More new SAE HP info

[Bruce Nunnally]

Interesting article here:

http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0.../A01-283759.htm

Honda and Toyota decided to retest their entire product lines using the new SAE horsepower standard. Most models got a reduced hp rating as a result.

US manufacturers have so far only been testing new powertrains. The powertrains they have tested resulted in hp increases from expectations. Not entirely accurate as I think the 300hp NS got re-rated to 290hp this time? We still don't know how the 2.8L and 3.6L V6's will fare under the new test.

The new procedure appears to be more accurate and gives less 'leeway' for interpretation during testing, which I feel is better. I would prefer to see Manufactuers publish both accurate net engine hp and hp at the wheels.

"We tried to tighten language that was open to interpretation," said Dave Lancaster, a technical fellow at General Motors Corp. who chaired the SAE committee that wrote the new requirements.

Under the old testing procedures, there were small factors that required a judgment call: how much oil was in the crankcase, how the engine controls were calibrated and whether a vehicle was tested with premium fuel. In some cases, the little adjustments added up to a big change in horsepower ratings. The new SAE procedures allow less wiggle room

[67coupedeville]

It seems as though Ford is cheating by not retesting the old line up to the new. Of course a new power plant is going to make as much horsepower as an old one when you know how the test is going to go.

Spence

[Bruce Nunnally]

Ford had such an embarassment with the Cobra's that were under performing on the dyno I bet all of their performance cars make or exceed their claims these days.

[STS Scott]

Ford's V8 powertrains are repsectable, but the Duratec V6? Pu-lease! That engine would be more useful as an anchor, than under the hood of any car.

I feel Ford really needs to step up in terms of their powertrains. The new 6 speed and CVT trannys are on top of the ball, but the crappy powerplants they are mated to overshadow their value (read: duratec V6)

GM has a wonderful assortment of engines to choose from...4,6,and 8s. And they are all world class, powerful, and fresh off the drawing board. Ford's been using the same engines for almost 20 years now!

I like Ford (maybe I just have repect for their past) but they really need to get it together if they want to be taken seriously, IMO.

[JasonA]

I'm probably one of the few proponents of the Duratec V6 engine. It's not my favorite, but I don't think it's that bad either. Consider, it makes more hp/liter than even the L37 Northstar (almost 67 horses/liter), and it's been around for a while, as you point out. I do think Ford is guilty of putting the Duratec where it doesn't belong (in a large sedan like the Five Hundred), but when mated to a good car and good transmission (like in the Mazda 6), that engine does pretty well. I also think they have an excellent V8 program. Our Crown Victoria had one of the first 4.6L engines they made, and it was a wonderful engine. Saddled with 2V heads, I think it made 210 hp and 260 lb*ft of torque. It could have made more, but it was incredibly smooth and very efficient doing what it did. That big Crown Vic would easily return 25 mpg on the road. What a great road car that was.

On the other side of the spectrum, I think Ford's Vulcan 3.0L V6 is one of the worst around. I really like good pushrod engines. The LS1 comes to mind. Even Chrysler's 3.3/3.8 engines in their minivans are really quiet and really smooth (at least as smooth as the Northstar). In contrast, that 3.0L Vulcan is very thrashy and very loud and very unrefined. The only reason they don't put it to bed is because it's one of their few E85-certified engines, and you gotta have that to sell your cars to the GSA fleet.