Top Gear: We don't understand RWHP

I have to say I don't watch the show (I don't even have cable :o). My exposure to it is basically limited to what I see here or elsewhere on the Net.

But check out this story on autoblog.

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/03/05/hp-101-top-gear-provides-false-info-on-gt500-horsepower-rating/

Evidently while testing the Mustang GT500, they put the car on a chassis dyno where it makes 447 hp at the wheels. Which would easily translate to 500+ hp, which is what the car is advertised as making. Except the Top Gear dork apparently cries foul, saying the car is making 53 hp less than advertised. :lol: :cry:

This is a guy who gets paid to test these cars for TV? Is he really that dumb, or is he going to the extreme with Top Gear's famous distaste for American iron, to the point of intentionally misleading people about it? So either he's dumb, or he has no journalistic credibility...or a little of both, I suppose.

:no:

Discuss.

Maybe he thinks there is no such thing as parasitic loss on these newer, high-tech cars. :shrug: :D I'm surprised he missed that though.

He also had his very own Mustang 339 dyno'd. It put down 250.

I'm not surprised.

They also say that the GT500 has stock brakes (it has Brembos) and dosn't have limited slip.

These guys are a simply mindless entertainment - nothing more.

Reading the responses in that autoblog forum made my head hurt even more.

"Crank horsepower can be measured by holding the clutch in and adding that number to the full throttle number." Hmm, I have never heard that one before. Why do we mess around with drivetrain percentage loss figures and guessing when apparently it's this easy to get true crank HP?

"Ford should add a disclaimer to their 500 HP number." Well then, you better have every auto manufacturer on the planet add the same disclaimer there genious.

Top Gear is the automotive entertainment king, but when it comes down to it, they have no technical knowledge whatsoever. They were out to paste the Mustang (like anything us 'Yanks build) and their gross misreporting/twisting of facts (brakes, limited slip, RWHP vs. flywheel HP) reinforce it.

you have to admit though.. the GT500 didn't look impressive when being driven

the only cars I can remember even getting close to putting down on the dyno close to what was advertised is the 98-02 Fbodies.

I meet a lot of people that think the advertised hp on 72+ cars is rwhp and gross hp is flywheel hp. My neighbor just last week was complaining that his 05 GTO made 50 less hp than GM said it did. I tried to tell him it was 400 flywheel hp and there was a 15% drivetrain loss but he thought I didn't know what I was talking about because his old LS1 Z was rated 305 and it made 305 on the dyno. When I got my car dynoed a guy at the shop was saying Ford overrated the Cobra again cause they just ran a new one and it made 30 less than the advertised 390. Then there was a guy at work a while back talking crap about the new Mustangs because he saw them dyno one on HP TV and it only made around 260hp. I see posts on the internet like that all the time too. I wish a magazine would do an article explaining the difference between gross, net and rwhp so next time someone opens their mouth I could show it to them or post a link.

the only cars I can remember even getting close to putting down on the dyno close to what was advertised is the 98-02 Fbodies.


Mine puts down more than advertised.

the only cars I can remember even getting close to putting down on the dyno close to what was advertised is the 98-02 Fbodies.

Say what? :confused:

Off the top of my head I can name 5 vehicles that put out substantially more than advertized:

The supercharged Mustang Cobra

The Mustang Mach 1

The Ford Lightning

The Dodge SRT4

Ford's GT

If I'm not mistaken, the supercharged Cadillac northstar also puts out a bit more than advertized. Ford's current Mustang GT also seems a little underrated for the performance numbers it's throwing down considering it's as heavy as the last F-bodys were. Mustang Bullitts seemed to be a bit deceptive in that performance improvement seem to outstrip the megar difference in power rating over a run of the mill Mustang GT, even though it's supposed to be just electronic programing.


Only the LS1 powered F-bodies had fantasy numbers picked out as advertized power. Regardless as to what they advertized (which ran from 310 to 340), they all ran in the 340-345 range, regardless if it was a base Z28 hardtop or a cold air inducted SS. The only difference between it and the Corvette engine was a slightly more restrictive exhaust and a cam that actually broadened the torque band.

Corvette's rating was accurate, and all Camaro LS1s were only a hair behind it.

It doesn't matter if a handful of cars put down at the wheels what they are advertised to have at the crank.

The bottom line is that it is standard industry practice to rate the ENGINE, not the wheel hp. Companies rate their engines on engine dynos. That's just the way it is.

Whether or not a few engines are underrated is irrelevent to the fact that this Top Gear guy is either clueless about how this stuff works, or he deliberately lied/mislead in an effort to put down the GT500.

:shrug:

It doesn't matter if a handful of cars put down at the wheels what they are advertised to have at the crank.

The bottom line is that it is standard industry practice to rate the ENGINE, not the wheel hp. Companies rate their engines on engine dynos. That's just the way it is.

Whether or not a few engines are underrated is irrelevent to the fact that this Top Gear guy is either clueless about how this stuff works, or he deliberately lied/mislead in an effort to put down the GT500.

:shrug:

Agreed!

I watch Top Gear for the entertainment value not much more. But any show can put a spin on cars they test.

Car & Driver TV went to extremes to slam the Pontiac GTO..... even after their 1st magazine test gave it a good review.

I don't think anything Top Gear says influences us anyway. It's not going to slow down GT500 sales here & the car won't be sold in Europe in more than double digit numbers. I'm sure Ford will ignore it.

On the other hand, if Top Gear tried that with the Corvette, I'm sure Bob Lutz would have some very entertaining things to say about Top Gear at Geneva this year. :lol:

Say what? :confused:

Off the top of my head I can name 5 vehicles that put out substantially more than advertized:

The supercharged Mustang Cobra

The Mustang Mach 1

The Ford Lightning

The Dodge SRT4

Ford's GT
.

...add the Cobalt SS . Advertised 205 hp /200 TQ . Mine dynoed 213hp/197tq to the wheels on a dynojet when it was stock :)

447 rwhp thats very nice I'd rather have that power in a lighter vehicle its a nice number. That motor in a '93 notchback could be nice...

In response to guy's post, maybe I'm a bit rusty, but I thought the Mach 1 was rated at 305 horsepower?

Off the top of my head I can name 5 vehicles that put out substantially more than advertized:

The supercharged Mustang Cobra

The Mustang Mach 1

The Ford Lightning

The Dodge SRT4

Ford's GT

He meant RWHP = Advertised HP. I don't know of bone stock, brand new right off the showroom stock to the paper air filter '03-'04 Cobras making in excess of 390rwhp, or any Mach 1's making over 305, or near that. Most are in the 280-290 range, if that. I don't know of any Ford GT's making over 550rwhp stock either, and if they are, then I'm reading the wrong articles. :)

Actually, the only 2 cars that I can recall in recent years that made the same or more rwhp as the advertised HP are the LS1 Formula/Z28's and the Cobalt SS SC.

Actually, the only 2 cars that I can recall in recent years that made the same or more rwhp as the advertised HP are the LS1 Formula/Z28's and the Cobalt SS SC.

Actually that would be fwhp for the Cobalt. Sorry, I couldn't resist. :D

I love Top Gear and watch every episode, but there is very little raw information and factual reviews. If you want that, watch 5th gear.

Top Gear on the other hand is pure entertainment and anyone who loves cars should watch this series. Yeah I know they hate most anything American and are very biased torwards British stuff, but once you look past that -- they have a passion for automobiles.

You will see the Camaro on there in the future and if it gets any kind of praise from Clarkson, then you know it will be one heck of a car. It kills him to like anything America, but sometimes he has to suck it up and be fair. So far they are Zeta fans and showed a Vauxhall VXR8 last night.

The Corvette Z06 is still one of the best pieces I have seen.

They had a picture of the Challenger on there a couple of seasons ago and Hammond talked about how he loved the look. That gave the Challenger exposure to tens of millions of people outside the USA.

Yeah I know they hate most anything American and are very biased torwards British stuff

HA! "British stuff"? Do the Brits even have an auto industry anymore?

The Corvette Z06 is still one of the best pieces I have seen.

Was that the infamous Clarkson "leaf spring" rant? :rolleyes:

HA! "British stuff"? Do the Brits even have an auto industry anymore?



Was that the infamous Clarkson "leaf spring" rant? :rolleyes:


Yeah the Brits do not have much of an auto industry, but they love the heritage. They think Jaguar is better than MB, BMW, Alfa, etc. They will test a Range Rover against Escalade off roading to ensure victory, instead they should use a Jeep (no offense GM, Jeep is plain better for off the road). They think the TVR is the best sports car ever, even though you have to push in the cig lighter and turn on the windshield wipers to open the door :). They are biased, but so are we.

Clarkson made fun of they base C6 vette, but could not with the Z06. His only complaint was the stiff ride. You can see both on YouTube I think.

I liked the Range Rover Sport v Challenger 2 tank :)

as has been said by many.. Top Gear is an entertainment show.. those people arent journalists, and i'm sure it was just blatant ignorance on their part.. but it doesnt bother me too much

My older brother claims they haven't used crank horsepower since the 60's and all car companies go by wheel horsepower:rolleyes: .

My older brother claims they haven't used crank horsepower since the 60's and all car companies go by wheel horsepower:rolleyes: .:bang: :bang:

For the love of GOD. Gross vs. Net engine power != engine power vs. wheel power.

:cry:

It is your mission, and you must choose to accept it, to educate your brother on this. His soul is in the balance!

:p

99.9% of the time on the show when they tell a cars horsepower, they state it in brake horsepower (basically flywheel), so they should know better than that :P

My older brother claims they haven't used crank horsepower since the 60's and all car companies go by wheel horsepower:rolleyes: .

If you don't educate your brother, nothing personal, but he is going to eventually be the one everyone that knows anything about cars is going to be laughing at because he made himself look like a dumbass. Do you want the responsibilty knowing that someone related by blood is retarded when it comes to cars?

He's one of those who is very hard to convice, and when you finally break him down he will say, "ok, fine, but does it really matter?", after he fought so hard to be right. Not worth the energy.

Top Gear is stupid. It's fun to watch them drive the cars but I don't listen to anything they say.

I'm not a fan of the new Cobra (pig), but that episode was :bs:
No limited slip? The same brakes as a GT? Down 50 hp? Live axle making it completely uncontrollable? (I like my independent rear, but that's just stupid.) I'm surprised they didn't get it confused with a camaro while they were at it.

Wow.

:|

Top Gear is worth watching for the comedy, but they don't know **** about cars.

It's typical complaint to hear them say "OMG it's not shifting like butter it sucks!"

Awhile ago they made a comment on the 300c SRT8 as well saying that all Chrysler did was add a bigger engine with out making any other changes to the suspension/brakes over the regular 300c. He called it rubbish i believe:lol:.

The show is very fun to watch though. I have over 20episodes on my Ipod.

Top Gear is stupid. It's fun to watch them drive the cars but I don't listen to anything they say.

Bout all you can expect from Europeons.... :rolleyes:

I don't care for the new GT500 at all, and that being said, I just finished watching that Top Gear episode. F*ck Top Gear.

In the words of Clarkson, the show is "rubbish".

Yay, three month old thread! :D