SCC made big big booboo

[iR-VTEC2]

Ok look at this graph. You see it? look at the HP rating. Ya see it? If ya dont...well ya know

http://astralaxe.com/dyno.jpg


This is supposed to be a wheel hp graph right?

Why is it that the top 3 cars are rated with flywheel hp and the rest wheel hp?

Fricken magazines! I cant belive no one caught that (or i didnt see anyone catch it

[iR-VTEC2]

ahh crud. posted in the wrong area. Please fix!

[ssvr6]

Originally posted by iR-VTEC2

This is supposed to be a wheel hp graph right?

Why is it that the top 3 cars are rated with flywheel hp and the rest wheel hp?




The SRT is a prototype and that's really what it dyno'd at. The production unit will be slower, but still WAY over it's 215 crank hp rating (like the PT Cruiser GT).

The VW and Mini are definitely off unless they're chipped or something.

Steve

[gpt]

Originally posted by ssvr6



The SRT is a prototype and that's really what it dyno'd at. The production unit will be slower, but still WAY over it's 215 crank hp rating (like the PT Cruiser GT).

The VW and Mini are definitely off unless they're chipped or something.

Steve

Why would the company underquote their cars' HP rating? Surely that is a selling point for them and they would want to be accurate with it? Doesn't make sense to me.

[JSIR]

I noticed that some of the numbers seemed off, I think they ended up using different dynos and did not dyno all the cars on the same dyno at the same period of time. I think they pulled in info from other tests and other dynos. I don't think they used claimed crank hp numbers, but rather just inconsistent dyno info. The SRT is just a monster though, dynoing higher than quoted.

[xlr8]

Originally posted by gpt


Why would the company underquote their cars' HP rating? Surely that is a selling point for them and they would want to be accurate with it? Doesn't make sense to me.
car companies used to do this back in the muscle car days. they did it so insurance companies wouldnt catch on to how fast a car is. i think that is bs that they used a prototype car, with no mufflers in a test against real cars that are already on the market.

[ssvr6]

Originally posted by gpt


Why would the company underquote their cars' HP rating? Surely that is a selling point for them and they would want to be accurate with it? Doesn't make sense to me.

Because the engineers gave SCC their prototype to test. It had no mufflers and made mad power. They still say that their production unit will be basically the same, no more than a 5% loss of power.

Still, it's more than what they're quoting. Why would they do this? Becuase, it's buyers love it. "They say it has 215 crank but it's dyno'ing at 220! What a great car!"

Know what I mean?

Steve

[natesi]

That totally sucks.

How can they do that?! What a bunch of assholes--must be Honda haters.

[jaydub]

Or the Honda could just have less power... :rolleyes: Why is it so hard to believe?

[FailureToStop]

I doesn't really matter... the Si got waxed even if the chart was a mistake on SCC's part.

[iR-VTEC2]

.....and im glad too. Makes me look even better as well as the rest of us.

I smoked two...not one...two V6 Tiburons AND....they both broke during the process.

I raced an SVT focus and no one won, twice.

I'll never race a 1.8T with my ep but i owned one by a few seconds on a canyon road. I did however humiliate a 1.8T with the e5 but that's not really fair.

So kudos to you mag racers out there : ) Keep on getting incorrect information and believe what 3 runs in a car will show you.

[IceD out N CALI]

Originally posted by FailureToStop
I doesn't really matter... the Si got waxed even if the chart was a mistake on SCC's part.

yup, the si is no racecar-jus a quick comfy hatchback

[1 fstr si]

yea, that article really pissed me off. i noticed that too. the thing that pissed me off was that the price they give for the Cooper S is the base price for the NON-SUPERCHARGED version. a supercharged one equipped the way they have it explained would ber well into the 20's. and several of the other cars were off on the price also.

[ssvr6]

Our car still would have come in last even if they didn't include the Cooper S.

Why is this shocking? Do you people really believe that you bougth a race car?

I thought I bought a cool ass hatch that looks great, drives great, and has a great car builder behind them.

Am I wrong?

Steve

[william]

the neon is a prototype, and as for the mini and the VW, most european cars measure HP at the wheels.:rolleyes:

[FailureToStop]

If they misquoted the prices, then that would be a REAL problem. If they did then they might as well have compared the Si to Corvettes, NSX's, Porsches, Ferraris or whatever.

But the MSRP's look pretty accurate. If you take a look at the MiniUsa.com web page, the normally aspirated Mini is based at ~$16500.00 and the the Mini S is ~$19500. I was actually a bit surprised that their MSRP's are that low. Of course the real world prices are going to be skewed.

Somebody mentioned that a number of these cars were special, limited edition and highly sought after types. I think real world pricing would have put the Si as 1st or 2nd in affordability. And if they would have equipped all the cars with ABS and sunroof then the Si would have looked even better in this category.

And oh yeah... those graphs ARE accurate (in that they show at the wheel HP). They aren't a mixture of at flywheel vs. wheel measured HP. They are all at the flywheel. The top three just have more honest/accurate ratings from the factory than the others.

After reading and digesting the article, I gotta say that they are mostly right. The only problem I have with it is the #'s that they show in acceleration. I think the Si (8.5secs) and the Sentra's (8.0 sec) (Spec V even!!!!) 0-60's were noticeably off.

[ssvr6]

Originally posted by william
the neon is a prototype, and as for the mini and the VW, most european cars measure HP at the wheels.:rolleyes:


Not true. The hp ratings for the 1.8T are at the crank. Stock 1.8Ts are dynoing at 160 to 170hp AT THE WHEELS. So the factory spec of 180 crank is WAY off. It's almost 200.


Steve

[IceD out N CALI]

its all good

[iR-VTEC2]

dudes....


who gives a damned crap about what car is better.

IMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMm pointing out the stupidity of that magazine. I just hate that mag and i hope they die : )


Turbo...now thats a much more respectable magazine.

[william]

Not true. The hp ratings for the 1.8T are at the crank. Stock 1.8Ts are dynoing at 160 to 170hp AT THE WHEELS. So the factory spec of 180 crank is WAY off. It's almost 200.


Yeah, sure . It all makes sense now. They rate the HP at the wheels (180) and the car dyno's at the wheels at 170-160. That's a 10-20hp diffence. How silly of me. :eek:

Where as the "actual" crank HP is 200, and the rating at the wheels is 170-160. That's a 30-40 hp difference. Makes more sense. :D


Well in light of these new developments i'd still have to stick with my original argument that HP is measured at the wheels! on allot of european cars, seeing as there's less discreptency than crank rating. Well that's what "I" think anyways, where's golfzilla when you need him, he should know. He's probably on some other car forum, bashing peoples rides. Damn, i wish he could come here and clear the air. Later all

[ssvr6]

Originally posted by william



Yeah, sure . It all makes sense now. They rate the HP at the wheels (180) and the car dyno's at the wheels at 170-160. That's a 10-20hp diffence. How silly of me. :eek:

Where as the "actual" crank HP is 200, and the rating at the wheels is 170-160. That's a 30-40 hp difference. Makes more sense. :D


Well in light of these new developments i'd still have to stick with my original argument that HP is measured at the wheels! on allot of european cars, seeing as there's less discreptency than crank rating. Well that's what "I" think anyways, where's golfzilla when you need him, he should know. He's probably on some other car forum, bashing peoples rides. Damn, i wish he could come here and clear the air. Later all

Hey smart guy, I've been into 'dubs longer than Golfzilla, check my sig. I'm not tooting my own horn, but in this case, I know what I'm talking about.

Steve

[Gibhunter]

It's not true about european manufacturers. They still measure at the crank dyno. The thing is that many of those cars come out with underrated numbers. For many different reasons. Marketing, insurance, being able to get certifications in different countries, etc.

Dodge will have 3 different factory options on the SRT4. They are marketed in stages and the car tested looks more like the Stage2 upgrade with 275HP at the crank. Stage3 is with no cat and is marketed at 300HP but not street legal.

[Jeremy R]

Magazine reviews are opinions.
Road and Track picked the Si over the Spec V and the Tiburon,
Car and Driver picked the Si over the GTI, both had the SVT Focus
1st. Blah, blah, blah, who cares. I still would not change my purchase. I knew what my Si was when I bought it, and I know
what it can be if I invest the money in it.
Look what Hasport did to the Si. Suspension wise that car rocked, and between I/H/E and maybe Hondata, the Si will be
perfect for me. Even if I don't spend the dough, I bought a
fun to drive hatch which is reliable and super smooth.
I guess the reason I am not upset is because I knew that Si
stood for Sporty economy car and not a F1 car when I bought it.

[atl-si]

Originally posted by Jeremy R
Magazine reviews are opinions.
Road and Track picked the Si over the Spec V and the Tiburon,
Car and Driver picked the Si over the GTI, both had the SVT Focus
1st. Blah, blah, blah, who cares. I still would not change my purchase. I knew what my Si was when I bought it, and I know
what it can be if I invest the money in it.
Look what Hasport did to the Si. Suspension wise that car rocked, and between I/H/E and maybe Hondata, the Si will be
perfect for me. Even if I don't spend the dough, I bought a
fun to drive hatch which is reliable and super smooth.
I guess the reason I am not upset is because I knew that Si
stood for Sporty economy car and not a F1 car when I bought it.
Amen brother!!

[swampdonkey]

VW has a reputation of being conservative wit their horsepower figures. I think the dodge's crazy numbers might be due to different methods of testing. I think i read that when SCC dyno'd it they had a water sprayer on the intercooler and a fan blowing a certain amount of air. It is concievable that the manufacturer's handled the intercooler different. Especially when you consider that the dodge, the mini and the VW all had HP overestimations in common and are all intercooled. The mazda didn't share this inconsistancy becasue its intercooler is hard to get a fan on plus it is very tiny. That's just a guess though.

Swampy