Yes. Why some interpreted the test methods in ways they must have known would produce lower ratings, and why some interpreted the test methods in ways they must have known would produce higher ratings is another question.
Asian brands overstate horsepower
- Thread starter Audi Junkie
- Start date
- Status
Wow, the last time I checked my Civic only has 115 hp in it and even the current Si only has 160hp. Where the heck do they get a 200 hp Civic? Honda must have really understated that one, lol.
An LSU sticker adds 150hp. An LSU banner adds another 200. The trailer hitch cover adds a mere 50. OU and USC stickers reduce horsepower ratings... thats probably what Honda/Acura and Toyota are doing to reduce the power ratings.
The hiway MPG is calculated at 45mph or something rediculous like that. So 33mpg for your car is probably accurate according to the rules. But in real life @ 70+mph the ratings are meaningless.
AJ:
I've got two concerns about what you've asserted in your post. First, you appear to have missed the critical footnote on the Toyota site (see the little "3" inside the brackets), which reads, "Rating achieved using regular fuel" (referring, of course, to the "reduced" hp listing). The rating for the 3.3L V-6, found only in the Camry SE model, is also similarly "reduced." As a former vvt-i V-6 Camry owner (mine was a "2003.5", with the 210 hp rating) who carefully read his owner's manual, I am well aware that the 1MZ-FE V-6 is one of those engines that's set up so that it can acceptably get by on 87 octane, but because of its ECU programming, its output is increased using premium fuel. The manual says something to the effect of, "use of 87 octane fuel is permitted, but 91 octane or above is recommended for optimum performance". From my own experience experimenting with different fuel choices in that engine, the lower rating can be explained simply by the fuel choice. A 1MZ on regular feels like it has a bath towel in its intake after you've driven one with premium in the tank.
Second, you paint with too broad a brush. Infiniti (Nissan), obviously another "Asian" make, has actually increased hp ratings on some cars. For example, my G35 sedan advertised 260hp/260ft-lb for the 3.5L VQ V-6. For this year, they're advertising 280 or 298 hp (AT/MT respectively) and 270 or 260 ft-lb (same) for the 2006 VQ in the G sedan. Plainly, these Asians aren't backing down from their hp assertions. I hope your post does not reflect a per se distaste for things "asian". . .
I've got two concerns about what you've asserted in your post. First, you appear to have missed the critical footnote on the Toyota site (see the little "3" inside the brackets), which reads, "Rating achieved using regular fuel" (referring, of course, to the "reduced" hp listing). The rating for the 3.3L V-6, found only in the Camry SE model, is also similarly "reduced." As a former vvt-i V-6 Camry owner (mine was a "2003.5", with the 210 hp rating) who carefully read his owner's manual, I am well aware that the 1MZ-FE V-6 is one of those engines that's set up so that it can acceptably get by on 87 octane, but because of its ECU programming, its output is increased using premium fuel. The manual says something to the effect of, "use of 87 octane fuel is permitted, but 91 octane or above is recommended for optimum performance". From my own experience experimenting with different fuel choices in that engine, the lower rating can be explained simply by the fuel choice. A 1MZ on regular feels like it has a bath towel in its intake after you've driven one with premium in the tank.
Second, you paint with too broad a brush. Infiniti (Nissan), obviously another "Asian" make, has actually increased hp ratings on some cars. For example, my G35 sedan advertised 260hp/260ft-lb for the 3.5L VQ V-6. For this year, they're advertising 280 or 298 hp (AT/MT respectively) and 270 or 260 ft-lb (same) for the 2006 VQ in the G sedan. Plainly, these Asians aren't backing down from their hp assertions. I hope your post does not reflect a per se distaste for things "asian". . .
I agree, but have no sympathy for you at all!
Ahhhhh, I now get about 25 MPG from my Tacoma when factory sticker represented 20-21. I could probably stretch that to 26-28 if it were not for my need for speed and these STEEP HILLS.
Daily Drives:
-2003 Toyota Tacoma PreRunner,2.7 liter, 4 cylinder, Mobil1 5w30 ODO 18000
-1995 Toyota 4-Runner,3.0 liter,6 cylinder, Mobil1 10w30 ODO 98300
http://community.webshots.com/user/amkeer
Daily Drives:
-2003 Toyota Tacoma PreRunner,2.7 liter, 4 cylinder, Mobil1 5w30 ODO 18000
-1995 Toyota 4-Runner,3.0 liter,6 cylinder, Mobil1 10w30 ODO 98300
http://community.webshots.com/user/amkeer
kenw, I agree with the the need for revisons and no perfect standard. I just hate the way people are trying to make it seem like these companies were doing something evil or deceptive. Heck Ford is not even going to bother to retest and revise so what does that say? I mean if someone wanted to be silly they could read all kinds of tripe into that! When in fact it is all about money wich is something Ford has a short supply of!
ekpolk, Don't kill the messenger! I am just cuttin' n pastin', even reused the original article title, if you bothered to look. Seems like people are looking for a bias..that's simply not there! (points finger)
Not really shooting the messenger, just flogging him a little. . .quote:
Originally posted by Audi Junkie:
ekpolk, Don't kill the messenger! I am just cuttin' n pastin', even reused the original article title, if you bothered to look. Seems like people are looking for a bias..that's simply not there! (points finger)
Yeah, but what would happen if the EPA revised it's formula or test procedure to give more accurate results? One possibility is that the environmentalists would have more ammo to pressure Congress to increase CAFE requirements beyond reasonably achievable levels, and new cars would be even more sluggish than they are now.
(Y'all should know that sometimes I worry too much.)
I don't think the EPA should revise it's formula..in fact they've already done that once.
What they should do is come right out and say:
"If you aren't getting the EPA estimated mileage on your car, it's either in need of a tune-up or other maintenance, or you drive it 'in a less than fuel efficient manner'. Or both. Have a nice day."
What they should do is come right out and say:
"If you aren't getting the EPA estimated mileage on your car, it's either in need of a tune-up or other maintenance, or you drive it 'in a less than fuel efficient manner'. Or both. Have a nice day."
And doesn't the EPA sticker specifically say these numbers are for comparison purposes?
i've had cars that were better than epa and cars that were worse. one was much better than the highway rating even when driving in town.
my subies have been toward the low end of the epa ratings. my tacoma was much worse.
my wife's toyota solara (v6) is at the high end, it's barely broken in and she drives mostly in town.
my subies have been toward the low end of the epa ratings. my tacoma was much worse.
my wife's toyota solara (v6) is at the high end, it's barely broken in and she drives mostly in town.
I think that vehicles with larger engines are more likely to get lower than EPA estimated fuel economy ratings when driven "in a less than fuel efficient manner", mainly because larger engines are physically capable of sucking down more fuel when accelerated hard than are small engines.
Vehicles with poor aerodynamics are also more likely to get lower than EPA estimated fuel economy since the EPA test doesn't go above 65MPH, and an aerodynmically-challenged vehicle will start using proportionally more fuel at higher speeds than a more aerodynamic vehicle.
I guess dumbing down the EPA ratings is the only acceptable answer. People don't want to hear that the real answer to the question of "Why don't I get the EPA estimated mileage on my car" is "Because you're an idiot".
Vehicles with poor aerodynamics are also more likely to get lower than EPA estimated fuel economy since the EPA test doesn't go above 65MPH, and an aerodynmically-challenged vehicle will start using proportionally more fuel at higher speeds than a more aerodynamic vehicle.
I guess dumbing down the EPA ratings is the only acceptable answer. People don't want to hear that the real answer to the question of "Why don't I get the EPA estimated mileage on my car" is "Because you're an idiot".
On the other end of the Swedish specturm I'm absolutely amazed at what my mear 230 hp 9-5 aero can do. Just today it out ran a 300 hp WRX STI. And then there's the highway mileage, it's rated at 29 and it does that........at 80. At 65 I get 33, and 55 I can do 37, from a large sedan. Hooray for Saab over delivering.
I think I'll nominate you for the post of the day.
Drivers I know who I have ridden with and actually care about fuel economy and and drive for economy usually get or beat EPA highway mileage.
I get 27 mpg in car rated at 25 mpg driving around 70 mph on lond trip. I also get over EPA in the 65 to 70 mph range in my wife's Acura.
The problem with dumbing down the rating would be: what level of bozo in what level of unmaintaned car do you dumb it down to?
AJ is a valued and thoughtful contributor to this forum. As I indicated in one of my previous posts, we all have our own biases and prejudices, that's just human nature. AJ obviously prefers European makes, their design philosophy, and their culture, especially as compared to the Japanese makes. Both his screen name and his posting history show this. And that's all perfectly OK. Yes I know that he cut-and-pasted the original material from another source. But he elected to post it "as is", obviously making a point. If a member posts outside material, and wishes to distance himself from the content, then he ought to say that. On another level, I come here both for the great info, but also because its fun. Sure, we should all maintain a generous level of mutual respect, but we should also be able to have some fun too. While the info AJ posted may fairly be called "factual", as I pointed out in my first post in this thread, the info was also so fraught with error and omission that perhaps it should lose its "factual" label. I was trying nto have some fun with that, but hey, if my tone was too dark, please accept my apologies.
I hate to burst your bubble, but he wasn't trying. And no, it wasn't me in the STi
- Status
Similar threads
