....horsepower..horsepower......what's the big deal?
...you can have twice the HP , but if ya can't drive..ya can't drive !
...just keep talkin' on your cells , putting on your makeup and eating your burger & fries...and you will be seeing my taillights .

 

Another good email...

 

I realize what what y'all are saying, and I don't disagree with the logical arguments, however all I'm saying is State the facts as it IS ~ and allow the previous stats which were once "fact" to remain in the past-tense (and yes, I understand the argument "...its the same motor, etc..." ~ however they achieve different figures than they did @ the end).
I've no intension of diss'n Toyota, infact I have the utmost respect for them. However, I'm the type of person that will tell it as it is... No diluting the truth. me if u must, I'd just hate to ever hear Toyotas getting it like Hyundai Motor Co. did (even though I HIGHLY doubt Toyota would EVER allow themselves to get into such hot waters).

 

Not sure what the big deal is. Do people not test drive a car before buying it? I look at four major things when I buy a car. Price, Looks, Capability, and Average MPG.

If people are going... "Man this <car name> drives like crap but has 300 hp and this other one drives amazing but only has 200 hp, I am going to get the 300hp one then. " They are just idiots.

I can show an example (video) of two race prepped cars. One a Sylvia Turbo making a crap load of hp, the other a much lighter, better handling, 190 hp MR2 spyder... the Mr2 beat it up and down hill! HP even in race prepped cars is a very small part of how the car drives and feels... why are people freaking out over a very small change like this that makes NO impact on how it drives, only how it looks on paper!

They changed the test and thus the results, not the car.

 

just like the forced induction threads..."my car puts out XXX hp on XXX dyno". ok, yay. what is the change in 0-60? 60-80? 0-100? that is what matters - what the car can DO not what it is measured as.

 

Actually 0-60 times don't matter much to me @ all, beause i've seen people win the 1/4 mile @ slower top speeds than their opponents, but somehow get there quicker.
1/4 mile times often prove to be much more realistic in terms of power & performance than 0-60 times.
http://youtube.com/watch?v=WskDefCOtgs&search=TC

 

Now we're getting somewhere. The clearest way to describe it in my mind is that torque is how hard the engine pulls, and horsepower is driveability. The more horsepower, the fewer gears the transmission needs to do the same work. A high horsepower V-8 can be perfectly happy with a tranny that has only 3 gears (or even 2, like on a early model drag strip car), but a high torque engine (like a diesel on a semi truck) might need 20 gears to do what it needs to do, if the horsepower isn't high enough.

They are both important. Considering the testing method of the SAE involves a dynomometer, having the AC on, and things like that, its pretty safe to say the torque test changed just the same as the HP test did, I didn't really think it through. Some people say that horsepower is never truly measured, but is actually calculated by taking a measure of the torque at known RPMs. It might just be semantics.

 

Yep.

And ditto for the rest of your posts.

 

People panic way too much. SAE doesn't change the motors or power delivered, it just changed the way they calculate power. Which in return, causes numbers to go down instead of up. Technically speaking, the xb/xa still has 108hp, but it technically has to be listed as 103hp with a 5hp drivetrain loss. This doesn't effect anything, a 108hp xb is not faster than a SAE 103hp rated xb. Only difference is the scales.

Relax.

 

One thing people tend to forget a lot is power to weight. Xb/xa is pretty fast with 120-130whp. Yeah, its not the fastest thing on the road but thats more than enough power for a daily occasional track car. Especially with the gearing, even on the auto's the gearing is closer than most. Personally, i feel the xb/xa pulls pretty decent stock. Its nothing fast, but by no means is it horrid and slower than anything else. Cornering and breaking, hardly anything can match the xb and xa with that when it comes to price. I autocross, and i've done well. Enough to win 6 of 8 last year in my class so the way i see it, if you want a drag queen neither is going to be great for you. But if you want a nice daily, go for it. If you want a car that can handle, go for it.

SAE or not, it doesn't effect the true performance of any car. No matter how much hp is effected, your still going to perform the same.

 

That makes sense because people who look at cars only from horsepower numbers are most likely to be uneducated. My opinion is.. just dyno the car if they want a more practical number.

 

A lot of us live in cities which means you cant go flat out for a 1/4 mile anyways. Drag racing is fun but its got nothing in common with every day driving. Whats a tC do in a 1/4 mile? High 80s maybe 90? Good luck ever finding the space do that without having to slow down because of traffic. I do agree that 1/4 is a better indicator of power than 0-60 though.

 

I get why you're getting frustrated but Toyota did tell it as it was! Kinda. All one had to do was read the standards at the time. That's why it bugs me that these people are bugging Darren. They were just dilluting their own truth.

 

Agreed

You know what? They should just post dyno graphs of the lab tested results.

 

I think we can all agree that the "auto industry" is in it to make money - any company most likely milks the truth atleast a little, otherwise there wouldn't be this topic for debate. If it was just one company trying to "scam" society (like Hyundai) that would make more sense, however the article states pretty much only japanese automakers (article written by a detroit newspaper) ... while domestic autos came out lookin better.. Could this be a ploy to try and make japanese autos look a tad shaddy? perhaps--
No one wants a diluted truth, and whether they tried to "dilute" japanese autos credibility (by altering the standards in which they test) i can only leave to speculation.. the exact #s would be nice to see though... and perhaps this conspiracy can be solved..
I do agree with the automakers posting what the vehicle can atleast achieve ~ and potentially more =)

 

I dont think its only against the domestic automakers. Sure its from a Detroit paper but they do their share of bashing domestics too. Its not as 1 sided as you might think. Dont forget Ford has been busted for fudging their numbers in the past. It was a big deal at the time but it blew over just like this will. Most companies have at 1 time or another.

This time its just different test methods that were legal. They found a loop hole and used it. It was nothing dishonest.

 

Exactly my point. I mentioned 0-60 because that is what people will do 99% of the time on the street. Granted not full acceleration runs from 0-60 (although some freeway onramps in Hawaii seem to be designed with that requirement in mind!), but that's why I mentioned 60-80 (passing performance). In other words, how will the car be able to perform in everyday driving situations that drivers will see most of the time. Gearing is big here too because power through the wrong ratios will not let you do what you want to do in a given situation.

I'll bet you can set up a car to have an awesome top end, but poor low end that will win a 1/4 mile race, but on the street it will be a PITA to drive because you can't merge from a stop with oncoming traffic. Low and mid range is what gets you around town and even on the freeway if you are in top gear and you have enough reserves you can just wiggle your right toe and pass without downshifting and revving past 5k to get the 'real power'.

 

I would like to translate that fellow's statement about Darren favoring "fur'in" cars.

This is for you South Park fans too;


"Dey Tuk UR JERBS!"
"Day Tok Er Jarbs!"
"de tik ar JURBS!"

 

Come on now.. calm down and have a coke. I didnt attack anyone. And I am all for integrity and honesty.. it is what I base a lot of my life off of. Anyone who has read many of my posts or done business with me knows that, so I dont need to hear about integrity from you. You obviously have missed my point by a million miles. ACTUAL HP numbers? At the crank, with accessories, at the wheels? at what temp? at what altitude? at what humidity? I could go on and on.. there is no such thing as ACTUAL true HP numbers. They all based them off a certain type of measurment.. now the standard for measurement has changed so they have to do it a different way. Period. If anyone bases a comparison off of hp or tq by itself they are so far off base and so far from the laws of physics they dont have a true comparison to start with. Hey, why dont they measure it at the wheels? Well,,, then you add so much variation due to tolerances throughout the whole system that you could be off a good amount depending on when you test. The most consistent number given during a test is when you have the most control and least number of variables, hence bhp with no accessories. But, the average consumer many times thinks "wow car A has 200 HP, and car B has 180hp, so car A is a better car", so they dont know what the hell they are getting to start with unfortunately. For the average consumer, 0-60 times and 1/4 mile times are probably better anyway.. at least that tells something (although little) about the overall performance.

Now, if one company is variating from the standard of measurement used at the time.. then they are lying. They state the HP of the engine used.. and have for years, someone decided to make it more car-specific so they all adjusted for it. Thats it.

And as far as all the who cares about HP, its about 0-60, no its about tq... it is not about any one thing in particular period. It is about how much tq is delivered over the useable powerband to create useable hp, how wide the powerband is, the weight of the car, the gearing, the wheel size, redline, drivetrain loss, etc. If you dont take it all into consideration it is just a wild guess as to which one is better. I can build a 100 hp car that will stomp a 250hp car 0-60.... but it will only run 60 So any one point alone is meaningless.

 

^On ur same token - You've missed my point completely. We all know u can go on and on comparing output numbers and what not, but thats not what i'm talking about. I agree with u that one number alone doesn't = a better car, however it isn't entirely about HP numbers. Its about stating the truth, and whether japanese autos did or didn't. The detroit newspaper (which this article was derived from) made it seem like japanese autos are liars when it was the actual tests standards that the numbers were based off of that changed. There's a MAJOR difference compared to Hyundai faking +10% more power when there actually wasn't. The simple fact is everyone expects a product to perform to exactly whats being advertised no matter what condition. Anything less would be falsifying the truth. Yes, different factors = different results, which is the reason why I say take the conservative approach with the #s and no one gets hurt (meaning under the most extreme conditions advertise those numbers instead of optimal conditions). In anycase, it seems more and more likely that "someone" is/was trying to damage credibility. Its a lot easier to target #1 than it is being #1.
My point is & was directed towards Toyota ~ to stay honest and never fake anything.