Quote:Interestingly enough, I have heard of no domestics that were overrating their power in that little debacle a couple of years back. If anything, they were underrating the power. In fact I remember in the discussion on here someone spun that around and complained about how the domestics couldn't even get an accurate power output, apparently missing the point of being conservative with power ratings. (See, people are never ____ when they get more than they're told they're getting, but they do get plenty ____ when they get less than they're told they're getting--and this applies to a lot more than just engines).
Also, the engines you refer to were likely overrated (as the domestics did back then) and were tested under the old SAE standards.
Quote:The problem with the quad-4 was that it would not hold together long enough to put out 170HP. That boat anchor has more design changes to try to get it to hold together than any other engine Gm built. It was a failure in every sense of the word. The Honda's engine isn't earth shattering nor was it meant to be. It will however be puttting out incredible UOA's long after the bad nightmares about quad-4s is a thing of the past. It also has smoothness and fuel economy second to none for an engine in that power range.
Considering my 1990 Quad-4 2.3L had 180HP and some Oldsmobile variants had 195 HP, that's not saying much for the Honda boys when it comes to output. So getting 170 out of something with more displacement isn't much to brag about. The Ford Duratec 2.5L had 170HP back in the early to mid-90s. Again, output / liter of displacement that is on par with the 2.4L Honda of today, not far behind. So I'd say 168HP out of 2.4 liters today is an average result, not earth shattering.