve HP. Also Ford did not make a 2000 cobra (except for the "R") probably because of this reason. Ford now has a third party test the performance of their vehicles so the data is correct the first time. The '03-'04 cobra is rated a 390 fly wheel hp but actually dynoed at about 365-370 rwhp stock. That brought the fly wheel power to more than the Z06 at the time. Probably around 420 fwhp.