Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
On another site I asked what happened when a 90s Acura could have a 1.8L with 170 hp without a turbo but today’s non-turbo 1.8L are lucky to have 150hp. One guy replied that there was a change in how HP is measured in 2007. Is this true? I know about the gross to net change in the 70s but I haven’t heard about a change as recent as 2007 that would change HP numbers.
I owned one of those higher horsepower, low displacement Honda four cylinders. To get that power they used variable valve timing, exhaust upgrades and turning. And they were a little on the loud side. Typically those were also the tuned versions of the same engine that was used with lesser HP. I think what really changed is that Honda realized that simply increasing displacement could get them the power without having noise/vibration become an issue. Audi/VW were the ones who really found the best combo of small engine, strong/refined power with the direct injection, turbo charged engines in the mid to late 00s. That proved a better way to find power. Honda's latest card have moved to that strategy.
Might have to do with MPG requirements that kicked in about that time.
That seems more likely. Makes me wonder if electronic tuning could bring out the horsepower available (but sacrificing fuel economy) or reverse in maximizing fuel economy tuning while sacrificing horsepower. I understand when developing vehicles they develop the minimum MPG numbers to meet standards, be competitive, while still offering the power Americans demand for acceleration.
U.S. automakers continue to use SAE net ratings, but in 2005, the SAE issued a new standard, J2723, which clarified and amended the existing methodology, among other things requiring that a suitably qualified independent observer be present during the rating procedure. Some engines measured under the new “SAE Certified Power” guidelines ended up with lower ratings than before while a few others actually ended up with higher ratings. In most cases, the engines were not actually altered in any significant way; the changes were in the test methodology. Most if not all manufacturers now use this methodology for the U.S.-market cars and trucks.
Japanese automakers rate the outputs of their home-market cars under the Japanese Industrial Standards (JIS), which include methodologies for both gross and net output. The difference between the two was generally around 15%, sometimes a little more, sometimes a little less. Until the mid-eighties, most Japanese automakers quoted JIS gross figures for most if not all products sold in the domestic market. The switch to JIS net ratings began around 1985, but wasn’t completed until late in the decade. Confusingly, for some model years, manufacturers would quote net ratings for some engines and gross ratings for others even within a single model line. Prior to 1971, most non-U.S. automakers would publish SAE gross figures for all engines exported to the U.S. However, foreign automakers seldom indulged in the kind of gamesmanship Detroit sometimes played with its gross ratings, so the differences between gross and net ratings were typically small and probably fairly realistic. For example, the Triumph TR4 carried a gross rating of 105 hp (78 kW) and a net rating of 100 hp (75 kW) while a 1963 Mercedes-Benz 230SL had a gross rating of 170 hp (127 kW) SAE and a net rating of 150 PS (110 kW) DIN. https://ateupwithmotor.com/terms-tec...et-horsepower/
Google is your best friend. You apparently have plenty of time to post all kinds of questions in various forums, so maybe just look it up.
I have a Integra GSR 1.8 liter with 170 HP 8,100 RPM redline and it revs easily to that redline non turbo. It's DOHC with vtec and a tuned intake and exhaust. The whole engine is built like a racing engine. Lesser and most Hondas have a more conventional engine. Honda learned how to make high RPM engines with motorcycles.
There are quite a few Honda models with their performance engines.
That was the B18C motors, so they made peak horsepower between 7,200 and 8,200. The K20C2 in the current Civic won't rev to 7,000. They did make the K20Z1/Z3/Z4 through around 2010 which made around 200 hp at 8,000 which was really the replacement for the B18C motors. Acura RSX, Civic Si/R is were you'd find those and not the base model Civic similar to the old '90s Integras made around 140 HP, GSR made 170.
They just stopped making that kind of engine. Current Civic R uses the K20C1, which is turbocharged. They still make the K24 in the ILX and TLX, but even those don't rev that high. More displacement does help with the torque though.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
