Looks like Mazda's not the only one to overstate HP
06-17-2004, 12:11 PM
#4
The Thread Hijack King
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: The Houston Club's Resident Lush
Posts: 144
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Almost every car maker does. Lets face it, car makers measure hp at the engine, not at the wheels where it counts.
You have to read through their bull **** sometimes to get to the truth.
You have to read through their bull **** sometimes to get to the truth.
06-17-2004, 12:49 PM
#6
Registered User
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Houston
Posts: 567
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think the problem here is a combination of slight (maybe 15 hp) over rating of the CTS-V engine and an under-rating of the LS6 engine in the Z06 Vette. Believe it or not sometimes car companies actually under-rate their engines. LS6 engines, when tested on a bench dyno, usually test closer to 425 hp. BMW is notorious for under-rating their standard series engines but not the engines for the "M" series cars.
So what we have is a ~385 hp CTS.
If this crap keeps up all of the car companies are going to revert to the old R-R method of rating their engine power as "adequate".
So what we have is a ~385 hp CTS.
If this crap keeps up all of the car companies are going to revert to the old R-R method of rating their engine power as "adequate".
Last edited by babylou; 06-17-2004 at 12:59 PM.
06-17-2004, 01:51 PM
#8
Administrator
yeah by my math(and that's not necesarrily good
) 15% losses on 400hp would put them at 340rwhp. from the numbers posted i figure they are seeing on the dynos between 19% and 23% losses compared to my 15% figure. that certainly seems correct to me in relation to the dynos used. like it was said above they are looking at a measly 10hp extra loss between the engine and and the dyno results. nothing to scream about.
) 15% losses on 400hp would put them at 340rwhp. from the numbers posted i figure they are seeing on the dynos between 19% and 23% losses compared to my 15% figure. that certainly seems correct to me in relation to the dynos used. like it was said above they are looking at a measly 10hp extra loss between the engine and and the dyno results. nothing to scream about.
06-17-2004, 05:52 PM
#11
Registered User
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: South Florida
Posts: 490
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Didn't Racing Beat get 217 crank H.P. on the chasis dyno. And that was with a K&N that they state makes 7 H.P. so were talking about 211 crank H.P. Their dyno could be off but damn a 27 H.P. or 13% difference.
06-17-2004, 10:21 PM
#12
Like a record, baby...
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: NJ
Posts: 615
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I would kind of be surprised if the CTS-V was making more than 4 or 5 hp less than 400. GM has always notoriously underated the L's, LT's, and LS's. Also, there was little technical change in the CTS-V version of the LS-6 engine. Then again, now that I think about it, they did retune it to be smoother, which could cost alot of power. All I know is that my half LS-1 / half LS-6 Z28 made alot more than the 310hp that they claimed it did from the factory 
.
Also, I smoked a new M3 four nights ago, so I believe it when you say that they may overrate those engines. Then again, I'm also pushing 400hp
. Also, I smoked a new M3 four nights ago, so I believe it when you say that they may overrate those engines. Then again, I'm also pushing 400hp
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
czr
RX-8 Parts For Sale/Wanted
4
09-13-2015 11:37 AM
AMOC
SE RX-8 Forum
1
09-09-2015 05:14 AM