Asian brands overstate horsepower

Status
Not open for further replies.
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
12,766
Location
Nokesville, VA
quote:
Originally posted by JohnBrowning: Any time you leave things up to interpretation you are going to get too many interprtations.
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.
 
Joined
Jan 12, 2005
Messages
4,353
Location
FL
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.
 
Joined
Apr 28, 2003
Messages
1,397
Location
Katy, Texas
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.
 
Joined
May 23, 2004
Messages
694
Location
Saskatchewan, Canada
quote:
Originally posted by Jonny Z: I am more concerned with the over-stated EPA mileage at this point. I have never hit 33 MPG with my Camry, in fact, never over 30. They advertise this as a selling point on TV every day. On the other hand, very reliable car.
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.
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
9,425
Location
Pensacola & Vero Beach FL
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". . .
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
9,425
Location
Pensacola & Vero Beach FL
quote:
Originally posted by Jonny Z: I am more concerned with the over-stated EPA mileage at this point. I have never hit 33 MPG with my Camry, in fact, never over 30. They advertise this as a selling point on TV every day. On the other hand, very reliable car.
I agree, but have no sympathy for you at all! [Wink] [Razz] Infiniti advertised 26 mpg hwy for my G35 sedan, but I'm lucky to see 22. The car is now just over a year old and had 31,000 miles on it. With premium rocketing toward $3/gal, this really, really sux. Horsepower claims, and their validity are pretty abstract to me at this point -- the damage that this otherwise fantastic car is doing to my wallet is definitely not!!! [Mad]
 
Joined
May 6, 2003
Messages
3,031
Location
Florida
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. [Happy] 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
 
Joined
May 1, 2003
Messages
9,448
Location
USA
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!
 

Audi Junkie

Thread starter
Joined
Nov 3, 2002
Messages
11,247
Location
PA
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) [Roll Eyes]
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
9,425
Location
Pensacola & Vero Beach FL
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) [Roll Eyes]
Not really shooting the messenger, just flogging him a little. . . [Wink] [Razz] And hey, we're all biased, period. The real question is whether one's bias tends towards evil bias. I won't become convinced that your bias is evil -- until you claim that the new snouts Audi is installing on their cars are actually attractive. [Cheers!]
 
Joined
Aug 12, 2005
Messages
262
Location
Michigan
quote:
Originally posted by Jonny Z: I am more concerned with the over-stated EPA mileage at this point.
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. [Frown] (Y'all should know that sometimes I worry too much.)
 
Joined
Jun 4, 2005
Messages
971
Location
Boston
With $5.00/ gal. gasoline "coming to a station near you" within 18 months I do believe the horsepower debate will soon resolve itself.
 
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
12,766
Location
Nokesville, VA
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."
 
Joined
Jun 1, 2002
Messages
1,253
Location
michigan
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.
 
Joined
May 7, 2004
Messages
12,766
Location
Nokesville, VA
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".
 
Joined
Jun 27, 2005
Messages
260
Location
Newtown, PA
quote:
Originally posted by ALS: I know that several S80 T6 owners were not happy with the performance of their 262 hp cars.
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. [Big Grin]
 
Joined
Dec 21, 2003
Messages
12,385
Location
Northern CA
quote:
Originally posted by brianl703: 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."
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?
 
Joined
Apr 5, 2004
Messages
9,425
Location
Pensacola & Vero Beach FL
quote:
Originally posted by sbc350gearhead: The original post was factual, and I have seen nothing posted by AJ in this thread that was his personal opinion........the other posters need to respect this fact.
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.
 
Joined
Nov 7, 2004
Messages
2,493
Location
MSP 'burbs, MN
quote:
Originally posted by Raven18940:
quote:
Originally posted by ALS: I know that several S80 T6 owners were not happy with the performance of their 262 hp cars.
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.

I hate to burst your bubble, but he wasn't trying. And no, it wasn't me in the STi [Big Grin] [Cheers!]
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top