It seems as other brands certify thier engines under the sew SAE regulations, thier HP ratings are falling.

The link shows the new ratings vs the old for Acura vehicles.

http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/s...threadid=18135

Also in the article are a few more

Toyota Camry:

4-Cylinder: 154hp/160Tq (was 160hp/163Tq)
3.0 V6: 190hp/197Tq (was 210hp/220Tq)
3.3 V6: 210hp/220Tq (was 225hp/240Tq)

Pontiac G6:

3.5L: 201hp/222Tq (was 200hp/220Tq)

With more vehicles rated with the new standard, I wonder who's HP numbers will go up or down?

 

I am betting all the Japanese ratings will drop.

 

Heh.

Oriental horses are apparently smaller... just ask RX-8 owners.

 

Thats right, the koreans had the same issue as well.

 

Sooooooo....The base Camry 3.0 makes less hp then Malibu's 3.5? Yet they say that Malibu feels underpowerd compared to the larger, less powerful Camry?
And Malibu gets better gas milage!!?
Chevy=Win

 

Some of those reductions are pretty substancial. Those Toyota reductions are terrible, HP and TQ. The Acura cars loose a lot as well, though mostly HP. I wonder what Honda figures are going to look like?

My question is:
How does the company explain the bloated power figures to the public that they have been getting away with for all these years?

 

Hehe.......

and the two (correction: three) GM vehicles thus far have gone UP in power after the revision.

Imagine if we still had an LS1 fbody....

 

I'd like to see the true LS2 #'s and 3.6L DOHC V6

 

Despite Honda's decrease in listed HP, their vehicle perform really quite well. Toyota is lagging a little in acceleration department.

Even looking at the recent Road and Track... a 201 HP RSX ran a 15.0 while a ~230 Cobalt SS ran a 14.8...

Their Type R Integras could run, stock, 14.8 with 190 HP vtec engines...

 

Considering it takes 10-15 hp for a 10th, I wouldn't say that's far off the mark. (Given equal weights)

 

Maybe they were all fluffing up their #'s.

 

I'm glad to see this revision in the SAE rating system. It sure will help keep people from getting less power than they were told their car had (like it might have solved the old Cobra overrating issue/recall?) And will also keep people from claiming an engine is grossly underrated even if it's more realistically 'barely' underrated.

Even though they don't do back-rating, based on the new cars with newer versions of my engine, my GS400 would get down-rated from the rated 300 horsepower to 288 horsepower and from 325 torque to around 317.

 

You mean the LS1? Dyno's and 1/4 mile numbers dont lie, no matter what they are rated and what system they se to do it.

 

I read an article about this in a magazine yesterday. It said that SAE standards had loopholes. One that was mentioned was the ability to advance the spark a bit and run premium fuel. They said that in some cases manufacturers could inflate their ratings by as much as 15%.

 

I think you are talking about the old SAE gross where you could run race gas, headers and no accessories. The article was probably the Magnum versus the AMG wagon right?