yep under the SAE rules, seems just about all japanese engines are overated. especially hondas though.

 

Not so much an import tax but they are taxed on the registration based on displacement. In some countries these taxes can be $2000 a year for large displacement engines and 10X less for little bity engines. Combined with $5/gallon gasoline and it is no wonder Europe and Japan are chock full of 1600cc subcompact cars. In Texas we tax based on weight and even a fat *** 5500 lb SUV will only cost $100.

 

Have anything to back up such a bold statement?

 

check yahoo/autos. acura TL's hp went down from 270 to 258. rsx also went down, i dont remeber by how much. camry V6 went down... and many others. there were tons of threads about hp ratings going down under new strict SAE requlations. companies could choose to either adopt the stricter rules with their pre-2006 models. Honda is one of the companies that changed their ratings.

 

It doesn't really matter does it. The power is still the same.

 

its still the same engines making the same power, but some companies were overating their engines in the past, something to do with not attaching certain things to the engine while taking the ratings.
i noticed in the past some engines had nice and pretty flat numbers like 200hp, 270hp, 300hp etc... now they are like 197, 298, 287, 306, 204 etc etc

 

I understood it as using different testing procedures to obtain hp ratings. Depending on procdure, different ratings were obtained. None of them wrong, just different. Now everyone is going to use the same.

 

i look at is as overating by utilizing loopholes in the rules, not exactly cheating since they didnt break any rules.

 

Those numbers for the most partm are pretty minor adjustments, but I didn't realize so many of them were going down. The RSX went from 200hp in '04 to 210hp in '05 and the '06 is 201hp. I'll bet anyone on this site that Mazda either doesn't hit near their 238hp rating for the RX-8, or most likely elects to not use the new SAE rating system.

 

^So far I have not heard about the Renesis under the SAE rules, but I'll bet your right.

What's funny, is that alot of American engines went up.

I'm the 3-rotor hoe of this website, but I'll continue to say that it's time Mazda adopts a 1L 3-rotor design, which will give them alot more NA HP while not adding much more weight. On top of that, IF they give it better gearing we even might see better fuel economy.

It's amazing what 2 rotors can do compared to 4-8 cylinders, but that LS2/6/7...you just got to love them.

 

only american engine i know of that went up is the new corvette z06 LS7 engine that went from 500 to 505hp, other than that, i think most American engines also went down a bit, but not as dramatic as the japanese engines.

 

Nah, the Cadillac 4.4L Northstar with Blower went form 440 to 469.

 

wow thats a huge gain, are you sure its due to the SAE... this isnt a new tune of the engine?

 

I'm positive it was due to new testing standards. GM and BMW are well known to underrate their engines relative to their peers. Many of their engines have been underrated by 10%. Ford too since they got nailed with the Mustang Cobra fiasco 5 or so years ago. Mazda and Honda......well let's just say they are not in the same camp as the aformentioned.

 

Yeah...like stated, it's more than just the Vette engine. I think the or one of the GM V6's went up also. But...I can't say much more than that, maybe most stayed the same or went down also.

 

I agree about 4G63 should have been on the list. It's not surprising the Renesis is not on the list. At the time when it was awarded, there weren't any real-world data on the engine. After it has been out for two years, those judges have read about some of the qualifications that gave the Renesis those awards were no longer true. Examples are:

- Promised higher mileage compared to past N/A rotaries
Real-world: not true
- Promised lesser oil consumption compared to past N/A rotaries
Real-world: not true
- Promised matched power ratings to the 13B-REW, which was boosted
Real-world: not true
- Promised lower emissions, lesser unburned gas from exhaust
Real-world: RX-8 drivers taking videos of their flaming exhausts
- 1.3 liter bragging rights
Real-world: still debatable

...don't get me wrong, I'm not hating. In fact, even though I praise 4G63 and VQ35DE so much, I'd still take the Renesis as my favorite. I'm just presenting my guesses as to why those judges are no longer fans of our dear engine.

 

Here's an old thread that some of you might enjoy:

https://www.rx8club.com/showthread.p...&highlight=ls6

 

Did the European RX-8s get the same reflash just before going on sale that hurt above 6k rpm power and fuel economy, and idel smoothness, and oil consumption, and cold start flooding, etc?


And you can't directly compare a turbo with a non turbo engine- the turbo engine is going to cost a lot more, weigh more, be larger dressed, have issues due to the low compression and cool spark plugs needed for boost conditions when driven normally, and long term reliability issues. A better comparison would be the last 13B na and the Renesis.

Heck- my 12A 85 RX7 gets about the same fuel economy as my 04 RX-8. And there is no comparison in driving performance between the two.

Considering there has been so little actual work done on the rotary engine by any manufacturer in the last twenty years, that improvement is viable. But I agree- Mazda over sold the engine before production started. But, it is a sports car. And sports cars are about handling balance and revvy engines- not fuel economy, ease of maintenance or straight line drag racing. (shrug)

 

Damn, nearly 70 posts and nobody has said anything about the 2.0 T FSI, which was at the top of the list. I LOVE it in my new A3, and it's only a software flash away from 250+hp (using the REVO flash, for example). Oh, 30 MPG highway on the very first trip, too

Max torque from 1800RPM on up, with a good stong kick in acceleration from 4000 - 6000 RPM.

http://oooo-a3.blogspot.com

 

whao thats pretty impressive with max torque comming this early, especially for a turbo engine.

 

Actually you can buy crate LS7s for around $13000.

 

It's a very small turbo IIRC. Sorta like the snail VW sticks on their 1.8T. The quick spool creates lots of low end power, but it really falls on its' face up top.

 

"falls on its face up top"... hardly. Can you back that up with dyno runs?

I was present when the guy in this link dyno'd his at AWE a couple of weeks ago. He has a K&N filter (demonstrated to have zero effect on performance one way or the other), and a cat-back exhaust.
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2333329


And here's another with the same engine:
http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2319239


Explain to me where, precisely, citing points on the graph, it "falls on its' [sic] face up top".

Unlike the RX-8, where HP reality is somewhat less than the marketing claims, the 2.0 T FSI engines are dynoing better than they're advertised at.

 

It doesn't look like it falls on its face, but the torque does drop off a bit near the end. Besides, if you know anything about turbos you know that small ones spool up very quickly, but if you want much more boost than stock up top, you'll need a bigger turbo to ensure a reliable flow. Small turbos are also more susceptible to boost creeping, but a better wastegate can take care of that. That being said, I think that 's a pretty tight little engine.

 

Nothing I said was really groundbreaking or should be seen as contraversial. And actually I was referring specifically to the 1.8T when I mentioned poor power up top. Although after looking at the dynos you posted, it doesn't appear an extra .2L of displacement is enough to overcome the inherent flowing deficiencies of a small turbo on a small engine. That's not VW's fault. That's physics. It also looks like you're seeing peak HP between 5k and 5.5k RPM's depending on the tune: stock or staged. That's not exactly a high redline. In fact it's outright V8-ish. I'm also not seeing anything resembling "max torque" at 1.8k RPM's. The torque curve is nice and flat which should make for some fun sprints around town, but it doesn't produce significant power until around 3.1k RPM's. With a bigger turbo, more fuel and some engine management you should easily see another 2-3k RPM's of pull. I'm always amazed (and still am) at how well VW engines take to a simple ECU flash, but those dynos are nothing to hang your hate on IMHO. Any small displacement four banger is going to need a free flowing exhaust and more boost to continue pulling hard up top. That new 2.0 is no exception.

BTW...the power curve of that motor reminds me very much of the 2.4L turbo in the SRT-4...

SRT-4 with drop-in filter & CB exhuast (stock turbo)

A3 with drop-in filter & CB exhaust (stock turbo)