That's pretty lame...I bought my truck because it had 255hp! What do you think Honda is going to say about this?? Should we start pissing and moaning? In reality, it does bring the value of your truck down-the manufactures reall play up the hp factor when advertising.

That's pretty lame...I bought my truck because it had 255hp! What do you think Honda is going to say about this?? Should we start pissing and moaning? In reality, it does bring the value of your truck down-the manufactures reall play up the hp factor when advertising.

Does this really matter? It's not like your engine got any weaker overnight. It's just that the measurement standards have changed, which caused a change in the number figure. Our trucks can still tow the same amount, the acceleration is still the same, mileage still the same. It's just a numeric difference, that's all. Now, if next year, they release a 255-hp engine based on the new measurement standards, well, that *may* be a cause to trade up for some.

All of the manufacturers will be adjusting their HP based on these new guidelines.

Revised Society of Automotive Engineers (SAE) J1349 (Rev 8/04) net calculations that went into affect in January of 2005. These new calculations reflect a number of significant changes in the way horsepower and torque are measured and may cause SAE net horsepower and torque totals published in 2006 media materials to differ from the figures published in previous years.

It does not matter, but you were sold a vehicle that was advertised at 255 hp and now it's 247hp. Is Honda they only truck that downgraded it's hp rating after they released it?

HP was not the reason I bought it, but it sure is a big selling point for the manufacturer....they use it against each other all of the time. I'm sure some of the price is based on this. Ya Know "the most hp in it's class" etc.

Our 2006 came out in 2005 with the wrong numbers. The other will be published with the new numbers with the correct year.

You engine will still dyno the same. It makes the same amount of power it did when you bought it as it does today. This is not a matter of it "did not meet expectation". This is a matter of a changing in standard. Nothing misleading occured here.

Realize that the new standard is actually optional. Honda could have kept going on advertising it as 255hp.

You engine will still dyno the same. It makes the same amount of power it did when you bought it as it does today. This is not a matter of it "did not meet expectation". This is a matter of a changing in standard. Nothing misleading occured here.

Realize that the new standard is actually optional. Honda could have kept going on advertising it as 255hp.

Good point shingles. The way I look at it, it's another example of Honda taking the high road with the marketing of their vehicles. It'll be interesting to see if the other manufacturers will follow suit or stay with the old standard (and thereby inflating their own numbers).

I've read that BMW isn't changing... atleast not right now.

It's interesting that both Honda and Toyota are recertifying all their engines for 2006, but the domestic manufacturers are not recertifying unless there's a powertrain change or it's a high performance vehicle.

The most notable point is that nearly every Honda and Toyota recert has resulted in lower horsepower, but nearly every domestic recert has resulted in increased horsepower.

It seems pretty obvious that both Honda and Toyota have overstated horsepower ratings for many years. In this case the domestic manufacturers have been much more honest than Honda or Toyota.

It's interesting that both Honda and Toyota are recertifying all their engines for 2006, but the domestic manufacturers are not recertifying unless there's a powertrain change or it's a high performance vehicle.

The most notable point is that nearly every Honda and Toyota recert has resulted in lower horsepower, but nearly every domestic recert has resulted in increased horsepower.

It seems pretty obvious that both Honda and Toyota have overstated horsepower ratings for many years. In this case the domestic manufacturers have been much more honest than Honda or Toyota.

I can't say that I'm the least bit surprised about Toyota and Honda overstating their horsepower ratings. This just reinforces my mentality that horsepower is just another number and is used primarily as a media bite marketing tool. What's much more important to me is dependability, quality, and overall feel of the car. I have to admit that you will NEVER find me timing 0-60 with a stopwatch, or heaving my car on a dyno to measure "hp at the wheel," so maybe I'm in minority with regards to my feelings about horsepower.

No, you're all wrong! Your vehicle really did lose 3% of its horsepower last night. Bummer. :eek:


Hey, I thought you guys were just joking. I didn't even bother to learn the HP before buying mine. I mean, who cares? A tank has more HP but it doesn't drive as well. All you have to do is drive the Ridgeline to know what it'll do. If it makes that much difference to you what people think about the HP, just lie. It seems to have worked for Honda. ;)

It seems pretty obvious that both Honda and Toyota have overstated horsepower ratings for many years. In this case the domestic manufacturers have been much more honest than Honda or Toyota.
Do you think that Honda might round up due to the same habit in the motorcycle business? Of course 247 would normally round to 250 but maybe the marketing machine pressured them for an extra 5 hp. :p

It's interesting that both Honda and Toyota are recertifying all their engines for 2006, but the domestic manufacturers are not recertifying unless there's a powertrain change or it's a high performance vehicle.

The most notable point is that nearly every Honda and Toyota recert has resulted in lower horsepower, but nearly every domestic recert has resulted in increased horsepower.

It seems pretty obvious that both Honda and Toyota have overstated horsepower ratings for many years. In this case the domestic manufacturers have been much more honest than Honda or Toyota.

On the other hand, if you check the dyno's done by TOV for the late model Hondas, they've felt that Honda has under rated the power. Truthfully, I don't know the exact change that's occured, but it is interesting.

This just reinforces my mentality that horsepower is just another number and is used primarily as a media bite marketing tool.

Definately a very true statement.

My whole point of this thread was not if it is enough hp, but the fact that they sold it advertising, and probably pricing, the vehicle at 255hp. They use hp as a marketing tool and then changed it after you bought it. I could see if in 2007 the restated it using the new calculations, not in the middle of the model year.

Not a big deal-it's still a great truck!!

:)

Suppose the standard changed and they decided report the engine as 3,500,000 FP (fish power instead of horse power). Would the bigger number make you feel better? ;) It's a case of "apples and oranges".

Hey, my Ridgeline can do 184,187.9 Watts!!!!! :)

It does not matter, but you were sold a vehicle that was advertised at 255 hp and now it's 247hp. Is Honda they only truck that downgraded it's hp rating after they released it?

Our 2006 came out in 2005 with the wrong numbers. The other will be published with the new numbers with the correct year.


You know, I would have to agree. Let me thow another one at you. How aboutthe published and advertised figures on MPG? There is no way in hell anyone is getting 21mpg.

You know, I would have to agree. Let me thow another one at you. How aboutthe published and advertised figures on MPG? There is no way in hell anyone is getting 21mpg.

Actually, a lot of people apparantly are.
I've been averaging 19.5mpg in my communte to work. 20 miles each way, average speed on the highway is about 30-35mph. If I can manage to bring up the average speed, I know I will be in the 20-21mpg range.

Pick the number/units you prefer:

247 horsepower [hp] =

184,335.336 air watts

18.776 boiler horsepower

247.000 British horsepower [Bhp]

628,475.093 Btu per hour [Btu/h]

10,474.585 Btu per minute [Btu/min]

174.576 Btu per second [Btu/s]

250.426 caballo de vapor [cv]

250.426 cheval vapeur [cv]

138,152,260,487.118 clusecs

52.653 dB-watts [dBW]

82.653 dB-milliwatts [dBm]

112.653 dB-microwatts [dBµW]

22.653 dB-kilowatts [dBkW]

736.751 donkey power

246.901 electric horsepower

489,060,016.396 foot pound-force/hour [ft.lbf/h]

8,151,000.273 foot pound-force/minute [ft.lbf/min]

135,850.005 foot pound-force/second [ft.lbf/s]

15,735,040,188.647 foot poundal/hour [ft.pdl/h]

262,250,669.811 foot poundal/minute [ft.pdl/min]

0.0001840 gigawatts [GW]

112,691,613,072.761 gram-force centimeter/minute [gf.cm/min]

1,878,193,551.213 gram-force centimeter/second [gf.cm/s]

246.901 electric horsepower

250.426 metric horsepower

246.886 water horsepower

249,076,211.076 inch ounce-force revolution/minute

67,614,967.844 kilogram-force meter/hour [kgf.m/h]

1,126,916.131 kilogram-force meter/minute [kgf.m/min]

18,781.936 kilogram-force meter/second [kgf.m/s]

184.188 kilovolt ampere [kVA]

184.188 kilowatts [kW]

1,381,522,604.871 lusecs

0.184 megawatts [MW]

250.426 metric horsepower

184,187,867,890.000 microwatts [µW]

247,000.000 millihorsepower [mhp]

184,187,867.890 milliwatts [mW]

247.000 mechanical horsepower [hp]

250.426 pferdestärke [ps]

187.819 poncelet [p]

1,841,878,678,900.000 statwatts [statW]

0.00000018419 terawatts [TW]

52.373 tons [RT]

246.886 water horsepower [whp]

184,187.868 watts [W]

You know, I would have to agree. Let me thow another one at you. How aboutthe published and advertised figures on MPG? There is no way in hell anyone is getting 21mpg.

I kinda agree with you. With 4900 miles, I have never seen anything over 17 mpg. I even took the OEM tonneau cover off to lessen the weight, to no avail. I'm beginning to think there is something wrong with the engine, although it runs great! Someone is going to say it is because I have a lead foot, that is not so. For a thousand miles, I made a lot of effort to drive it with like I had an egg between my feet and the pedal. I gassed up at different stations, and I gas up the same way everytime; when the pump shuts off, I let the tank settle for a count of five, and top it off once only. I take the miles driven and divide by the amount of gas pumped. I aired my tires to 40 psi' nothing! I checked my odometer by driving the same distance to a destination that I already knew how many miles it was. :( However, I do love this truck to death, and I have learned to live with this. :)

Last poster: 17 MPG is still pretty good. What other 4,500 LB truck that has 4WD, and has the capacity to carry 1,100 lbs in the bed gets 17 MPG?

I don't think there are any.

If we all were THAT concerned with MPG we'd have all bought CR-V's. But I think everyone here knew they wanted a bigger vehicle with 4WD and a truck bed and were willing to cope with lower MPG.

Obviously we all want the best MPG possible out of this particular truck, but if you're driving city and getting 16+, then I'd be content.

my .02

As for the gas mileage:

a) it's an EPA estimate used for comparing vehicles on a level playing field -- nothing more.

b) I hear the gas mileage improves after the first oil change -- but don't rush to get an oil change just to get better mileage -- the oil that is shipped in the engine is heavier and meant to gently break in the engine; this will cause lower mileage until the oil is replaced with a lighter oil. That's what I hear, anyway. I've got 600+ miles on mine, and am getting 16-17 mpg -- not worried about it. We'll see what happens after the first oil change!

As for the standards changing, this is the way I see it. The gov't closed some loopholes in the hp testing procedures that the Japanese were using (among others) to make their cars seem higher horsepower than they really were. That's cuz the Japanese are *smart*. That's why we buy their cars. Just cuz the American automakers were too stupid or unimaginative to use these loopholes doesn't make them more honest. Besides, would you really have *not* bought the truck if they'd said it has 247 hp instead of 255 hp? I don't think so.

I mean, c'mon, do you like the truck or not? I say, get over it! :D

Flymuck-

It's not about liking or disliking the truck-it's about truth in advertising. The advertising that is used to get consumers to open their pocketbooks and the advertising that is allowing Honda to charge a premium for this vehicle.

What about the crash test rating. I bough it knowing all of the great saftey features and the likelyhood that Honda would come out on top. They didn't say it was five-star and then change it to 3-star. If they had said approx. 255 and it came out to 247hp I would have been ok with that.

They were using skewed information to sell a vehicle...albeit a small difference, but a consumer may have used hp ratings as a deciding factor against another vehicle. You must admit, Honda's practices are a little shaky...examples, "what wind noise, what trip calculator,,etc." BUT...they make a great product.

That's all. And yes I like the truck!! :)

"Truth in advertising" -- well, if that's what you're looking for, that explains why you're upset! :D

Admittedly, I was a bit bummed too when the engine got re-assessed to 247 hp. The OCD in me wants Honda to give me a new sticker/emblem/whatever to replace the one on the engine that says "255" on it, just so I've got my own truth.

Honda has done some weird things in the past, I'll grant you that. And they'll probably continue to do weird things in the future. For one thing, they typically try to avoid recalls, cuz they're bad for business -- instead, they'll do these TSBs (which, for the most part, the average Honda driver won't even find out about because they're not advertised to the public, only to the mechanics). That irks me. But at the same time, there are relatively few problems with their cars, and they really are a joy to drive. I'm not even sure I could tell the difference between 247 hp and 255 hp.

But yeah, I'll admit, it's a bummer. Hey, at least Honda wasn't the only one doing it, eh? :)

Actually, I think the reassessment and the new commercial is about 'Truth in Advertising'. If after doing the new test Honda found that it was 247 versus what it was with the old test at 255, and continued to advertise 255, that would have been false advertising. Waiting till you make a change to use the new test is just continuing to lie to the consumer and give them a false impression of what the true horsepower is.

As to the mileage, Honda is required by law to advertise the EPA numbers, they can not modify these numbers. So even if they know that most people won't hit the EPA numbers they can do nothing about it. Honda vehicles are tuned in such a way that they tend to do very well on the EPA tests, but this isn't what the average everyday commuter runs into. Although for people with similar driving conditions they do very well and very close to the EPA numbers. I have found in the past that Chevy is not tuning there vehicles well for the EPA test and I often get better gas mileage on Chevys than what is advertised as the EPA numbers. This is just because of differences in my driving conditions. Most other cars I have driven seem to be tuned well for EPA conditions and thus do worse on regular roads. That said I have actually gotten EPA numbers with the AC running full blast for a tank on the highway. My best tank was 22.3 MPG and my worse tank was 16.8 MPG. Right now I think I could get my best mileage ever because it is cool enough not to have the AC running at all. Unfortunately my commute would kill that, besides it is also the best time to run the Hybrid which will get around 48 MPG during this type of weather.

TSB's vs Recalls -
TSBs are simple a way for Honda to tell their dealers what to do about a situation. For example, they will issue TSB's about doors that are not aligning properly. But is this something you should really do a recall on? What are the percentages of this?

Honda's been good about recalls actually. Most of their recalls have been voluntary where as other's were forced before they will do it.

Now what I can't understand is why won't refuses to share their TSB information with consumers.

This is definately not a misled by Honda or Toyota. They published under one set of rules and the rules changed. Mazda or Subaru got caught lying under their original claims and when failing under that standard, had to give concessions to all buyers. They claimed a certain hp and could not even come close to it under measurement. BTW, They all have been lying, most modern cars, expecially sports cars, have never gotten their hp to the wheels averaging 10-30% loss throught the drive train. So what's the beef with a small adjustment after the measurement standards are changed? This is by no means new news. If you really wanted hp a Titan would have been an excellent choice. I didn't replace mine (head on accident) because it's big v8 gets 12-16 mpg. I never even checked on the hp on the Ridgeline.

This is definately not a misled by Honda or Toyota. They published under one set of rules and the rules changed. Mazda or Subaru got caught lying under their original claims and when failing under that standard, had to give concessions to all buyers. They claimed a certain hp and could not even come close to it under measurement. BTW, They all have been lying, most modern cars, expecially sports cars, have never gotten their hp to the wheels averaging 10-30% loss throught the drive train. So what's the beef with a small adjustment after the measurement standards are changed? This is by no means new news. If you really wanted hp a Titan would have been an excellent choice. I didn't replace mine (head on accident) because it's big v8 gets 12-16 mpg. I never even checked on the hp on the Ridgeline.

First off I'm going to say that I don't really care if the Ridgeline is 255HP or 247HP. I don't really have an issue with this at all... but...

I do not understand how you could possibly say this is not a Honda or Toyota thing! Everyone has to use the same EXACT process to calculate the new horsepower ratings. Every single Honda and Toyota that has been recalculated using the new method has resulted in a LOWER horsepower rating. I'm pretty sure every GM and Chrysler vehicle that has been recalculated using the new method has resulted in HIGHER horsepower. I don't follow Ford and don't know about them.

How do you reconcile such different results? Did GM and Chrysler previously understate their horsepower? Why would they do that?

The only logical conclusion is that Honda and Toyota previously overstated horsepower. Am I upset over this? Not me, but I can understand how some might be. It just proves that Honda and Toyota may not quite as honest as some believe... just another corporation doing whatever they can to sell a car even if it means stretching the truth.

I don't see how you can say that they overstated their HP if there was a previous test that they were all using. Could it instead be that the new way of measuring favors vehicles with specific gearing or some other difference which is more to the way that American vehicles are designed versus foreign vehicles? I don't know enough about how they changed things to really care, I know that Honda has decided to restate their horsepower based on the new calculations immediately and I feel that is an honest approach even if it means that the numbers are now lower.

I don't see how you can say that they overstated their HP if there was a previous test that they were all using. Could it instead be that the new way of measuring favors vehicles with specific gearing or some other difference which is more to the way that American vehicles are designed versus foreign vehicles? I don't know enough about how they changed things to really care, I know that Honda has decided to restate their horsepower based on the new calculations immediately and I feel that is an honest approach even if it means that the numbers are now lower.

My point exactly. If you really have a beef, sue them. I seriously doubt you'd get anyone to take your case but the proof is in the pudding. If you really have a case I'm sure there is a trial lawyer that is itching to get a pice of Honda's money. I think it was Subaru that had to cough up $ for misstating their power output but as I said before it was all under the same system. I wonder if anyone has dyno'd their Ridgeline. That would be one of the first steps to prove damages. At this point everything is based on articles.

Hey I'd love for Honda to be found at fault and give me some $ back. Perhaps class action is in the works and I'll be right there with you, claiming I was personally hurt by their misleading sales documentation. :)

Oh yea, could you sue them for the truck bed that scratches way too easily, and the head light knob that is so easily turned on by my knee, and the lack of full auto down windows in a truck costing this much. and of course the gas milage claim that seems way too high! :)

I believe someone already mentioned it, but you have to realize that the RL was on the market BEFORE the new hp ratings came to be. So, when the RL was marketed, it was using the _current_ hp ratings, according to the _current_ standard. Now that the standard has changed on how its calculated, Honda has since changed its advertised HP rating.

Its not false advertising, its advertising to the current standard.

All in all, I don't think any of us can comment on how Hondas and Toyotas went down, as others went up. I believe without knowing how these calculations are made, its all heresay. Thats just my opinion though :)

I feel robbed of 8hp :rolleyes:
Honda can give me a 5hp snow blower and a 3hp lawn mower,and we'll call it even :D

I feel robbed of 8hp :rolleyes:
Honda can give me a 5hp snow blower and a 3hp lawn mower,and we'll call it even :D


That made me laugh outloud, don't get me wrong I will be more than satisfied with the same deal.

Kevin

I feel robbed of 8hp :rolleyes:
Honda can give me a 5hp snow blower and a 3hp lawn mower,and we'll call it even :D

I'd settle for a t-shirt. :)

Oh yea, could you sue them for the truck bed that scratches way too easily, and the head light knob that is so easily turned on by my knee, and the lack of full auto down windows in a truck costing this much. and of course the gas milage claim that seems way too high! :)

Sigh. Our litigious society. There was nothing "wrong" per se with their original number of 255 hp, they just used some loopholes in the testing procedure (used premium fuel, etc.) to get the better numbers. Those loopholes have been closed, hence the new rating. If anyone would know about loopholes, it would be this country and our lovely federal tax code, so this is really a case of the pot calling the kettle black, no?

As for the easily-scratched bed -- it's made from that material so that when it gets scratched (it being a pickup bed and all), it will not rust, unlike some American truck beds.

As for the head light knob -- scoot your seat back & down. Quit whining. :)

Lack of full auto-down windows? Man, are we a bit spoiled or what?! It's a truck, for crying out loud! Try hitting your unlock button on your key twice, holding it down the second time -- there, all the freakin' windows are down now. Happy?

As for the mileage -- again, these are EPA numbers that are meant to be used *for comparison only* when purchasing a vehicle. Nowhere does it state in the EPA procedures that anyone thinks that these numbers represent actual mileage for every consumer. That's why they say, "Actual mileage may vary." All that being said, there have been posts from several people on this board saying that they've been getting 21+ mpg. If you don't like it, go buy a Ford. Or a GM. And enjoy their *actual mileage* -- because they will be as far off from their EPA estimates as the RL, since those numbers are to be used *for comparison only*.

Sorry, I get a bit frustrated with this one. Nothing personal.

Breathe, fly, breathe. :D

Yeah, sorry about the rant. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular (even though I happened to quote someone when I did it -- originally my response was going to be much... um, tamer... than it ended up!). I just get exceedingly frustrated with people sometimes, and my job right now *really* isn't helping!

Sorry all, nothing personal... I promise I'll behave (as much as I ever can, anyway). :D

Hey Fly, why don't you tell us how you really feel? No apologies necessary. This is one of the reasons this forum is the greatest...speak your mind (civily like you did). :)

Yeah, sorry about the rant. It wasn't directed at anyone in particular (even though I happened to quote someone when I did it -- originally my response was going to be much... um, tamer... than it ended up!). I just get exceedingly frustrated with people sometimes, and my job right now *really* isn't helping!

Sorry all, nothing personal... I promise I'll behave (as much as I ever can, anyway). :D


No offense taken. In fact I meant my prior post to be taken tongue in cheek.

I got what I paid for. If it was too much, or not quite as I expected ... then shame on me. I probably should have taken more time researching before buying. If folks can sue for McDonalds making food that makes them fat ....Surly there is someone else I can blame and sue!!! :)

No offense taken. In fact I meant my prior post to be taken tongue in cheek.

Yeah, I figured that out after the fact, cal. :)

Leave it to me to stick my e-foot in my e-mouth! :D

I still think this truck is the greatest thing ever, even though my steering wheel started creaking tonight... but thanks to the ROC, I even know the TSB number to give to the dealership tomorrow (when I take it back in, hopefully for the last time, to fix the air bag sensor that got messed up by the options installation!).

ROC is great. If you guys want to see a truly messed-up online forum, you should check out http://topangaonline.com/wboard/bulletin.htm -- now *there's* some bitter people. I totally gave up talking to them. They make Topanga seem like a very ugly place to live, when in fact it's really beautiful (if you can disregard the uber-hippies who don't see why I have a problem with their dogs crapping in my front yard, or the uber-conservatives who think all the uber-hippies should be taken out and shot, or at least hosed down with some soap and water...). I forget where I'm posting -- I'm in the minority on this forum, at least as far as politics go, so I'll keep my mouth shut on this one! :p

Sensible people who can see both sides of an issue and, discern rationally which side to stand up for, then stand their ground will always be in the minority.

Well if numbers are what your after there's a ton....or tonne...of bigger ones out there. Whatever standard is used your Ridgline still goes as fast as it used to..........maybe you'll be more impressive in centimeters

maybe you'll be more impressive in centimeters

Have you been talking to my girlfriend again?

ROC is great. If you guys want to see a truly messed-up online forum, you should check out http://topangaonline.com/wboard/bulletin.htm -- now *there's* some bitter people. I totally gave up talking to them. They make Topanga seem like a very ugly place to live, when in fact it's really beautiful (if you can disregard the uber-hippies who don't see why I have a problem with their dogs crapping in my front yard, or the uber-conservatives who think all the uber-hippies should be taken out and shot, or at least hosed down with some soap and water...).

Isn't Topanga that girl on Boy Meets World the TV show on ABC a few years back?

Straight off of Honda's webpage. I noticed they change the HP rating there yesterday with the *.

*For 2006, Honda is complying with the new SAE standard for measuring horsepower and torque, SAE net (Rev 8/04). This new method slightly reduces a vehicle's horsepower rating and torque due to more stringent testing procedures. Many manufacturers are still using the older standard of measurement. Horsepower and torque can only be fairly compared if both vehicles were calculated using the same SAE standard.

Any changes to those numbers if Bo and Luke use some of uncle Jesse's moonshine to power the vehicle?

Pick the number/units you prefer:

247 horsepower [hp] =

184,335.336 air watts

18.776 boiler horsepower

247.000 British horsepower [Bhp]

628,475.093 Btu per hour [Btu/h]

10,474.585 Btu per minute [Btu/min]

174.576 Btu per second [Btu/s]

250.426 caballo de vapor [cv]

250.426 cheval vapeur [cv]

138,152,260,487.118 clusecs

52.653 dB-watts [dBW]

82.653 dB-milliwatts [dBm]

112.653 dB-microwatts [dBµW]

22.653 dB-kilowatts [dBkW]

736.751 donkey power

246.901 electric horsepower

489,060,016.396 foot pound-force/hour [ft.lbf/h]

8,151,000.273 foot pound-force/minute [ft.lbf/min]

135,850.005 foot pound-force/second [ft.lbf/s]

15,735,040,188.647 foot poundal/hour [ft.pdl/h]

262,250,669.811 foot poundal/minute [ft.pdl/min]

0.0001840 gigawatts [GW]

112,691,613,072.761 gram-force centimeter/minute [gf.cm/min]

1,878,193,551.213 gram-force centimeter/second [gf.cm/s]

246.901 electric horsepower

250.426 metric horsepower

246.886 water horsepower

249,076,211.076 inch ounce-force revolution/minute

67,614,967.844 kilogram-force meter/hour [kgf.m/h]

1,126,916.131 kilogram-force meter/minute [kgf.m/min]

18,781.936 kilogram-force meter/second [kgf.m/s]

184.188 kilovolt ampere [kVA]

184.188 kilowatts [kW]

1,381,522,604.871 lusecs

0.184 megawatts [MW]

250.426 metric horsepower

184,187,867,890.000 microwatts [µW]

247,000.000 millihorsepower [mhp]

184,187,867.890 milliwatts [mW]

247.000 mechanical horsepower [hp]

250.426 pferdestärke [ps]

187.819 poncelet [p]

1,841,878,678,900.000 statwatts [statW]

0.00000018419 terawatts [TW]

52.373 tons [RT]

246.886 water horsepower [whp]

184,187.868 watts [W]

184.188 kilowatts [kW]

184 kilowatts sounds about right :)

That's a little short...you need 1.21 "Jigawatts" to time travel. (I think he meant Gigawatts though)

Either way...that's why we need the flux capacitor.

Either way...that's why we need the flux capacitor.

those are ALWAYS out of stock at my local dealer.:mad:

those are ALWAYS out of stock at my local dealer.:mad:

I am willing to send you one from Canada.
But be warned... they are $1.38/lb.