How many cars rate HP at the Crank?
 

One thing that really bugged me was finding out that the real HP of my FR-s is about 174 not 200.

How many cars are rated by the company at the crank? I feel it's kinda fraudulent.

all and it's not fraudulent at all...they don't claim WHP...

Why does the number bother you? The car still feels the same, doesn't it?

Edit: it's also a more consistent measurement of power.

Car club bro

Must be the first car you've owned and taken note of the power rating figures. There's several good reasons they do this and it's covered in several threads... fraudulent? No...

Uhh pretty much every manufacturer? I can't think of any that advertise horsepower to the wheels.

all right... if that's the standard. Seems the hp and torque at the wheel is what matters.

It all matters and is all relevant, both figures tell you different stories

it's call horse power war for a reason, if u are in that game you brought the wrong car.

I thought everyone knew all OEM's rated crank HP, unless they state otherwise. But lets say a camaro has 300WHP and a Stang had 310HP people will buy the Stang although the camaro makes way more power.

Ultimately yes. But crank HP is a more consistent way for manufacturers to rate engines.

WHP has so many variables (tires, wheel size, weight over the axle, temperature, coefficient of friction of the surface, etc.) that it becomes practically impossible for a manufacturer to provide an accurate number.

You down with SAE? Yeah, you know me.

Car manufacturers follow SAE standards to measure the crank HP of an engine. Especially once SAE tightened the rules in 2005 or 2006, the numbers from manufacturers are much more consistent. It's much harder to pass an "underrated" or "overrated" engines through with the newer regulations. Also, all accessories that are standard equipment on the engine must now be on engine for the test (ex., no leaving out the power steering pump for the test to help boost HP figures).

That said, WHP is the one we care about. However, crank HP can be consistently measured in a very controlled environment (the engine is out of the car). WHP can have a lot of variables, as previously mentioned already in the thread.

Car and Driver article on the subject: http://www.caranddriver.com/columns/...olution-column

Yep, back in the day, I sort of felt "robbed" when they went from gross HP to net HP ..... :sigh:


http://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-tech...et-horsepower/



humfrz

Some companies underrate their cars. For example, the srt-4 was supposed to have 230 crank horsepower. It reality it has almost that much to the wheels. It being FWD also helps some with that.

All of them.

calling the rear seats as "seats" is more fraudulent than that

Acceleration dynos (chassis dynos, inertia dyno) are a relatively new item spawned by the availability of inexpensive computer power to do the spin-up calculations. What car manufacturer are you thinking of that lists the wheel HP?

Get a R-Type sticker and your HP will be back to 200.

That's quite high for a dyno test is your FR-S stock? if so what kind of dyno was it?

FWIW I made 176 whp with just a CBE on a dynojet (runfiles 1&2).

https://c2.staticflickr.com/6/5610/1...ec4fda8f_c.jpg

Edmunds made 173 whp stock on a dynojet as well.

https://media.ed.edmunds-media.com/s...011123_600.jpg

I remember DD Performance in Texas also made 175 whp stock on a dynojet after an ECU reset.

http://www.ddperformanceresearch.com...er%20reset.jpg

Not sure if it's common or not, but I know a few others have as well.

You're gonna get ripped a new one by the forum, every single production vehicle is like that an it's not fraudulent in any way and is still a proper representation of power. Only aftermarket "tuner" cars will probably boast Wheel horsepower ratings. Modern Rear wheel drive cars will lose 15-19 percent of the crank horsepower through there drive trains.

Are all those dynos with just a CBE? Also what kind of testing conditions and mileage on the vehicles?

- My car had a Perrin CBE. About 15,000 miles at the time and a bunch of track days under its belt. Was dyno'd in October, so probably 60F weather.

- Edmunds' car was stock. It was tested in April in southern CA, so probably ~75F.

- DD Performance's car was stock. They list the conditions on their dyno printout (72F, 10k miles)

OP is trolling.

This ain't real life.

Look not everyone who comes here is a car guy. I never realised that all cars are rated at the crank, now I know.... Chill.

How many cars rate HP at the Crank?
 

What's cbe?!?!?


I'll give you the rice noodle😘

Also beware of HP gains from mods that are posted. Could be WHP or crank


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Most manufactures don't measure horsepower at all. They measure kilowatts.

CBE = catback exhaust

Dynojets read high, I've dynoed my stock FR-S on a Mustang dyno and it came up to 144whp, Mustangs read low. Were somewhere in the range of 150-160whp.

[QUOTE=Captain Snooze;2436550]Most manufactures don't measure horsepower at all. They measure kilowatts.[/QUOTE

Manly Australia only.

Young sir it so hard to keep up with these new acronyms these yougns come up with


I'll give you the rice noodle😘

In the US at least, Dynojets are the most widely used type of dyno by market share. For that reason I'd say Dynojets are the type most people think of when you say you've gotten a dyno reading done, rather than a Mustang, Maha or Dyno Dynamics dyno. I've even heard that Mustang dynos have a "Dynojet mode" where they try to calibrate to Dynojet numbers since that's what people want.

It's fair to say certain dynos read high or low, but IMO that's really only in comparison with a Dynojet, which has kind of become the industry standard for dynos for better or worse.

Really in the end though, dynos can all be calibrated differently so all that matters is how you do relative to your baseline (and other cars that were tested on your exact dyno). I know in the case of the Dynojet I used, most Twins averaged around 165-170 whp, but my car and another guy I know tested in the 175-177 whp range. Both of our cars were frequently tracked, so that might have helped with the break-in process.

Haha yeah I hear ya. I find myself searching on google for acronyms more frequently than I'd care to admit!

everyone would use crank hp if it was feasible, as it will always be a higher number. That is also why there are dynos that attach at the hubs, more consistency.

Whp can have so man variables in it to be only useful for that particular dyno on that particular day. Plus they can be messed with by techs who know what they are doing, and they are. Some hide sensors in drawers to ruin readings, others do even more shady crap.

Which is completely fine. You asked a question, and we answered it for you.

I really got pissed off when I discovered that you were supposed to peel the banana before you eat it.

Does anybody else know this?!! ?!! ?! !?

All joking aside.

Crank HP is a better rating. Because it measures the power of the engine. So when you're told how much power the engine makes the manufacturer can be more accurate. Once you start measuring power after that (hub dyno, rolling dyno) there's SO many variables at play that can change the figures so giving an accurate number to the public would be like a blind man throwing a dart at a moving dart board.

That's like saying this part is rated for 70 degrees Celsius, NOT 158 degrees Fahrenheit.