http://www.detnews.com/apps/pbcs.dll...603130350/1148

i dont know how old this is but honda and toyota over rated there cars motors and GM under rated it. thats why when GM had there cars tested over for the 2006 line up my moms 2005 malibu has 200hp and the 06 has 201.

 

Under the old testing guidelines, Toyota and Honda's numbers were good. There were certain loopholes used to manipulate the numbers under the old guidelines and with the new tests, the loopholes that they used are gone.

So they didn't cheat in reality. However, if I was a customer, I'd be very unhappy.

 

yeah it is like my buddys 06 civic, honda states it is 145hp but he has it dynod at 131.

 

uhh there isnt anything wrong with that #. 145HP with 12% drivetrain loss (which some people use for fwd) equates to approx 128whp.if using 15% drivetrain loss the whp number is even lower. so if anything the 145HP is underrated.

car companies list HP at the crank. not at the wheels. just so happens that chevy and dodge (to name a cpl) severely underrated the power at the crank

 

so in regards to the 2.4ss what would be our numbers to the crank?

 

Well I guess it pays to go

 

i dont kno what the 2.4 puts down to the wheels, so take ur wheel HP 'x' and divide it by .85 (if using 15% loss--.88 if using 12% loss) soo

x/.85 = Crank HP

 

It is the dumbest thing too. Like before the STi(I) was rated at 300/300 now it is 293/298(I think). What looks better and is easier to sell?? Either way, GM and other American Car companies also had cars that dropped in power numbers, not just foreign.

 

Some notable gains were also seen at GM though... i.e. Z06 from 500 to 505 and the supercharged Caddy engines from 444 to 469. No car is making any more or less power than before though, it's just a different (more accurate) way of measuring it.

 

That is why I said power numbers not just power.