BMW was known to test the net HP with everything on. Highest A/C setting, all lights, stereo, seat and wheel heaters etc. They just were being honest about true net HP.
that is because in the past much of Europe has used permutations of the DIN HP testing principles, which in the past meant guaranteed minimum warranted power, which means the power after parasitic consumers, using an example used on lorry's, DIN HP was the minimum HP observed during a 1hour dyno test, consequently, given DIN HP was guaranteed minimum warranted power, manufactures would always be conservative in their HP statements, with HP often being >10% more than stated, to avoid warranty engine replacements, especial in industrial and farming sectors, given it is much easer to get dyno readings of PTO and gearbox outputs. to do proper dyno testing can take tens of hours, given you need to spend >1h at each RPM step, to plot the lowest observed torque at that RPM. while modern HP standards are not a rigorous as the old DIN methods in Europe, though they still require parasitic consumers present like PAS, AC, fans, alternators and the water pump operating, unlike some some SAE methods which can have many, most or all parasitic consumers of power missing, including sometimes fundamentals like the water pump etc.
@@dodoz44although you really don’t wanna mob around too much in most of their cars with AC on, they have a tendency of jumping the belt lol. I guess it’s probably the same for any car with a certain amount of power/torque.
@@zaags You’re** The spelling, ‘your’ imposes ownership over something, while you’re is reserved for statements in which a noun is followed by a verb; ‘you are’, for example, a correct use of your and you’re would be: Your comment is implying that I should be ashamed of being American, however you’re here in the comments section of a video celebrating American cars, which I guess is another way of saying you’re envious that I am American and you are not. :-)
If I can fund a coffee or two for making these videos I will. Thank you for sharing the history of these vehicles, manufacturers and engines. Your channel is incredible and deserves a lot more than I can give.
What countries are those? I lived in Europe a decade in several countries and never heard that. Italy had a higher tax band over two liters, which is why Ferrari had a 208 model (just under 2L V-8) with turbo, while the rest of the world had the 308 (3L V-8). Despite the extra cost of the turbo, the 208 was cheaper to the end customer.
@@lqr824in Italy you pay a tax called "bollo" the more hp you have (or to be precise the more kw you have). And if you have more than 185kw you have to pay an additional tax called "super bollo" which makes it almost impossible for a commoner to own a powerful car since you have to pay thousands of euros per year just because you own that car.
@@robertseba1795 Do they also have different tax categories for displacement, or is was that replaced by this HP tax? Britain historically had a tax that was stated in terms of "horsepower" but in fact it was a horsepower that was calculated based on the cylinder count times cylinder BORE. Not on measured power, nor even on displacement. This is why the Jaguar E-type had a very small bore and long stroke: to keep the tax low. That might have ended in the 1960s or 1970s though.
@@lqr824In Germany displacement is still the main tax component, 2 euros per 100 cubic centimeters for petrol and 9.50 euros for a diesel. To which an emissions tax is also added, if your car produces more than 95 grams of CO2 per kilometer. There is an exception for vehicles older than 30 years, which meet the conditions for an H-registration. They all pay 191.73 euros (46.02 if it's a motorcycle).
@@Swervin309I was using data from a list of owners on the SVT Performance forum who had their Cobra's dyno'd circa 2005. Reported rwhp numbers for unmodified SVT Cobras were: 368, 358 (389 with CAI), 363, 393, 374, and 372. That averages out to 371 rwhp. Lightly modified were 388 (just a K&N filter on a dynojet), 393 (K&N and cat back, 389 (CAI), 374 (K&N filter), and 391 (K&N filter). That averages to 387 rwhp when lightly with a CAI filter and or exhaust.
@@KolbPRODit’s measured by the transmission clutch/flywheel and it records NM/torque. The gauges are a great way to see if your car is pulling power or if something else is off with the motor (vanos, valvelift, coils etc) just by monitoring the gauges.
Some of us with grey hair may disagree with crash testing and efficiency being useless, but its still another great video. Love how you combine history and engineering. 👍
Honestly he's got a good point. Crash testing is misses a lot of important factors. Better to see what the insurance companies say since they base the rankings from irl data. Fuel consumption is also kinda off since modern cars recognize test conditions and use very aggressive fuel saving measures.
After getting crushed by the dashboard of a Hyundai tiburon… I won’t get in a car under 4k lbs. my Beamer is a tank she wouldn’t budge at 100 in a wreck.
Other things that effect 0-60 and quarter mile times is final drive and gearing, so a car could be quicker, but need to shift sooner and therefore be slower to 60 or 1/4 mile. Cars can get heavier and throw off the increased horsepower. EE did a nice video comparing the lighter Integra to the M2 where the thrust feels similar, but the FWD limits the 0-60 compared to the M2, despite it having more power.
It might be slower to 60 because shifts or traction it won't be slower in the quarter though all things equal. 0-60 is a stupid useless Stat that puts a magnifying glass on traction or lack thereof not so much power. Cars are powerful enough now to where it has become a useless traction based Stat.
I dont understand why Americans or Aussies dont like to do it, but the dyno can actually also calculate the powertrain loss as accurate as it measures the power output. Thats why many european who are on the dyno, quickly shift to neutral and let the car roll out in this gear position. Many say that it isnt accurate. But if you dont trust the accuracy of this method, then you also should have to doubt the accuracy of the power output measuring, because its the same principal just "backwards". There is also a german youtube channel, which dynos lots of cars and d Theyre doing a weekly video of a dyno day. And 80% of stock cars theyre measuring have the advertised engine power output within 1PS difference. The other 20% are those which over- or under perform. This shows that this method is prety accurate.
Fun fact that most people don’t know: four years after the embarrassment of the 1999 cobra, the same engine was used in the 2003 Mach 1. This time around Ford learned from their mistake. The Mach 1 made MORE hp and trq while also being rated LESS than the 99 cobra. In reality it made 332hp and 355trq while being rated at 305hp and 320trq.
The Mach 1and the cobra are not the same engine. They both were aluminum block and 281 in. The SVT cobra was a 9.8.1 compression ratio & the Mach 1 was 10.1. The 96-99 cobra used a teksid block while the 03-04 Mach 1 used a WAP block. The 99& 01 cobras put down around 272 whp, Mach 1 5 speeds put down around 275-280 sae. You also have to remember that a solid rear axle will put out higher rear wheels numbers than the irs cobra.
@@jayf429 you missed the entire point of what I said. This video is about underrating and overrating power numbers. The blocks have perfectly interchangeable parts. The only reason the WAP blocks had to be made is because the Italian company that made the teksid blocks decided to stop making them for ford so ford had to make their own. The dimensions are virtually identical. So instead of responding to both what 337 SPEED said and also my point, you instead go off an a tangent about details that don’t make any difference here. Seriously bro you need to improve your reading skills. If I start talking about ice hockey you’re the kind of weirdo that will bring up poker or World War One or something. So either talk about rated vs actual power numbers or stop talking
@@jayf429the 03 mach1 is the same aluminum block engine from the 99-01 cobra. This after they recalibrated the 99 cobra engine during the recall. The Mach 1 also shares engines with the marauder, mark 8 and navigator.
Also keep in mind, the 72 4-4-2 Olds was rated at 360 hp by factory. Later people diagnosed it with over 410 hp, a friend bought one to rebuild for 9k in bad shape, it started after a bit of work, because he wanted an before and after we went to the nearest dyno and it run 386 at the wheels. Also, muscle cars got sold with open exhausts, for exsample the chrysler 300 is even in germany legal with a straightpipe. Exhaust manifolds were race oriented, not as clunky as the one u showed but we got the drift. Something to note is the Carb aswell, new rebuilds use better carbs, newer and advanced ones, which obviously make more power due to being more efficient. Great and awesome video, Keep it on!
There was actually quite a few differences between the US and JDM 2JZ engines resulting in different output. USDM version has steel turbos instead of ceramic, bigger injectors, big cams, and afm/maf + map instead of just map. Not to say it wasn't underrated in Japan, probably pushing closer to 300, but still fairly major differences.
@@kilotiger7780 I can't remember if later gen US ones did get it, or early gen JDM ones didn't have it, but pretty sure there was a weird edge case for that, but otherwise yes.
2:59 Finally someone answered this properly. So many people come up with ridiculous answers to a nonsensical question. This is the only correct answer.
Germans have been underrating their engines for a long time. My 2012 BMW 116i is a great example of that, from the factory they have "136hp" but they actually have 140hp at the rear wheels
@@invalidusername_5101 for a normal, affordable car it's really not bad, it's not very heavy. I did remap mine though, 200hp now which is more than enough for the roads here. Timed it from 0-100kmh in 6.8 sec.
I think a lot of them are trying to test under worst possible conditions like low quality fuel on a hot day with some thicker oil than expected. Something that puts the engine in a "most conservative" state for ignition timing, injectors, etc. That way, if someone puts 87 octane from walmart in their Porsche and does a dyno pull on a summer day in Arizona, it'll still probably hit the advertised power rating, in spite of the owner's best efforts.
It's not just about the hp. It's also the rest of the drivetrain. The transmission, rear end, etc. I've seen 700 hp old Camaro's run 12's and I've seen 500 hp old Camaro's run 10s, because of the differences in gearing and the transmission they had installed . These newer cars have 8 to 10 gear auto trans, so you can put a high rear-end ratio (3.90+) in them and they'll both accelerate hard and cruise like a kitten on the interstate.
@@midnight347 True. The Mustangs have a 3:15 base, and the Camaro's have 3.27 with their auto, I believe. A lot of other performance cars, Mopars, BMWs, etc seem to have 3,90s, though.
Also weight difference in cars is a huge factor. A 500hp car could beat a 700hp car because the 700 hp car is too heavy. Dont just compare hp. Compare the Power to Weight ratio of each car for more accuracy. The wrong diameter tires. You want faster Launch? Don't use 22" wheels. Use 16". Tires and wheels can be too heavy causing too much rolling resistance. Aerodynamics can make a lower hp car beat a car with more power. Transmissions that lose too many RPM's between shifts can kill your 1/4 mile times.
With so many cars available on the market, it's not really that hard to figure out a route of an avarage petrol head guy: you start with something like Golf GTI, proceed to M3, proceed to 911/McLaren if really rich. Nurburgring is a live proof of that. Great video as always! 337 Speed delivering best explanations on worlds top automotive insdustry! Keep the quality coming!
I remember how my jaw dropped when I learned the factory rating for 429 Boss Mustang. 375 HP feels awfully low for a Hemi engine even bigger than that of the Mopar 426 Hemi, but then I learned that it might have been a tax thing and the potential for 500 HP was most definitely there
The reason why McLaren understates the actual horsepower figure is really simple. The Senna is McLaren's halo car. The Senna costs 1M$ and has 900HP while the 765LT is cheaper but makes closer to 900HP. So, who would buy the Senna when there is a car that has almost makes 900HP but with a price tag of less than half of that?
BMW has been doing that for decades. Rating their horsepower and torque output under the worst possible situation. Heat soaked, low quality fuel and so on.
My 2012 116i is a great example of that, they are supposed to make 136hp but they actually make 140hp at the rear wheels. Exact same engine as the 118i and a few years of 120i as well so it remaps to 200-220hp and if you're so inclined the auto box is the ZF8hp45 which is rated for 450nm so it remaps extremely safely, actual performance bargain.
the quality of the fuel used is also very important, especially on new turbo engine (high compression) manufacturer use the worst fuel possible for the rating so if you buy an M3 in a country with low octane fuel, you still have 550hp .... but with high octane fuel you have more power ...
The LS is such a legend. My first v8 engine was the ls3. What a monster, that car scared me at first. I was just after tired of being slow and driving Japanese “sports” cars. I’ll never go back in a performance car, daily is different. Just another world, sound, and smiles. Screw mpg.
Honestly, I'd rather have automakers underrate their performance characteristics than overrate them. It also gives car journalists something to test and verify. For enthusiasts, they can potentially obtain better value through purchase/insurance simply by being in the know. In the 90s, a "276 hp" car was cheaper to insure than a 300+ hp one, and the $25k+ premium on a Corvette over a Camaro with the same engine was a value consideration.
It’s good that you gave credit to Buick for their turbo 3.8 in the 80s, but Ford and Mopar ware also running turbos on some of their performance cars as well. In the Ford camp there was the SVO Mustang and Thunderbird Supercoupe. Mother Mopar was slapping a turbo on a lot of their lineup. Even their Caravan was available with a turbo
And you can get that caravan turbo with a 5spd manual and run high 11s with basic mods+ stripping the interior, the mopar GLSH and turbo Daytonas were prett fast back in the day, there was even a turbo Trans Am
@@ellisjackson3355then in 89 they put the GNX 3.8 turbo in a limited Trans am. The 89 turbo TA runs with the 4th gen LS1. In 89 that was ridiculously fast
The early 135i's had secondary cats in the midpipes. Later they got rid of them in production (maybe after/because of the N55 engine change). They also don't come with a boost gauge. (Clever) Supposedly the stock N54 is 300hp running 8.8psi of boost. I took off the stock catted midpipes for some Berk midpipes and installed a manual boost gauge to discover the stock engine making almost 13psi, no tuning.
BMW definitely underrated their power and MPG! My g05 x5 was rated 26mpg Highway from the factory, but I’m getting 28-29 mpg while driving 85-90 mph on the highway.
It is Funny, the Evoque has 150HP with the same engine that the Freelander does 165hp, and if you dino them they both have the same Hp or sometimes the Freelander 162-163 instead of the 165 advertised. So, I prefer the way Porsche goes. Yes tere is a battle to have the most Hp in the magazines, but Porsche knows that they have lost that battle in any decade. Now they put what they whant, 450HP ...ok, it is 510hp and it is a masterpiece, who cares the Hp number if it drives so well?
One of the cars that's so underlooked is 911 Turbo S 992 Turbo S makes more than 700hp but is rated at 650 and does laughable times like 9.9 in 1/4 mile with the "lightweight package" which is like 30 kgs lighter than the normal car
As a 340i (B58!) owner, it was clear the advertised 355hp (MPPSK, 3600 lbs) was a wheel figure rather than crank figure. I had a 438hp tuned s4 (3850lbs) prior and moving to the alleged 355hp 340i felt like very little drop in performance and I tested 60-130 and 0-60 times (dragy) which backed that up. S4 with TCU/ECU tune for 93 made 438hp crank. It ran 12.06@114 and did 60-140 in 12.1 with a 0-60 of 4 seconds (3.7 with rollout). Now only 250lbs lighter and supposedly down 83 hp to the S4, stock MPPSK 340i ran 12.7@110, 4.9s 0-60 (RWD on run flats lol) and 13.2 for 60-130 first tries. According to the 60-130 and the trap speeds (which give the best indication of power being made) the 340i was pushing very high 300s not 355. More like 380-390 crank. Needless to say I was going to tune past that anyways but it’s great to get that extra value!
Imagine cars being limited to only 280 horsepower yet motorcycles where limited to 186mph/ 300kph. I always found it so weird that a 200hp bike with a governor was sensible enough but a 300 horsepower car wasn't.
Another thing to know here is that the engines always have manufacturing tolerances, which can affect the performance during the production run of the car, so to take the eventual power losses into account, all car manufacturers (at least from what I know) lower the measured power and torque by a bit, and some manufacturers might subtract quite a generous amount of power, just to be shure. Also: drivetrain losses are much lower nowadays than 40 years ago, so I highly doubt any modern drivetrain eats 15% of the Power.
Torque is a pretty meaningless number. If something has 500ft/lbs of torque, you have no idea how fast it is. Torque is a ratio. BHP is a unit of power. As you said - work done per time. This tells you everything you need to know about performance. Engines are connected to gearboxes (Or transmissions) and they are torque multipliers. They are not BHP multipliers though. What you should use torque for is a sign of engine efficiency. 75ft/lbs per litre of N/A displacement is about right. If it's over this, then its good.
There was in some countries some optimization with the taxes, especially horspower taxes. Manufacturers advertised the maximum hp they could to stay on a specific category, while providing 10-20% more, to advertise better perfomance figures than the competition.
"Rated power" is a whole different world from "maximum output". Those who are familiar with industrial engines, know this. Most often, industrial engines are "rated" at a given duty cycle... beit contant output, 80%, 60%, etc.... while their maximum output is often far greater, if their induction/fuel system is capable of delivering the necessary air/fuel volume.
I worked at OPEL GM in Vienna, Audi in Neckarsulm, Volvo in Gent, VW in Bratislawa, Magna in Graz ( Supra, G-Klasse ) and every car manufactor has a HP tolerance between 5%-10%. You can take 2 engines in a row, directly from the production line, and the HP numbers could be different.
Great video. I had a 1999 Cobra which I promptly (6 months later) traded for a 2000 SS Camaro, both mentioned in the video. As advertised, the Cobra was 320 HP and Camaro 325. I always knew there was a much larger disparity between them, but until now just summed that up on the Camaro's additional torque numbers. One being a bit overrated and one being underrated, that makes a whole lot of sense to me.
I just want to say GoD bless you Sir for taking the time to put these AMAZING videos together, you are among a dying breed of OG’s who master their craft and put in the time to study, understand and impart knowledge 📚. You are 🔥
Keep it up! Love these types of videos and helping all Car lovers understand their engines and drivetrains, their elevation and climate enviroment play a factor in their car's respective performance! Particularly depending in Manufacturer!
Lying about horsepower and torque in the positive is not good for insurance because it hits you in the negative. Years back the underrated engine power for that specific reason
Wow, totally new to this channel, was expecting nuanced errors, but you basically nailed it on every point. Well done! As an aside - modern transmissions/drivelines are very efficient compared to the old 15/20 rule. Modern FWD auto with torque converter and planetary gears can exceed 90% efficiency (
I have been driving a 2001 Olds Aurora 4.0 since 2000. It's rated ar 250 HP @5600 RPM. I use only 93, and on that octane it feels like MUCH more than 250HP.
Thank you for another fantastic video. The 1999 mustang cobra lower output was due to a manufacturing defect when machining the intake leaving behind excess aluminum and not being to spec. Supposedly same with the cat and mufflers creating too much backptessure. Choking the engine out on both ends 🫁🤷♂️
Amen. I'm a proud American, but I'm also a proud heel. Tow shifter and road course enthusiast. Don't get me wrong when it comes to horse power, more is usually desirable, but the majority of imbeciles on the road these days can't handle the horse. How are they have especially in a rear wheel drive :)
My buddy and I as a joke took my 2010 Taurus, and his 2013 both SELs. Ford says they are supposed to be like 260 & 280, but my 2010 made 302hp and his made 282hp. The guy at the event said I won the engine lottery, since I made so much more than advertised.
the zf6hp21 transmission in the bmws, eats horspower numbers, but the newer 8hp is actually a planetary gearset, 4 actual gears, 2 gears engaged at all times in diff combinations to = 8 gears. the converter in the 8hp locks up 100% so theres no loss throught the gearbox, thats actually the reason why bmws are coming with more power. the n54s only the manuals were putting down 320-330whp , the automatics were barely making 305whp due to the 6hp. the dct and manual cars are always higher whp than rated because they rate the automatics and use those numbers for the EPA .
The opening statement I think is very misleading. Tourque and horsepower are very closely related. The statement literally makes no sense since horsepower is more important. A course in classical physics tells you acceleration a=f/m, so force accelerates cars. Useing tiresizes, finaldrive and gearing you can calculate the exact force produced by the car in a specific gear with a specific amount of torque. But what happends when you shift up? The gearing variable is reduced and thus is our car meaning the same engine torque produces less acceleration. Meaning staying in a lower gear is good for acceleration, in the same way as high torque is. This is why we use horsepower. Hp is tourqe * rpm / constant. A diesel has tons of tourqe especially at low rmp. So they have to use higher gearing that hurts acceleration. Great for towing stuff at a low fuel consumption. But equally good as a petrol engine with similar hp. Since the lower tourqe engine has the same accelerating force using lower gearing.
The 2017 Focus RS was another joke with ford power ratings. They Dyno using fwd only and come no where near the ridiculous 350 hp rating with a difference of 70-80 hp! 270 hp was not uncommon which fwd only reading should lead to a 11 percent difference not over 20%. I know I owned one and a stock wrx sti easily outruns it.
Honda owners are gonna swear their car is underrated by 100HP after this.
Aye chill on us😂
thay is why they use lots of stickers
@jamdc2000 wings are more affective
turbo 2.0 foamin at the mouth rn
Nah, every honda I have driven is overrated by 100 horsepower lmao.
BMW was known to test the net HP with everything on. Highest A/C setting, all lights, stereo, seat and wheel heaters etc. They just were being honest about true net HP.
Yeah, same goes for many eu brands whereas brands like tesla are built on lies
Yeah. They're basically saying "no matter what you do, you'll still have AT LEAST this many ponies"
that is because in the past much of Europe has used permutations of the DIN HP testing principles, which in the past meant guaranteed minimum warranted power, which means the power after parasitic consumers, using an example used on lorry's, DIN HP was the minimum HP observed during a 1hour dyno test, consequently, given DIN HP was guaranteed minimum warranted power, manufactures would always be conservative in their HP statements, with HP often being >10% more than stated, to avoid warranty engine replacements, especial in industrial and farming sectors, given it is much easer to get dyno readings of PTO and gearbox outputs.
to do proper dyno testing can take tens of hours, given you need to spend >1h at each RPM step, to plot the lowest observed torque at that RPM.
while modern HP standards are not a rigorous as the old DIN methods in Europe, though they still require parasitic consumers present like PAS, AC, fans, alternators and the water pump operating, unlike some some SAE methods which can have many, most or all parasitic consumers of power missing, including sometimes fundamentals like the water pump etc.
stereo on? but HPs vary depending on the song...
@@dodoz44although you really don’t wanna mob around too much in most of their cars with AC on, they have a tendency of jumping the belt lol. I guess it’s probably the same for any car with a certain amount of power/torque.
“Useless information on crash test ratings and fuel consumption” ….so much truth in this statement 😂
😂😂
Another indirect way to say your american
@@zaags You’re**
The spelling, ‘your’ imposes ownership over something, while you’re is reserved for statements in which a noun is followed by a verb; ‘you are’, for example, a correct use of your and you’re would be:
Your comment is implying that I should be ashamed of being American, however you’re here in the comments section of a video celebrating American cars, which I guess is another way of saying you’re envious that I am American and you are not. :-)
Crash test ratings being useless, it tells you how well a car is engineered. The Corvette C8 disintegrates in accidents from news reports I have seen.
Another indirect way to say you're American
If I can fund a coffee or two for making these videos I will. Thank you for sharing the history of these vehicles, manufacturers and engines. Your channel is incredible and deserves a lot more than I can give.
Japanese car companies: I lied about the horsepower, it can go much faster
American car companies: haha more horsepower = more $
In Europe in many Countries you pay Tax per Hp so it absolutly makes sense to rate the car at "lower Power"
What countries are those? I lived in Europe a decade in several countries and never heard that. Italy had a higher tax band over two liters, which is why Ferrari had a 208 model (just under 2L V-8) with turbo, while the rest of the world had the 308 (3L V-8). Despite the extra cost of the turbo, the 208 was cheaper to the end customer.
@@lqr824in Italy you pay a tax called "bollo" the more hp you have (or to be precise the more kw you have). And if you have more than 185kw you have to pay an additional tax called "super bollo" which makes it almost impossible for a commoner to own a powerful car since you have to pay thousands of euros per year just because you own that car.
@@robertseba1795 Do they also have different tax categories for displacement, or is was that replaced by this HP tax?
Britain historically had a tax that was stated in terms of "horsepower" but in fact it was a horsepower that was calculated based on the cylinder count times cylinder BORE. Not on measured power, nor even on displacement. This is why the Jaguar E-type had a very small bore and long stroke: to keep the tax low. That might have ended in the 1960s or 1970s though.
@@lqr824In Germany displacement is still the main tax component, 2 euros per 100 cubic centimeters for petrol and 9.50 euros for a diesel. To which an emissions tax is also added, if your car produces more than 95 grams of CO2 per kilometer.
There is an exception for vehicles older than 30 years, which meet the conditions for an H-registration. They all pay 191.73 euros (46.02 if it's a motorcycle).
Norway
Don't forget the 2003/04 Terminator Cobra. Rated at 390 hp/390 Tq at the crank. People routinely got closer to 400 at the wheels.
That Modular V8 is one of my favorite besides the Voodoo
Yeah, Ford REALLY didn't want another '99 Cobra incident.
It was closer to 360-390 hp at the wheels and 420-450 hp at the crank.
@@Epotheros A guy I saw had a cold air intake and cat-back exhaust and got 408 at the wheels.
@@Swervin309I was using data from a list of owners on the SVT Performance forum who had their Cobra's dyno'd circa 2005. Reported rwhp numbers for unmodified SVT Cobras were: 368, 358 (389 with CAI), 363, 393, 374, and 372. That averages out to 371 rwhp.
Lightly modified were 388 (just a K&N filter on a dynojet), 393 (K&N and cat back, 389 (CAI), 374 (K&N filter), and 391 (K&N filter). That averages to 387 rwhp when lightly with a CAI filter and or exhaust.
Great video. According to Dinan's website, they've tested the B58 at 353 HP. BMW rates them at 322.
Hahaha that's cool, wonder how that ties into the built in power gauges
@@KolbPRODit’s measured by the transmission clutch/flywheel and it records NM/torque. The gauges are a great way to see if your car is pulling power or if something else is off with the motor (vanos, valvelift, coils etc) just by monitoring the gauges.
BMW definitely lies about their HP. They lie down. Their vehicles usually produce more than what they advertise, in my experience💯
M5 CS makes 710 at the wheels, around 780 at crank, BMW claims 710.
Seems bmw ratings are for wheel hp Supra was rated 382 and tested at 383 wheel on car and driver
Your videos, especially the motion graphics/animations, just keep getting better. Outstanding.
Some of us with grey hair may disagree with crash testing and efficiency being useless, but its still another great video. Love how you combine history and engineering. 👍
facts the combo of history an da engineering is real good way of learning
I think that was a joke. Lol
He throws on sarcastic jokes in quite often without ever shifting his tone
@@PavelisLord Yeah, maybe I took it too literally. If you drive like a madman then economy and safety are second. 🙂
Honestly he's got a good point. Crash testing is misses a lot of important factors. Better to see what the insurance companies say since they base the rankings from irl data.
Fuel consumption is also kinda off since modern cars recognize test conditions and use very aggressive fuel saving measures.
After getting crushed by the dashboard of a Hyundai tiburon… I won’t get in a car under 4k lbs. my Beamer is a tank she wouldn’t budge at 100 in a wreck.
Other things that effect 0-60 and quarter mile times is final drive and gearing, so a car could be quicker, but need to shift sooner and therefore be slower to 60 or 1/4 mile. Cars can get heavier and throw off the increased horsepower. EE did a nice video comparing the lighter Integra to the M2 where the thrust feels similar, but the FWD limits the 0-60 compared to the M2, despite it having more power.
It might be slower to 60 because shifts or traction it won't be slower in the quarter though all things equal. 0-60 is a stupid useless Stat that puts a magnifying glass on traction or lack thereof not so much power. Cars are powerful enough now to where it has become a useless traction based Stat.
Remember that it is running low on torque while heavy.
Amazing animations and I especially love the 80's vibe that you create in your videos. Absolute ❤ from India.
I'm in awe of his animations. The accuracy in detail, looks, and shapes of them all are always spot on
I dont understand why Americans or Aussies dont like to do it, but the dyno can actually also calculate the powertrain loss as accurate as it measures the power output. Thats why many european who are on the dyno, quickly shift to neutral and let the car roll out in this gear position. Many say that it isnt accurate. But if you dont trust the accuracy of this method, then you also should have to doubt the accuracy of the power output measuring, because its the same principal just "backwards".
There is also a german youtube channel, which dynos lots of cars and d
Theyre doing a weekly video of a dyno day. And 80% of stock cars theyre measuring have the advertised engine power output within 1PS difference. The other 20% are those which over- or under perform.
This shows that this method is prety accurate.
@@G.J.G.P.What’s the name of the channel?
@@sstevocamaro halle 77 dortmund playlist: eure autos auf der rolle
My man 50grand! Your channel is the shiznizzle! Don't stop makin these videos for all us true gear heads! Straight up!!!
Love how you break down the math and tuning and the controversial subjects of horsepower and torque!
Fun fact that most people don’t know: four years after the embarrassment of the 1999 cobra, the same engine was used in the 2003 Mach 1. This time around Ford learned from their mistake. The Mach 1 made MORE hp and trq while also being rated LESS than the 99 cobra. In reality it made 332hp and 355trq while being rated at 305hp and 320trq.
With a 6 speed those cars would be perfect.
The Mach 1and the cobra are not the same engine. They both were aluminum block and 281 in. The SVT cobra was a 9.8.1 compression ratio & the Mach 1 was 10.1. The 96-99 cobra used a teksid block while the 03-04 Mach 1 used a WAP block. The 99& 01 cobras put down around 272 whp, Mach 1 5 speeds put down around 275-280 sae. You also have to remember that a solid rear axle will put out higher rear wheels numbers than the irs cobra.
@@jayf429 you missed the entire point of what I said. This video is about underrating and overrating power numbers. The blocks have perfectly interchangeable parts. The only reason the WAP blocks had to be made is because the Italian company that made the teksid blocks decided to stop making them for ford so ford had to make their own. The dimensions are virtually identical.
So instead of responding to both what 337 SPEED said and also my point, you instead go off an a tangent about details that don’t make any difference here.
Seriously bro you need to improve your reading skills. If I start talking about ice hockey you’re the kind of weirdo that will bring up poker or World War One or something.
So either talk about rated vs actual power numbers or stop talking
@@Carado5150 True! But it’s biggest need by far was wider tires. Those tiny 245’s are just awful for something with that much torque
@@jayf429the 03 mach1 is the same aluminum block engine from the 99-01 cobra. This after they recalibrated the 99 cobra engine during the recall. The Mach 1 also shares engines with the marauder, mark 8 and navigator.
Also keep in mind, the 72 4-4-2 Olds was rated at 360 hp by factory. Later people diagnosed it with over 410 hp, a friend bought one to rebuild for 9k in bad shape, it started after a bit of work, because he wanted an before and after we went to the nearest dyno and it run 386 at the wheels.
Also, muscle cars got sold with open exhausts, for exsample the chrysler 300 is even in germany legal with a straightpipe. Exhaust manifolds were race oriented, not as clunky as the one u showed but we got the drift. Something to note is the Carb aswell, new rebuilds use better carbs, newer and advanced ones, which obviously make more power due to being more efficient.
Great and awesome video, Keep it on!
How is this channel not blown up popular. Really well put together videos. Just wanted to drop some respect in your comments section.
People nowadays worry about how many avocado toasts they can eat in their Tesla than how much HP cars actually make.
The quality of these videos is unmatched in the car sphere of youtube, good stuff
This and the "so you want" series when alex still did them
Thanks!
There was actually quite a few differences between the US and JDM 2JZ engines resulting in different output. USDM version has steel turbos instead of ceramic, bigger injectors, big cams, and afm/maf + map instead of just map. Not to say it wasn't underrated in Japan, probably pushing closer to 300, but still fairly major differences.
Gentleman's agreement that's why
@@ilham7345do your research thats not actually why.
@@johndc2998it is why all Japanese sport cars were under rated hp at the time
Also the JDM a80 had vvti while the usdm didn't.
@@kilotiger7780 I can't remember if later gen US ones did get it, or early gen JDM ones didn't have it, but pretty sure there was a weird edge case for that, but otherwise yes.
2:59 Finally someone answered this properly. So many people come up with ridiculous answers to a nonsensical question. This is the only correct answer.
I mean not really, if you're mentioning torque and power, you have to mention revs
Not really... This explanation is ridiculous too.
Power is how much work engine can do in time.
@@FirssenSimracing yep, torque + revs = power, so nothing is more important than average power across the usable power band through gearing
Thank you for putting all this time into these videos! I can’t get enough from 337speed!
“More power makes you go fast in a straight line; less weight makes you faster _everywhere_ .” - Colin Chapman.
That makes way more sense than the deceiving torque vs hp statement made by an American in the start of the video.
Seems that recently, mainstream turbocharged consumer cars have underrated HP numbers
Germans have been underrating their engines for a long time.
My 2012 BMW 116i is a great example of that, from the factory they have "136hp" but they actually have 140hp at the rear wheels
@@kristoffer3000that's still dog shit slow. But the M5 is the goat as are as false HP😂
@@invalidusername_5101 for a normal, affordable car it's really not bad, it's not very heavy.
I did remap mine though, 200hp now which is more than enough for the roads here.
Timed it from 0-100kmh in 6.8 sec.
I think a lot of them are trying to test under worst possible conditions like low quality fuel on a hot day with some thicker oil than expected. Something that puts the engine in a "most conservative" state for ignition timing, injectors, etc. That way, if someone puts 87 octane from walmart in their Porsche and does a dyno pull on a summer day in Arizona, it'll still probably hit the advertised power rating, in spite of the owner's best efforts.
@@themanwithsauce most if not all performance cars require 93 tho
As always, another good production. Always like how you put in clips of dyno tests, burnouts and all the like. Really gives it that extra flare.
It's not just about the hp. It's also the rest of the drivetrain. The transmission, rear end, etc. I've seen 700 hp old Camaro's run 12's and I've seen 500 hp old Camaro's run 10s, because of the differences in gearing and the transmission they had installed . These newer cars have 8 to 10 gear auto trans, so you can put a high rear-end ratio (3.90+) in them and they'll both accelerate hard and cruise like a kitten on the interstate.
If a 700 hp old camaro is running 12s it has alot of problems besides just gearing and trans choices.
The 10 speeds are aggressive geared and don't need steep gearing they work best with 3.15
@@midnight347 That is true enough, but, in a way, also a build problem if the driver can't handle the output correctly,
@@midnight347 True. The Mustangs have a 3:15 base, and the Camaro's have 3.27 with their auto, I believe. A lot of other performance cars, Mopars, BMWs, etc seem to have 3,90s, though.
Also weight difference in cars is a huge factor. A 500hp car could beat a 700hp car because the 700 hp car is too heavy. Dont just compare hp. Compare the Power to Weight ratio of each car for more accuracy. The wrong diameter tires. You want faster Launch? Don't use 22" wheels. Use 16". Tires and wheels can be too heavy causing too much rolling resistance. Aerodynamics can make a lower hp car beat a car with more power. Transmissions that lose too many RPM's between shifts can kill your 1/4 mile times.
Dude, I've been following you for a while and your stuff consistently gets better and better. Keep up the good work!
The GTR is a perfect example… rated 600 hp for the nismo but real hp 590 whp….
911 turbos are grossly underrated….
With so many cars available on the market, it's not really that hard to figure out a route of an avarage petrol head guy:
you start with something like Golf GTI, proceed to M3, proceed to 911/McLaren if really rich. Nurburgring is a live proof of that.
Great video as always! 337 Speed delivering best explanations on worlds top automotive insdustry! Keep the quality coming!
No one should ever start with a vw or bmw. You will be broke within months of fixing things that don’t break on any other car
@@ThorOdinson-zc2kq Thats true in america, not europe.
@@Xtcent no it only affects German and Italian engineers, not Japanese or American
I remember how my jaw dropped when I learned the factory rating for 429 Boss Mustang. 375 HP feels awfully low for a Hemi engine even bigger than that of the Mopar 426 Hemi, but then I learned that it might have been a tax thing and the potential for 500 HP was most definitely there
But as is, it's not even 400hp and gross that is
@@goldenltd1970 At least there's an entire valley of torque to smoke the tires out
The reason why McLaren understates the actual horsepower figure is really simple. The Senna is McLaren's halo car. The Senna costs 1M$ and has 900HP while the 765LT is cheaper but makes closer to 900HP. So, who would buy the Senna when there is a car that has almost makes 900HP but with a price tag of less than half of that?
BMW has been doing that for decades. Rating their horsepower and torque output under the worst possible situation. Heat soaked, low quality fuel and so on.
My 2012 116i is a great example of that, they are supposed to make 136hp but they actually make 140hp at the rear wheels.
Exact same engine as the 118i and a few years of 120i as well so it remaps to 200-220hp and if you're so inclined the auto box is the ZF8hp45 which is rated for 450nm so it remaps extremely safely, actual performance bargain.
The production value and the explanations are just brilliant!
the quality of the fuel used is also very important, especially on new turbo engine (high compression)
manufacturer use the worst fuel possible for the rating
so if you buy an M3 in a country with low octane fuel, you still have 550hp .... but with high octane fuel you have more power ...
The LS is such a legend. My first v8 engine was the ls3. What a monster, that car scared me at first. I was just after tired of being slow and driving Japanese “sports” cars. I’ll never go back in a performance car, daily is different. Just another world, sound, and smiles. Screw mpg.
Honestly, I'd rather have automakers underrate their performance characteristics than overrate them.
It also gives car journalists something to test and verify. For enthusiasts, they can potentially obtain better value through purchase/insurance simply by being in the know.
In the 90s, a "276 hp" car was cheaper to insure than a 300+ hp one, and the $25k+ premium on a Corvette over a Camaro with the same engine was a value consideration.
Every time I watch a video on this channel, I just want to go out and make LS sounds in my Corvette 😂
Me too! But my LS sounds come out of a CTS-V
"And then useless ratings on crash tests and fuel economy." LMAO
I’m not crashing it and ion care about gas prices
They're useful, but can be very inaccurate irl that it becomes nonsense sometimes.
euro cars being secretly overpowered is probably because in some countries you pay more insurance for more powerful cars.
Idk why this trend is popular in Asian countries though?
This is one of my most fav channels by far! , not just entertainment but i gain so much more knowledge than before
It’s good that you gave credit to Buick for their turbo 3.8 in the 80s, but Ford and Mopar ware also running turbos on some of their performance cars as well. In the Ford camp there was the SVO Mustang and Thunderbird Supercoupe. Mother Mopar was slapping a turbo on a lot of their lineup. Even their Caravan was available with a turbo
And you can get that caravan turbo with a 5spd manual and run high 11s with basic mods+ stripping the interior, the mopar GLSH and turbo Daytonas were prett fast back in the day, there was even a turbo Trans Am
I was going to post the same thing. Everyone forgets that America can build turbo cars.
It was Americans who wanted big NA in their American cars.
@@wutang80oc39that turbo trans am had displacement and boost, and only made 200 hp
@@ellisjackson3355then in 89 they put the GNX 3.8 turbo in a limited Trans am. The 89 turbo TA runs with the 4th gen LS1. In 89 that was ridiculously fast
The early 135i's had secondary cats in the midpipes. Later they got rid of them in production (maybe after/because of the N55 engine change). They also don't come with a boost gauge. (Clever) Supposedly the stock N54 is 300hp running 8.8psi of boost. I took off the stock catted midpipes for some Berk midpipes and installed a manual boost gauge to discover the stock engine making almost 13psi, no tuning.
Genuinely some of the best videos on yt💯🔥
The B58 is an incredible engine. Delivers great power and when driven conservatively I routinely get 35+ mpg in the highway.
BMW definitely underrated their power and MPG! My g05 x5 was rated 26mpg Highway from the factory, but I’m getting 28-29 mpg while driving 85-90 mph on the highway.
Simple reason:
American brands like to brag
Whilst eu delivers
It is Funny, the Evoque has 150HP with the same engine that the Freelander does 165hp, and if you dino them they both have the same Hp or sometimes the Freelander 162-163 instead of the 165 advertised.
So, I prefer the way Porsche goes. Yes tere is a battle to have the most Hp in the magazines, but Porsche knows that they have lost that battle in any decade. Now they put what they whant, 450HP ...ok, it is 510hp and it is a masterpiece, who cares the Hp number if it drives so well?
Magnificent video as always sir🍷🗿🤌
Yet another reason why I love this channel!
One of the cars that's so underlooked is 911 Turbo S
992 Turbo S makes more than 700hp but is rated at 650 and does laughable times like 9.9 in 1/4 mile with the "lightweight package" which is like 30 kgs lighter than the normal car
Great video. Great playlist! Thank you so much for this playlist! ❤
As a 340i (B58!) owner, it was clear the advertised 355hp (MPPSK, 3600 lbs) was a wheel figure rather than crank figure. I had a 438hp tuned s4 (3850lbs) prior and moving to the alleged 355hp 340i felt like very little drop in performance and I tested 60-130 and 0-60 times (dragy) which backed that up.
S4 with TCU/ECU tune for 93 made 438hp crank. It ran 12.06@114 and did 60-140 in 12.1 with a 0-60 of 4 seconds (3.7 with rollout). Now only 250lbs lighter and supposedly down 83 hp to the S4, stock MPPSK 340i ran 12.7@110, 4.9s 0-60 (RWD on run flats lol) and 13.2 for 60-130 first tries. According to the 60-130 and the trap speeds (which give the best indication of power being made) the 340i was pushing very high 300s not 355. More like 380-390 crank. Needless to say I was going to tune past that anyways but it’s great to get that extra value!
Chevy is notorious for doing it mostly for insurance purposes.
Jesus Christ..the amount of research that goes into these videos...combined with all the clips used. I can't even.
Can't even what?
Imagine cars being limited to only 280 horsepower yet motorcycles where limited to 186mph/ 300kph. I always found it so weird that a 200hp bike with a governor was sensible enough but a 300 horsepower car wasn't.
More people are more likely to buy a 300 hp car than a 200 mi/hr motorcycle
@ellisjackson3355 I aint complaining as a motorcycle owner. But realistically, a 40 horsepower motorcycle will keep up on the highway.
Simply put from an old school dude.
Horsepower = how Fast you hit the wall.
Torque = how far you push it, once you come in contact with it.
favorite car content on youtube, love the aesthetic and explanations.
Great videos bro keep them coming
Another thing to know here is that the engines always have manufacturing tolerances, which can affect the performance during the production run of the car, so to take the eventual power losses into account, all car manufacturers (at least from what I know) lower the measured power and torque by a bit, and some manufacturers might subtract quite a generous amount of power, just to be shure.
Also: drivetrain losses are much lower nowadays than 40 years ago, so I highly doubt any modern drivetrain eats 15% of the Power.
Wasn't the 03-04 cobra doing the underrating too? I remember hearing that they made more than what the factory said.
They were a lot of times making at the wheels what they were rated at the motor.
Torque is a pretty meaningless number. If something has 500ft/lbs of torque, you have no idea how fast it is. Torque is a ratio. BHP is a unit of power. As you said - work done per time. This tells you everything you need to know about performance. Engines are connected to gearboxes (Or transmissions) and they are torque multipliers. They are not BHP multipliers though.
What you should use torque for is a sign of engine efficiency. 75ft/lbs per litre of N/A displacement is about right. If it's over this, then its good.
Sucks that literally none of this would matter to the future electric “car guys”
There was in some countries some optimization with the taxes, especially horspower taxes. Manufacturers advertised the maximum hp they could to stay on a specific category, while providing 10-20% more, to advertise better perfomance figures than the competition.
"Rated power" is a whole different world from "maximum output". Those who are familiar with industrial engines, know this. Most often, industrial engines are "rated" at a given duty cycle... beit contant output, 80%, 60%, etc.... while their maximum output is often far greater, if their induction/fuel system is capable of delivering the necessary air/fuel volume.
same with electric motors.
@@miguellopez3392 - absolutely CRUCIAL to know the difference with electric motors.
The look and disbelief on the face of my friend losing in his dads 99 corvette when I smoked him in my 98 Z will always be in my memory.
I worked at OPEL GM in Vienna, Audi in Neckarsulm, Volvo in Gent, VW in Bratislawa, Magna in Graz ( Supra, G-Klasse ) and every car manufactor has a HP tolerance between 5%-10%.
You can take 2 engines in a row, directly from the production line, and the HP numbers could be different.
Another great video, like usual!
Great video, very informative.
I like torque over HP, but I’m a truck guy.
Great video. I had a 1999 Cobra which I promptly (6 months later) traded for a 2000 SS Camaro, both mentioned in the video. As advertised, the Cobra was 320 HP and Camaro 325. I always knew there was a much larger disparity between them, but until now just summed that up on the Camaro's additional torque numbers. One being a bit overrated and one being underrated, that makes a whole lot of sense to me.
As a truck driver i definitely love torque
I just want to say GoD bless you Sir for taking the time to put these AMAZING videos together, you are among a dying breed of OG’s who master their craft and put in the time to study, understand and impart knowledge 📚. You are 🔥
Keep it up! Love these types of videos and helping all Car lovers understand their engines and drivetrains, their elevation and climate enviroment play a factor in their car's respective performance! Particularly depending in Manufacturer!
I just wanted to say you have a really great channel. I’ve learned a lot and it’s represented so well and simple and with wisdom. Salute.
Always learning so much!
Im telling you bro this channel will be amazing to have in spanish. Super great content and info.
Man Knows His Stuff! subbed. 🛠 👊😎
Lying about horsepower and torque in the positive is not good for insurance because it hits you in the negative. Years back the underrated engine power for that specific reason
Dope channel. This is why RUclips is so great.
Wow, totally new to this channel, was expecting nuanced errors, but you basically nailed it on every point. Well done!
As an aside - modern transmissions/drivelines are very efficient compared to the old 15/20 rule. Modern FWD auto with torque converter and planetary gears can exceed 90% efficiency (
Opening up with the GT500 was 🔥
these videos are FIRE! SO much to learn here!
We need a big block Chevy video
Very intresting video, like always.
I have been driving a 2001 Olds Aurora 4.0 since 2000. It's rated ar 250 HP @5600 RPM. I use only 93, and on that octane it feels like MUCH more than 250HP.
Just saw this. Great video. Thanks
Great job as always. Love the way way you break things down and explain them.
Thank you for another fantastic video. The 1999 mustang cobra lower output was due to a manufacturing defect when machining the intake leaving behind excess aluminum and not being to spec. Supposedly same with the cat and mufflers creating too much backptessure. Choking the engine out on both ends 🫁🤷♂️
I love how almost every Dyno video you featured was stuff just blowing up!
Dyno-might!
Great production as always
My favourite RUclipsr by a 1/4 mile.
Underrated comment
Bro keep these videos coming man. WE LOVE IT!!!!!
Great video as always, i try to share them to as many people as possible to up your counts,keep it up
Awesome explanation! Today I learned something new.
8:39 average american buyer who thinks horsepower is everything
Amen. I'm a proud American, but I'm also a proud heel. Tow shifter and road course enthusiast. Don't get me wrong when it comes to horse power, more is usually desirable, but the majority of imbeciles on the road these days can't handle the horse. How are they have especially in a rear wheel drive :)
My buddy and I as a joke took my 2010 Taurus, and his 2013 both SELs. Ford says they are supposed to be like 260 & 280, but my 2010 made 302hp and his made 282hp. The guy at the event said I won the engine lottery, since I made so much more than advertised.
Actually my stock Toyota supra is making over 3000hp. Yeah. Toyota underrated it big time.
the zf6hp21 transmission in the bmws, eats horspower numbers, but the newer 8hp is actually a planetary gearset, 4 actual gears, 2 gears engaged at all times in diff combinations to = 8 gears. the converter in the 8hp locks up 100% so theres no loss throught the gearbox, thats actually the reason why bmws are coming with more power. the n54s only the manuals were putting down 320-330whp , the automatics were barely making 305whp due to the 6hp. the dct and manual cars are always higher whp than rated because they rate the automatics and use those numbers for the EPA .
The 1970 chevelle ss 454 was one of those that was underrated. That 454 in 1970 was a monster.
The opening statement I think is very misleading. Tourque and horsepower are very closely related. The statement literally makes no sense since horsepower is more important. A course in classical physics tells you acceleration a=f/m, so force accelerates cars. Useing tiresizes, finaldrive and gearing you can calculate the exact force produced by the car in a specific gear with a specific amount of torque.
But what happends when you shift up? The gearing variable is reduced and thus is our car meaning the same engine torque produces less acceleration. Meaning staying in a lower gear is good for acceleration, in the same way as high torque is.
This is why we use horsepower. Hp is tourqe * rpm / constant. A diesel has tons of tourqe especially at low rmp. So they have to use higher gearing that hurts acceleration. Great for towing stuff at a low fuel consumption. But equally good as a petrol engine with similar hp. Since the lower tourqe engine has the same accelerating force using lower gearing.
The 2017 Focus RS was another joke with ford power ratings. They Dyno using fwd only and come no where near the ridiculous 350 hp rating with a difference of 70-80 hp! 270 hp was not uncommon which fwd only reading should lead to a 11 percent difference not over 20%.
I know I owned one and a stock wrx sti easily outruns it.
Wow! Great job on the research and presentation! This is what car RUclips should be!