Civic SI dyno at 206whp?!?!
 

eh? Thought Honda rated these at 197 crank....

Can anyone confirm or deny?

http://forums.autoweek.com/thread.js...20557&tstart=0

Perhaps I need to look into a super or a turbo afterall..... :p

Thats Bull Crap

if that is true, it's pretty impressive. This car has daily driver written all over it.

Doesn't that say the dyno was taken but the car was off it's wheels? So the car should lose more horsepower to turning the wheels? I don't know how much, they say 10 but I think it's probably more complex than picking out a number? :confused:
Edit: Don't dynapacks also usually rate cars higher that other dynos. I.e. Mustang Dynos. Not knocking the new civic, awesome little car, but I don't know about those power ratings. Would be sweet as hell if true though.

no matter what the final HP numbers are...that civic is gonna rock, and once the money stops going the rx8s way, i may be thinking of trading me 97 civic for this baby.

Take the numbers with a grain of salt. The testing was done by vtec.net....the same folks that reported the new 2.2L S2000 engine at 220 whp (2.0L dynos 200 whp). Testing later confirmed that the 2.2L didn't make anymore power than the 2.0L. It's very likely that vtec.net is inflating the numbers which is very easy to do on dynos.

Not likely at the wheels since honda wouldn't bother putting that much horsepower in a front wheel cars plus its an Si, it would be difficult to top that if they planned a type r release. Whats impressive is the fuel economy they claim for the new version of i-vtec

You're forgetting the Acura TL, which btw, does have noticable torque steer because of the amount of power at the wheels.

this motor is pretty much UNCHANGED from the 05 RSX type S, 210hp, the reason for the rating of 197 is the new SAE testing. So, since it used to be rated at 210, and they dyno'd it with the wheels and tires OFF, using their figure of 10hp gain from that....that puts it at 220 crank, just 5 off from what they said it looks like it has at the crank.

You also dont know anything about the conditions, or if those number are corrected. Also dont know if the car was at normal operating temp or if it was cold.

When I was told the Cobalt SS dyno'd at crank value to the wheels, I believed it. That's how Chevy does it. It'd take alot for me to believe it of a Honda. :)

The engine was SAE certified at producing 197hp at the flywheel. The new SAE certification requires independant testing on calibrated engine dyno's for hp ratings.

This is why getting dyno numbers from joe schmoe's shop down the street on a chassis dyno that was probably never calibrated and then proclaiming to the world on the internet how much power your car makes is a bunch of crap... but seen everywhere everyday :rolleyes:

I thought I had read somewhere that the Saturn Ion Redline was the same way! If I remember correctly it was geared in a way that it didn't perform like the HP numbers would indicate it would!

just saying 'thats how chevy does it' is a pretty general statement. When you get into BIG power cars, with big motors, its easyer to take the power numbers up....sometimes companys will pic a specific number cause it looks good for advertising, like viper 500hp, 500lb/tq, 500cubic inches, 500 is a nice round number, a lot of the cars are making 10-20 beyond that....but 510 just looks strange.

The new z06 vette is making around 520 crank, but they market it as 505, up from 405 for the last z06, and even that one was making around 415.

Im not doubting what you say, but companys all the time fudge the numbers up and down a little to get a good round number. Also even production motors can vary as much as 10 hp from motor to motor.

I would think that with a dyno reading like that, such a light car would hit 60 in faster than Honda's claimed 6.7 sec. I don't think it's geared crappily, either. And like r0tor said, the SAE numbers are most likely the real deal. The SAE rating system is why it's 197 and not an even 200, at least that's what edmunds says.

No, its making 505 certified SAE hp at the crank. It was originally rated at 500hp before being certified.

This is another example of several engines on an engine stand being independantly tested on a certified dyno, certified, then some owner going to a run of the mill dyno shop and making 440 rwhp and claiming that means he's getting 520 at the crank. Either the drivetrain loss is less then 15% or the dyno shop has a dyno thats no longer calibrated... probably a little of each.

hell yeah
I like it

Just like rx8, rated 238 hp to make us think it can be as powerful as a s2000.

I just had my car dyno'd on a Mustang chassis dynamometer. They are probably the most accurate for determining real world power to the ground since they load the rollers to a vehicle's weight and hp required to keep the vehicle at a sustained 50 mph. With those numbers, the dyno can simulate rolling and wind resistance on the test vehicle. I made 102 hp and 161 lb/ft of torque. If I changed the load configurations I could have easily made a ton more hp. So it's very easy to make false dyno readings. And results even vary from dyno to dyno. So, 207 hp might have been recorded, but it may not have been recorded accurately or even in a 1:1 gear.

It's also very likely you're making baseless accusations. I know Shawn Church, the guy who did the dynoing, and he's an honest guy interested in being accurate, not trumping numbers. His dyno measures power by connecting directly to the hub, which results in slightly higher numbers than a dyno that measures from the wheels, but it also eliminates the variables of varying tire pressures and variations in rolling resistance from different types and sizes of tires, so it's arguably more repeatable. Shawn's probably just reporting what the machine measures.

Its the shape of the torque curve that counts not the hp figures.

Agreed. It's kind of amusing to see folks on an RX-8 board accusing Honda folks of inflating HP. At a dyno day here in Seattle last spring (Dynojet), the RX-8s were all (but one) doing 185 rwhp (uncorrected), while my 2.2L S2000 (completely stock, except for aftermarket radio) did 219 rwhp (uncorrected; 210 corrected), despite the fact that the RX-8 is rated at 238 bhp by the manufacturer, and the S2000 at 240. It is well known that the typical 2004/2005 S2000 makes at least 10hp more than the earlier versions.

Out of curiousity, why is that amusing? Pretty much everyone here knows the 8 isn't making the 238hp that Mazda claimed and pretty much everyone is honest about that! The thing that people are questioning for the new Civic SI more than anything is some of the magazine test numbers in comparison to that dyno result! I think most people here would not deny the S2K making Honda's claimed HP because the dynos fall in line for their performance! If the RX-8 club community and Mazda North America were 1 and the same then I would also find it funny but the individuals here (at least as far as I know) did not have anything to do with the manufacturer claimed HP numbers!

The latest SAE standards are aimed to provide the consumer with TRUE and ACCURATE power figures. Independant companies test random engines on calibrated engine dynos and report the results. In the particular case of this engine, it went from 210hp to 197hp.

Now please tell me how a honda website testing a honda engine on a chassis dyno gives more accurate results? Especially when said honda website produces a dyno sheet showing 9 mpre hp at the wheels then independant testing facilities got at the crank... :rolleyes:

I have seen a number of threads, with multiple posts by folks here claiming that it is "well known" that some mysterious force keeps the RX-8 from giving an accurate result on a wheel dyno, so I don't agreee that pretty much everyone here knows that the 8 isn't making the 238hp that Mazda claimed, or that pretty much everyone here is honest about that. Given the number of times I have seen folks here try to support that claimed 238hp, I found it amusing that anyone here would care about some claim for a particular Civic. I was inartful in expressing that amusement, grouping everyone in with those who pretend that the RX-8 meets its advertised specs.
Fair enough; I really don't mean to paint all with the same brush, and for that I apologize. Certainly, lots of folks here are realistic about the power of the RX-8, which in any event is adequate by any rational standard. I was just responding to a particular post, calling a particular test a fabrication, while also claiming some stupid things about the S2000. Sorry for being too broad in that post! :)

I've been hearing the same thing. This is crazy if it is fact.