WSJ: "Truth in Horsepower Protocol"
08-21-2005, 10:40 PM
#1
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 1,994
WSJ: "Truth in Horsepower Protocol"
Here is further clarification about the revisions made by SAE in testing for Horsepower. This comes from the Wall Street Journal. See (for the first time) what Nissan is doing in the 10th paragraph below.
See previous discussion about the SAE HP change on this thread here:
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=423080
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Counting Horses
New Standards for Gauging Horsepower
Are a Sensitive Subject in Car Business
August 22, 2005
Honey, they shrunk the horsepower!
Consumers who pay attention to horsepower numbers -- and there are a lot of them -- may have noticed that some 2006 cars have less advertised horsepower than they did for 2005. The Toyota Camry, for instance, the No. 1 selling car in America, will be advertised for 2006 with a 190 horsepower, down from 210 in 2005. The Acura TL, rated at 270 horsepower in 2005, is rated at 258 horsepower in 2006.
None of these cars is likely to feel less powerful than before. Nothing's really changed about the engines. What's changed is the way auto makers test cars to determine advertised horsepower.
Measuring horsepower in an automobile isn't like measuring the length of a football field. In the latter case, 100 yards is a 100 yards. But when it comes to horsepower, there's been latitude for a certain amount of what General Motors technical fellow David Lancaster calls "creative interpretation." Under the Society of Automotive Engineers' former engine-power-testing protocols, established in 1990 and reaffirmed in 1995, Mr. Lancaster says auto makers didn't necessarily have to account for such things as the power loss caused by a power-steering pump, or the effect of electronic controls.
There were other loopholes. A car maker could test a car using higher-octane premium gasoline -- which would boost an engine's performance -- even if consumers were told that premium wasn't required. (In fact, for most cars, premium gas isn't really a requirement.)
Under the new SAE rule, car makers are supposed to conduct their horsepower tests under conditions that are closer to the real world. If the car is supposed to run on regular, then regular gas must be used during the test. And components on the test engine must be production components.
"We put language in the standard that says explicitly that the intent of the standard is to give an accurate representation of power in the vehicle," says Mr. Lancaster, who headed an SAE committee that redrafted the procedures.
GM says it intends to take an extra, optional step and "certify" all its horsepower ratings. Among other things, the procedure to certify horsepower figures involves conducting tests in the presence of a witness. European auto makers are already subject to a similar procedure. But while the No. 1 auto maker intends to test new engines under the new standard, but won't go back and retest existing power plants.
At Ford, Karilyn Lytle, manager of V-engine and performance evaluation, says the new rules will have a "very minor" impact. Ford has a policy of testing three production engines three times each to get its horsepower numbers. If the result of those tests is that an engine scores 197 horsepower, "we no longer round" to get to an even 200.
Ford doesn't plan to go the extra mile and "certify" its horsepower ratings, Ms. Lytle said. The process costs money and takes time, and "we haven't felt the need." Like GM, Ford is re-rating engines as new models or new engines come into production.
That's the policy Nissan is following as well. Nissan has propelled its recent recovery in the U.S. market by offering models with more horsepower than its main rivals in several important market segments. But since Jan. 1, when testing to the new standard was required, Nissan has only come up with one new engine application to test under the new rules, says company spokesman Dean Case. That model, the Infiniti FX 45 luxury crossover sport utility, is rated at 320 horsepower for 2006, using the new SAE rules. The 2005 model was rated at 315 horsepower -- but Mr. Case says the 2006 would have had an even number if it had been evaluated under the old regime.
By contrast, Honda re-tested all its engines to the new standards, says spokesman Mike Spencer. For Acura, Honda's luxury division, power numbers decreased by 5 to 12 horses, depending on the model, he says.
"We re-tested everything right away," Mr. Spencer says. "We want to make sure consumers have the most up to date and accurate information."
Doug Murtha, corporate product-planning manager for Toyota's U.S. sales arm says the company tried to re-test as many 2006 models as it could. "The majority of the '06 model engines will have been re-tested by introduction," he says.
For Toyota, the new rules mean some changes in practice. The V-6 Camry had been tested using premium fuel. But Toyota doesn't label the car as "premium fuel required." So now the Camry will be tested using regular gas.
What difference does all this make? The performance of a Camry won't change because it has a lower-rated horsepower.
But in the more-is-better world of automotive-power ratings, it's not necessarily a good thing to have a mid-size car that was rated at 210 horsepower drop back below the 200 horsepower number -- which is now the magic number in that segment.
The move to inject some more rigor into the business of horsepower claims touches some sensitive nerves in the car business. In Detroit, the new horsepower rules have been spun as a needed antidote to envelope pushing by certain Asian auto makers -- a Detroit News story last week on the subject was headlined "Asians Oversell Horsepower." In Motor City West, otherwise known as Los Angeles, there's a simmering suspicion that rivals in the Motor City are spinning the new standards to maximum advantage.
The good news for consumers is that the new standards appear to close some loopholes, and should make for advertised horsepower ratings on future vehicles that come closer to reality. Of course, a horsepower figure derived from lab testing isn't going to correlate exactly to the performance delivered to real wheels on a real road, industry engineers say. So enthusiasts who like to test their rides on a chassis dynamometer will still have something to do.
The real challenge for the next several years will be figuring out which cars have been tested under the new SAE standard (which you could call the Truth in Horsepower protocol), and which have been tested under the old Room for Interpretation standard. Some car makers (Nissan for example) are spelling out which cars are tested under the new SAE J1349 protocol in press materials.
Ford's Ms. Lytle suggests a simple way to avoid anxiety about all this: "Drive it and see if you like the performance."
• Send comments about Eyes on the Road to joseph.white@wsj.com.
See previous discussion about the SAE HP change on this thread here:
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread.php?t=423080
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Counting Horses
New Standards for Gauging Horsepower
Are a Sensitive Subject in Car Business
August 22, 2005
Honey, they shrunk the horsepower!
Consumers who pay attention to horsepower numbers -- and there are a lot of them -- may have noticed that some 2006 cars have less advertised horsepower than they did for 2005. The Toyota Camry, for instance, the No. 1 selling car in America, will be advertised for 2006 with a 190 horsepower, down from 210 in 2005. The Acura TL, rated at 270 horsepower in 2005, is rated at 258 horsepower in 2006.
None of these cars is likely to feel less powerful than before. Nothing's really changed about the engines. What's changed is the way auto makers test cars to determine advertised horsepower.
Measuring horsepower in an automobile isn't like measuring the length of a football field. In the latter case, 100 yards is a 100 yards. But when it comes to horsepower, there's been latitude for a certain amount of what General Motors technical fellow David Lancaster calls "creative interpretation." Under the Society of Automotive Engineers' former engine-power-testing protocols, established in 1990 and reaffirmed in 1995, Mr. Lancaster says auto makers didn't necessarily have to account for such things as the power loss caused by a power-steering pump, or the effect of electronic controls.
There were other loopholes. A car maker could test a car using higher-octane premium gasoline -- which would boost an engine's performance -- even if consumers were told that premium wasn't required. (In fact, for most cars, premium gas isn't really a requirement.)
Under the new SAE rule, car makers are supposed to conduct their horsepower tests under conditions that are closer to the real world. If the car is supposed to run on regular, then regular gas must be used during the test. And components on the test engine must be production components.
"We put language in the standard that says explicitly that the intent of the standard is to give an accurate representation of power in the vehicle," says Mr. Lancaster, who headed an SAE committee that redrafted the procedures.
GM says it intends to take an extra, optional step and "certify" all its horsepower ratings. Among other things, the procedure to certify horsepower figures involves conducting tests in the presence of a witness. European auto makers are already subject to a similar procedure. But while the No. 1 auto maker intends to test new engines under the new standard, but won't go back and retest existing power plants.
At Ford, Karilyn Lytle, manager of V-engine and performance evaluation, says the new rules will have a "very minor" impact. Ford has a policy of testing three production engines three times each to get its horsepower numbers. If the result of those tests is that an engine scores 197 horsepower, "we no longer round" to get to an even 200.
Ford doesn't plan to go the extra mile and "certify" its horsepower ratings, Ms. Lytle said. The process costs money and takes time, and "we haven't felt the need." Like GM, Ford is re-rating engines as new models or new engines come into production.
That's the policy Nissan is following as well. Nissan has propelled its recent recovery in the U.S. market by offering models with more horsepower than its main rivals in several important market segments. But since Jan. 1, when testing to the new standard was required, Nissan has only come up with one new engine application to test under the new rules, says company spokesman Dean Case. That model, the Infiniti FX 45 luxury crossover sport utility, is rated at 320 horsepower for 2006, using the new SAE rules. The 2005 model was rated at 315 horsepower -- but Mr. Case says the 2006 would have had an even number if it had been evaluated under the old regime.
By contrast, Honda re-tested all its engines to the new standards, says spokesman Mike Spencer. For Acura, Honda's luxury division, power numbers decreased by 5 to 12 horses, depending on the model, he says.
"We re-tested everything right away," Mr. Spencer says. "We want to make sure consumers have the most up to date and accurate information."
Doug Murtha, corporate product-planning manager for Toyota's U.S. sales arm says the company tried to re-test as many 2006 models as it could. "The majority of the '06 model engines will have been re-tested by introduction," he says.
For Toyota, the new rules mean some changes in practice. The V-6 Camry had been tested using premium fuel. But Toyota doesn't label the car as "premium fuel required." So now the Camry will be tested using regular gas.
What difference does all this make? The performance of a Camry won't change because it has a lower-rated horsepower.
But in the more-is-better world of automotive-power ratings, it's not necessarily a good thing to have a mid-size car that was rated at 210 horsepower drop back below the 200 horsepower number -- which is now the magic number in that segment.
The move to inject some more rigor into the business of horsepower claims touches some sensitive nerves in the car business. In Detroit, the new horsepower rules have been spun as a needed antidote to envelope pushing by certain Asian auto makers -- a Detroit News story last week on the subject was headlined "Asians Oversell Horsepower." In Motor City West, otherwise known as Los Angeles, there's a simmering suspicion that rivals in the Motor City are spinning the new standards to maximum advantage.
The good news for consumers is that the new standards appear to close some loopholes, and should make for advertised horsepower ratings on future vehicles that come closer to reality. Of course, a horsepower figure derived from lab testing isn't going to correlate exactly to the performance delivered to real wheels on a real road, industry engineers say. So enthusiasts who like to test their rides on a chassis dynamometer will still have something to do.
The real challenge for the next several years will be figuring out which cars have been tested under the new SAE standard (which you could call the Truth in Horsepower protocol), and which have been tested under the old Room for Interpretation standard. Some car makers (Nissan for example) are spelling out which cars are tested under the new SAE J1349 protocol in press materials.
Ford's Ms. Lytle suggests a simple way to avoid anxiety about all this: "Drive it and see if you like the performance."
• Send comments about Eyes on the Road to joseph.white@wsj.com.
08-21-2005, 11:50 PM
#3
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by RHMax
link
See #2 disclaimer bottom of page.
See #2 disclaimer bottom of page.
Also note footnote #1 where it says: "Use regular unleaded fuel with 87 octane. For maximum power, use premium fuel." What I have been saying and doing for a long time, with an occasional couple of tanks of premium to keep the spark advance adjustment working properly.
08-23-2005, 12:16 PM
#4
Horsepower Wars
Does anyone here remember what happened to Mazda and their RX8. They were taken to court over their exagerated HP numbers and were forced to offer one of two choices to consumers. 1. A rebate in the hundreds of dollars. or 2. Free upgrades including extended warranties.
I always new that Acura had had BS'd the HP numbers on the TL to compete with the Max or the G35. Go ahead now and hang your head in shame all you TL owners! HA HA HA!
(LOL)
I always new that Acura had had BS'd the HP numbers on the TL to compete with the Max or the G35. Go ahead now and hang your head in shame all you TL owners! HA HA HA!
(LOL)
08-25-2005, 04:16 AM
#5
Member
Join Date: May 2004
Posts: 41
Here is what I don't understand. The 2004 Max and TL are very close in performance (0-60 and 1/4 mi) according to some magazines. The Max is slightly lighter. If the TL is downrated from 270 hp to 258 hp, would that mean that Max's 265hp is over-rated? I hope not. Certainly the Max has more torque. Just drive both cars and the answer is obvious.
08-25-2005, 06:43 AM
#6
Originally Posted by wrj
Here is what I don't understand. The 2004 Max and TL are very close in performance (0-60 and 1/4 mi) according to some magazines. The Max is slightly lighter. If the TL is downrated from 270 hp to 258 hp, would that mean that Max's 265hp is over-rated? I hope not. Certainly the Max has more torque. Just drive both cars and the answer is obvious.
Please don't tell me you're crying over 7 hp ...
TL's have better top end ... Maximas have better torque (From the factory of course) that's the bottom line.
What the Maxima gains in the first 1/8, the TL makes up in the 2nd. ... . ...
08-27-2005, 01:32 AM
#7
Senior Member
Join Date: Dec 2002
Posts: 531
nissan was always bit overrated in HP, well truly see with the new SAE for nissans!
but generally weather honda acura is overrated or not in this SAE testin, their topend is generally better.
people here with mods on their 6th gens some even 6spd r still only gettin 220 225whp more or less, thats what 265hp should be stock, at the crank.
as long as my 05 3.5 altima isnt under 240hpSAE(currently rated 250hp) im happy, y-O.
but generally weather honda acura is overrated or not in this SAE testin, their topend is generally better.
people here with mods on their 6th gens some even 6spd r still only gettin 220 225whp more or less, thats what 265hp should be stock, at the crank.
as long as my 05 3.5 altima isnt under 240hpSAE(currently rated 250hp) im happy, y-O.
08-29-2005, 06:34 PM
#8
Senior Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Posts: 120
http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000207054762/#c418637
Check that out.. lol.. these american muscle heads are eatin this up like dessert.. lol.. but yea-- like my question I posted there.. where can we get a list of the revised numbers?
Check that out.. lol.. these american muscle heads are eatin this up like dessert.. lol.. but yea-- like my question I posted there.. where can we get a list of the revised numbers?
11-16-2005, 04:57 AM
#10
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 86
Toyota, Honda, but not Nissan, revise down HP claims
I remember reading somewhere that car manufacturers are being
required to report more realistic HP numbers, and that the
worst offenders were the Japanese.
It's happening. For example, the 2006 Toyota Avalon has substantially
less HP and torque than the 2005. Same goes for the 4Runner. Same for
the Honda Accord. Same for Acura:
2005 Acura TL: 270 HP & 238 ftxlbs
2006 Acura TL: 258 HP & 233 ftxlbs
Nissan publishes the same numbers as in 2005.
I wonder if the Maxima HP & torque claims
are accurate. I bet they're not.
required to report more realistic HP numbers, and that the
worst offenders were the Japanese.
It's happening. For example, the 2006 Toyota Avalon has substantially
less HP and torque than the 2005. Same goes for the 4Runner. Same for
the Honda Accord. Same for Acura:
2005 Acura TL: 270 HP & 238 ftxlbs
2006 Acura TL: 258 HP & 233 ftxlbs
Nissan publishes the same numbers as in 2005.
I wonder if the Maxima HP & torque claims
are accurate. I bet they're not.
11-16-2005, 08:10 AM
#11
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 1,994
This is an old topic from last August. Check out the information on this August thread (including the links there) for the information you seek.
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread....oto=nextnewest
http://forums.maxima.org/showthread....oto=nextnewest
11-16-2005, 08:25 AM
#12
Originally Posted by george_rem
Nissan publishes the same numbers as in 2005.
I wonder if the Maxima HP & torque claims
are accurate. I bet they're not.
I wonder if the Maxima HP & torque claims
are accurate. I bet they're not.
11-16-2005, 08:36 AM
#13
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by NismoMax80
at the bottom of all Nissan publications of horsepower, there is now a disclaimer with an 800 number that new rating methods will lower the number but not performance.
is that it is less than advertised.
11-16-2005, 08:57 AM
#14
who cares if they lie about what they rate all these cars at. Apparently it has been going on for years. The bottom line is that you like what you drive. You are not going to be able to tell the difference unless you race your car.
11-16-2005, 08:57 AM
#15
no it's not, just less according to the new test. the only people it would make a difference for are those too cheap to use premium. "Premium is recommended for best performance." well they state the best performace. and that performance is the power created by the engine.
So should they advertise the power to the wheels for each octane, manual, auto, auto in manual mode, 1-5 passengers, headwind, tailwind, sidewind, each accessory on separate and combinations of accessories, and all the possible combination of the above?
I prefer Nissan not to take down all their current ads to conform to the recent standard immediately when the previous was acceptable for so long. That will drive down my stock and drive up the prices on all Nissan products.
So should they advertise the power to the wheels for each octane, manual, auto, auto in manual mode, 1-5 passengers, headwind, tailwind, sidewind, each accessory on separate and combinations of accessories, and all the possible combination of the above?
I prefer Nissan not to take down all their current ads to conform to the recent standard immediately when the previous was acceptable for so long. That will drive down my stock and drive up the prices on all Nissan products.
11-16-2005, 09:05 AM
#16
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by NismoMax80
no it's not, just less according to the new test. the only people it would make a difference for are those too cheap to use premium. "Premium is recommended for best performance." well they state the best performace. and that performance is the power created by the engine.
requires that the intake and exhaust systems to be used during the test
are like the ones on the production cars. Apparently, this was not previously
required.
11-16-2005, 09:17 AM
#17
i figured as much, but the octane was the biggest foul cry i saw. it makes sense that all factors will make a more accurate #, but still not real world results.
so did the # they claim have that big of an impact on which car u choose? there is so much more to look at. you have to truly drive it to know overall. personally i didn't say "what's the hp to weight ratio and wheel width plus coeffieicent of friction.... etc." I truly don't care what a dyno says. (yeah it's a nice tiny comparison) When buying, i make sure i like all the features, how it looks, and feels driving.
just like i wouldn't buy a mod just b/c of how much HP it claims. I would get one b/c A: I need to replace the part and/or B: I know it will be an improvement to oem.
so did the # they claim have that big of an impact on which car u choose? there is so much more to look at. you have to truly drive it to know overall. personally i didn't say "what's the hp to weight ratio and wheel width plus coeffieicent of friction.... etc." I truly don't care what a dyno says. (yeah it's a nice tiny comparison) When buying, i make sure i like all the features, how it looks, and feels driving.
just like i wouldn't buy a mod just b/c of how much HP it claims. I would get one b/c A: I need to replace the part and/or B: I know it will be an improvement to oem.
11-16-2005, 09:31 AM
#18
Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 86
Originally Posted by NismoMax80
so did the # they claim have that big of an impact on which car u choose?
Maxima over other cars I was considering. I guess I was very naive.
And I think that getting realistic WHP & torque numbers is not
very hard at all.
But some car manufacturers simply find it more profitable to lie.
11-16-2005, 10:03 AM
#19
Senior Member
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: Colorado Springs, Colorado
Posts: 1,994
Originally Posted by george_rem
But some car manufacturers simply find it more profitable to lie.
It appears that the previous HPs for Jap-made cars were all comparable (because they all appear to have used all of the options that increased HP above real-world). With the new numbers, the Jap HP numbers should be comparable to the HP numbers from GM, Ford, and Chrysler too.
11-16-2005, 12:22 PM
#20
Newbie just Registered
Join Date: May 2005
Location: LA/OC, CA
Posts: 2,795
Originally Posted by george_rem
Well, yes, in my case the HP&torque numbers made me choose the
Maxima over other cars I was considering. I guess I was very naive.
And I think that getting realistic WHP & torque numbers is not
very hard at all.
But some car manufacturers simply find it more profitable to lie.
Maxima over other cars I was considering. I guess I was very naive.
And I think that getting realistic WHP & torque numbers is not
very hard at all.
But some car manufacturers simply find it more profitable to lie.
As far as lying, it's more marketing than lying. WHP, like Nismo80 wrote, transmission, drive wheels, and other accessories, makes a different on the same engine output.
11-18-2005, 07:57 AM
#21
Senior Member
Join Date: Sep 2005
Posts: 213
RHMax makes a good point about marketing and lies. It seems that manufacturers do whatever they can to sell cars. Take Toyota/Lexus for example. We know they overstate HP to sell cars, but I’ll argue that they also send ringers to magazines. The IS350 they sent to Car and Driver went from 0-60 in 5.1 seconds, and pulled a 13.7 quarter at 104 mph. Get real! That car was not stock. That is almost one full second quicker to 60 than the G35. Through the quarter mile, it is also one second quicker and 6 mph faster than the G35. And the G35 had a stick while the IS350 had an auto. Please! That IS350 screams ringer! Talk about a lie! Toyota is not the only one to mislead us to sell cars. They all want our money. Can we really believe anything from the manufacturers?
11-18-2005, 08:22 AM
#22
Newbie just Registered
Join Date: May 2005
Location: LA/OC, CA
Posts: 2,795
Originally Posted by MDS
RHMax makes a good point about marketing and lies. It seems that manufacturers do whatever they can to sell cars. Take Toyota/Lexus for example. We know they overstate HP to sell cars, but I’ll argue that they also send ringers to magazines. The IS350 they sent to Car and Driver went from 0-60 in 5.1 seconds, and pulled a 13.7 quarter at 104 mph. Get real! That car was not stock. That is almost one full second quicker to 60 than the G35. Through the quarter mile, it is also one second quicker and 6 mph faster than the G35. And the G35 had a stick while the IS350 had an auto. Please! That IS350 screams ringer! Talk about a lie! Toyota is not the only one to mislead us to sell cars. They all want our money. Can we really believe anything from the manufacturers?
11-18-2005, 08:31 AM
#23
Take the G35 sedan rated at 260hp while the coupes and Zs are at 280hp. It's been rumored that the Sedan is actually underrated for marketing reasons
Originally Posted by anthunny
nissan was always bit overrated in HP, well truly see with the new SAE for nissans!
but generally weather honda acura is overrated or not in this SAE testin, their topend is generally better.
people here with mods on their 6th gens some even 6spd r still only gettin 220 225whp more or less, thats what 265hp should be stock, at the crank.
as long as my 05 3.5 altima isnt under 240hpSAE(currently rated 250hp) im happy, y-O.
but generally weather honda acura is overrated or not in this SAE testin, their topend is generally better.
people here with mods on their 6th gens some even 6spd r still only gettin 220 225whp more or less, thats what 265hp should be stock, at the crank.
as long as my 05 3.5 altima isnt under 240hpSAE(currently rated 250hp) im happy, y-O.
11-18-2005, 08:32 AM
#24
You only have to mention the Mustang Cobra hp rating thing from a few year back.
Originally Posted by jrzymuscle21
http://www.autoblog.com/entry/1234000207054762/#c418637
Check that out.. lol.. these american muscle heads are eatin this up like dessert.. lol.. but yea-- like my question I posted there.. where can we get a list of the revised numbers?
Check that out.. lol.. these american muscle heads are eatin this up like dessert.. lol.. but yea-- like my question I posted there.. where can we get a list of the revised numbers?
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
hez8813
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
11
03-12-2020 12:06 AM
Omar Abdurrahman Siddiqi
5th Generation Maxima (2000-2003)
33
08-26-2016 05:18 PM