Honda Ridgeline Owners Club Forums banner

21 - 36 of 36 Posts

Registered
Joined
440 Posts
None of the advertised HP/TQ numbers are at the wheels. This goes to automakers across the board.
There are many youtube videos of civics and Accords on the dyno doing baseline stock dyno numbers. The HP numbers are the wheels are around the traditional drive line loss percentage.
That was my point. Manufacturers rate engines at the crank and not at the wheels. But recent 'performance' Hondas have been making close or more than the rated numbers at the wheels - so accounting for driveline losses they are underrated. See this test of an Accord 2.0T manual This is definitive proof that Honda underrated the new Accord 2.0T from the factory . A 1.5T Accord within a few of its rated hp

So, if this follows to the new TLX, given typical driveline losses of 10-15%, it is likely that the 355hp may be closer to 380-400hp.
 

Premium Member
2010 RT - Bali Blue
Joined
4,020 Posts
Discussion Starter #22
That was my point. Manufacturers rate engines at the crank and not at the wheels. But recent 'performance' Hondas have been making close or more than the rated numbers at the wheels - so accounting for driveline losses they are underrated. See this test of an Accord 2.0T manual

So, if this follows to the new TLX, given typical driveline losses of 10-15%, it is likely that the 355hp may be closer to 380-400hp.
Every single dynamometer, even of the same brand and model, can make different power & torque numbers under various operators as settings are hard to duplicate between setups. This is especially true for forced inducted engines, or engines that rev really high to make power. For example, the Gen3 Acura TL had its power rating (from Factory) changed when the SAE power measuring format changed (270hp to 258hp) during its midcycle. Acura adjusted the power numbers, though the vehicle and its engine specifications (J32A3) were untouched, but the setup was different under new guidelines. Engine power on an engine is measured on an engine dyno, and some use chassis dyno (like the one in the Hondata video) to calculate engine power and to do that, mathematical computation is used; which can have exaggerations in the output numbers. Dynos are also calibrated for each new customer/vehicle session and based on the calibration, the same vehicle under same tune, can make different power output figures if the dyno operator makes some adjustments to the dyno.

Every tuner will echo the same sentiment; numbers on one dyno, cannot be exactly replicated on another dyno, though one cay say that they made XXX HP on a mustang dyno, while the other says that they made YYY HP on a Dynojet, and in reality, they both could be making the same exact power.

Yes Automakers have falsified power output numbers, yes some continue to do that even today. However, I would not blindly assume that all forced inducted Honda motors are underrated from the factory.
 

Registered
Joined
558 Posts
Now Honda has to hire some stylists. And not the guy who de-railed the Acura TL. Twice.
It will do no good for Honda to have these great drivetrains in cars that are boring or just plain ugly.
Some decent paint colors would be a plus.
 

Registered
Joined
440 Posts
Every single dynamometer, even of the same brand and model, can make different power & torque numbers under various operators as settings are hard to duplicate between setups. This is especially true for forced inducted engines, or engines that rev really high to make power. For example, the Gen3 Acura TL had its power rating (from Factory) changed when the SAE power measuring format changed (270hp to 258hp) during its midcycle. Acura adjusted the power numbers, though the vehicle and its engine specifications (J32A3) were untouched, but the setup was different under new guidelines. Engine power on an engine is measured on an engine dyno, and some use chassis dyno (like the one in the Hondata video) to calculate engine power and to do that, mathematical computation is used; which can have exaggerations in the output numbers. Dynos are also calibrated for each new customer/vehicle session and based on the calibration, the same vehicle under same tune, can make different power output figures if the dyno operator makes some adjustments to the dyno.

Every tuner will echo the same sentiment; numbers on one dyno, cannot be exactly replicated on another dyno, though one cay say that they made XXX HP on a mustang dyno, while the other says that they made YYY HP on a Dynojet, and in reality, they both could be making the same exact power.

Yes Automakers have falsified power output numbers, yes some continue to do that even today. However, I would not blindly assume that all forced inducted Honda motors are underrated from the factory.
I didn't 'blindly assume' by using words like 'I would bet' 'likely' and 'may'. I don't dispute that dyno numbers vary or SAE formats change. I also wouldn't assume why a company like Hondata would exaggerate HP numbers of stock Hondas by manipulating the calibrations when common sense would indicate they should do the opposite and show even higher gains from their products they sell.

It isn't just dynos - stock cars, notably recent BMWs, the new Supra, new Vette, new Mustang GTs etc are all performing much better than their HP/TQ numbers would suggest. Partly due to more efficient drivelines, but in each case when placed on a dyno they are showing better numbers than the expected rated-10%.

There are lots of reasons to announce lower HP. Maybe the engineers want wiggle room or to rate on low octane. Maybe marketing doesn't want to crowd a more expensive model, or to leave some HP on the table for the mid cycle. Maybe an even hotter version is in the works. Hell, Kubota rated my dads tractor HP at a lower RPM so they could sneak in under the tier IV limit.

All was saying to zroger73 is that it wouldn't be surprised if the actual numbers are higher than what was released.
 

Registered
2007 Nimbus Grey Metallic RTL
Joined
10,044 Posts
I was fully expecting to not see power numbers that started with a "4", but was fully expecting somewhere in the 375 range. 355/354 is still extremely respectable - especially on the torque number. However, the true test will be where in the RPM range those peak numbers are made. I would expect peak hp not to come until at least 5500 RPM, as happens with most Honda engines. If peak torque comes in at anywhere under 3000RPM, this thing will pull hard from a stop with SH-AWD. I'm guessing that Honda is likely conservatively tuning the engine so that some "updates" in the future can bump power a bit. Nevertheless, it's a solid offering from Acura in a vehicle that doesn't look terrible. They haven't done that since the 2008 TL Type S.
 

Administrator
Joined
15,673 Posts
I was fully expecting to not see power numbers that started with a "4", but was fully expecting somewhere in the 375 range. 355/354 is still extremely respectable - especially on the torque number.
I'm still disappointed. My CX-5 produces 320 lb-ft of torque at 2,000 RPM from a 2.5L four-cylinder. I'd have expected more than a 34 lb-ft increase from a 3.0L turbocharged V6. With that said, 320 lb-ft at 2,000 RPM is enough to squeal the front and rear tires from a stop on dry pavement. ;) It's rather comical (and addicting) how it rockets off the line with Tesla-like thrust.
 

Premium Member
Joined
4,121 Posts
I'm still disappointed. My CX-5 produces 320 lb-ft of torque at 2,000 RPM from a 2.5L four-cylinder. I'd have expected more than a 34 lb-ft increase from a 3.0L turbocharged V6. With that said, 320 lb-ft at 2,000 RPM is enough to squeal the front and rear tires from a stop on dry pavement. ;) It's rather comical (and addicting) how it rockets off the line with Tesla-like thrust.
Why do the turbo fours pound out the low-rpm torque so much better than turbo sixes? Is it a matter of being able to fill a smaller bucket quicker? Or is it crankshaft properties? Camshaft properties? Perhaps overall engine design from the very start? Or are automakers surreptitiously making us desire the smaller engines more as time goes by....?
 

Administrator
Joined
15,673 Posts
Why do the turbo fours pound out the low-rpm torque so much better than turbo sixes? Is it a matter of being able to fill a smaller bucket quicker? Or is it crankshaft properties? Camshaft properties? Perhaps overall engine design from the very start? Or are automakers surreptitiously making us desire the smaller engines more as time goes by....?
Some or all of the above! :) Bore size and tuning are significant factors.
 

Registered
Joined
35 Posts
I didn't 'blindly assume' by using words like 'I would bet' 'likely' and 'may'. I don't dispute that dyno numbers vary or SAE formats change. I also wouldn't assume why a company like Hondata would exaggerate HP numbers of stock Hondas by manipulating the calibrations when common sense would indicate they should do the opposite and show even higher gains from their products they sell.

It isn't just dynos - stock cars, notably recent BMWs, the new Supra, new Vette, new Mustang GTs etc are all performing much better than their HP/TQ numbers would suggest. Partly due to more efficient drivelines, but in each case when placed on a dyno they are showing better numbers than the expected rated-10%.

There are lots of reasons to announce lower HP. Maybe the engineers want wiggle room or to rate on low octane. Maybe marketing doesn't want to crowd a more expensive model, or to leave some HP on the table for the mid cycle. Maybe an even hotter version is in the works. Hell, Kubota rated my dads tractor HP at a lower RPM so they could sneak in under the tier IV limit.

All was saying to zroger73 is that it wouldn't be surprised if the actual numbers are higher than what was released.
Someone who understands! Look at the new Supra. It is consistently putting down more power to the wheels than advertised manufacture crank numbers. You've already explained why this can be the case, but some people don't understand this.

I don't think Hondas have a history of putting down more than advertised numbers, however.
 

Administrator
Joined
15,673 Posts
I don't think Hondas have a history of putting down more than advertised numbers, however.
According to Hondata, the Civic 1.5T makes more torque at the wheels than Honda says it does at the crank.


The story was the same with the Accord 2.0T.

 

Registered
Joined
35 Posts
According to Hondata, the Civic 1.5T makes more torque at the wheels than Honda says it does at the crank.


The story was the same with the Accord 2.0T.

Great thank you for pointing me to two family sedans with just a handful of years with more power. Let's look at it from the more performance oriented cars and go back some years. Civic Type R? Nope. Any Civic, ever? Nope. NSX? Nope. S2000? Nope. Integra? Nope. RSX? Nope. I'm starting to get tired...The TLX will not make more than advertised. Just like your CX-5 and Miata don't.
 

Administrator
Joined
15,673 Posts
Great thank you for pointing me to two family sedans with just a handful of years with more power. Let's look at it from the more performance oriented cars and go back some years. Civic Type R? Nope. Any Civic, ever? Nope. NSX? Nope. S2000? Nope. Integra? Nope. RSX? Nope. I'm starting to get tired...The TLX will not make more than advertised. Just like your CX-5 and Miata don't.
You're welcome. Glad I could help!

Oh, yeah... Civic Type R? Underrated.


Also, you do realize the Civic is available not only as a "family sedan", but also a coupe, a hatchback, a performance-oriented coupe and sedan (Si) and a performance-oriented hatchback (Type R), right? :)

You don't know that the TLX won't make more power than advertised unless you are privy to some as-yet-unreleased information and I'm willing to bet that you aren't.

I never made any claim that the CX-5 or MX-5 Miata produce more than their stated power ratings.
 

Registered
Joined
35 Posts
You're welcome. Glad I could help!

Oh, yeah... Civic Type R? Underrated.


Also, you do realize the Civic is available not only as a "family sedan", but also a coupe, a hatchback, a performance-oriented coupe and sedan (Si) and a performance-oriented hatchback (Type R), right? :)

You don't know that the TLX won't make more power than advertised unless you are privy to some as-yet-unreleased information and I'm willing to bet that you aren't.

I never made any claim that the CX-5 or MX-5 Miata produce more than their stated power ratings.
CTR is not putting down more to the wheels than crank. That was what the discussion is about. Thank you for proving my point. The Supra, on the other hand, is crushing wheel power compared to crank. This is pretty common for many other BMW's as well.

I'm not sure why you're trying to explain Civic trim levels to me. I pointed out the Accord as a family sedan. Then I subsequently said any Civic. I realize there is a difference between a Civic and an Accord. I'm also well aware of the different configurations for both. Thank your for that though. Not really sure what you were trying to prove there, but hopefully it made you feel better ;)

Care to wager on the TLX? This iteration will be a flop anyhow. Honda has lost its way. Accord sales have been on a downward spiral for many years. There really is nothing exciting Honda has to offer. Maybe the CTR, but it's fail wheel drive. Slapping the Type S badge on the TLX won't improve things either.

I know you didn't make any claim on the CX-5 or Miata. I just get a lot of entertainment out of your defensiveness, but alas, you didn't bite :(
 

Registered
Joined
2,168 Posts
IMO What's more important is how the engine and trans work together and from there how the total vehicle compares to the competition. Almost 10 years ago my mom's G37X was I think the quickest car I've driven. If 10 years later Acura can't easily crush that package for a 50k price tag after all these years of waiting IMO that's not a step forward.
 

Premium Member
Joined
4,121 Posts
IMO What's more important is how the engine and trans work together and from there how the total vehicle compares to the competition. Almost 10 years ago my mom's G37X was I think the quickest car I've driven. If 10 years later Acura can't easily crush that package for a 50k price tag after all these years of waiting IMO that's not a step forward.
True. It's the entire package that will make or break the car. A well-engineered car is more fun to drive than one that sacrifices part of the package for ultimate horsepower.

Acura is giving us a new TLX that actually looks decent. I suspect it will perform decently, also.
 

Registered
Joined
440 Posts
I'm still disappointed. My CX-5 produces 320 lb-ft of torque at 2,000 RPM from a 2.5L four-cylinder. I'd have expected more than a 34 lb-ft increase from a 3.0L turbocharged V6. With that said, 320 lb-ft at 2,000 RPM is enough to squeal the front and rear tires from a stop on dry pavement. ;) It's rather comical (and addicting) how it rockets off the line with Tesla-like thrust.
Displacement wise the TLX is only 20% larger so the torque makes sense. It also makes 105 more hp.

I'd agree with you it is likely a combination of that and tuning. With a relatively low redline it sounds like they are keeping the oomph down low.

I had a 2016 CX-5 as a loaner and never thought it lacked for power, I can imagine how much better it is with some more umph
 
21 - 36 of 36 Posts
Top