Isn't it illegal?

[Paolino]

Okay, I was just watching a Toyota commercial advertising their sedans when they announced their "270hp Avalon". Are they allowed to "round up"?

I mean, at first their ratings went from 280 to 268 when the new system came out, and their commercials kept preaching 280 rather than changing the voiceover for the correct numbers.

But now, blatently announcing "270" when it's still a couple of hp off--isn't that illegal?

I'm not going to complain over 2hp--no one would notice the difference, but it's more the principal of the matter. How can you try to be the world's biggest auto maker, and lie?

Sorry, I know that sounds like a stupid question because this world is FULL of lies, but dishonesty in any fashion really really pisses me off. :angry:

[razoredge]

Well you know I love Toyota......yarite ! But I wouldnt worry about 2 hp, they probably only have 230 anyhow. the one tested was most likely tweaked and running on rice blend alcohol. Haaaaaaaaa!

[Guest YellowJacket894]

Sue 'em! Go buy a Avalon and say you bought it based on the horsepower ratings and tell them how pissed off you were about the false advertisments and sue 'em! Take 'em for what you can get! But seriously... someone should sue for false advertisment.

[Guest gmrebirth]

Sorry, I know that sounds like a stupid question because this world is FULL of lies, but dishonesty in any fashion really really pisses me off.  :angry:

[post="62898"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You must live a miserable life then, if you can't stand dishonesty and lies. It's not like GM or other automakers are angels in this regard.

[Polish_Kris]

You must live a miserable life then, if you can't stand dishonesty and lies. It's not like GM or other automakers are angels in this regard.

[post="63025"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I know, btw, we live in North America where it is nothing but dishonesty and lies. Look at George Bush, he led America into a war BASED on a lie :angry: Edited December 24, 2005 by Polish_Kris

[Paolino]

You must live a miserable life then, if you can't stand dishonesty and lies. It's not like GM or other automakers are angels in this regard.

[post="63025"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I know, btw, we live in North America where it is nothing but dishonesty and lies.  Look at George Bush, he led America into a was BASED on a lie :angry:

[post="63029"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I wouldn't say a miserable life, but man, things like this piss me off. Politics in the work place piss me off. Students who blatently lie to me piss me off. And worst yet, men who lie to me are gone immediately.

[razoredge]

Its worse than that Paulie. 270 Toyo power = 195 GM power, they just gear the cars down like dragsters so they appear fast. Ha !

[sciguy_0504]

I know, btw, we live in North America where it is nothing but dishonesty and lies.  Look at George Bush, he led America into a was BASED on a lie :angry:

[post="63029"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

When can liberals finally admit to themselves that faulty intelligence does not equal lying? Really, it's so tiring.

[w00t_man]

No kidding! If the head of the CIA told you to go to war, what would you say?

[pow]

When can liberals finally admit to themselves that faulty intelligence does not equal lying?  Really, it's so tiring.

[post="63055"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[cheap shot] You're using Polish_Kris as an indicator of how most "liberals" think? No wonder why our intelligence is faulty. [/cheap shot]

[capriceman]

Hey keep politics out of this thats a whole other story, What polition DOESN'T lie???? But yeah i hate lieing auto makers. GM has never over rated engines they have underrated there engines. EX. its changed now but the SSR has always 390 HP when then went to the LS2 but the GTO and Vette had 400 hundered so they didnt just round it off. the only overated car that i know of GM having is the Vibe. I Dynoed my mom's at 104 HP when they claim 120 HP thats 16 HP!!! You might think o its the type of dyno you used. The dyno that i used at the shop has software that deletes the drivetrain. it really read 99 HP at the wheels and 104 after the software think what is at the flywheel. :Toyota: Edited December 24, 2005 by capriceman

[funkypunnk]

I know, btw, we live in North America where it is nothing but dishonesty and lies.  Look at George Bush, he led America into a war BASED on a lie :angry:

[post="63029"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah, and no Dems EVER did anything based on a lie, huh? How can Democrats point a finger at the President when your guy, the most blatant liar of all, Bill Clinton, not only lied under oath, a felony, but created a whole new definition of sex where the woman could be having sex with a man who isn't! We won't even talk about Whitewater and all of the indictments handed down through that debacle. Kennedy never lied, right? I think Democrat must be a synonym for "convenient memory"!

The one thing I can say about our President is at least he has enough conviction to take a stand and ride it, unlike Kerry who turned on his own fellow servicemembers and testified against them, which as an honorably discharged artilleryman is unthinkable to me.

They broke down enlistment by viewpoint and found that Democrats are half as likely to serve their country than Republicans, says alot!

If you are not willing to die for it, you shouldn't get the privilege of enjoying freedom's gifts!

[CSpec]

This thread has gone far enough down the path of mindless partisan rhetoric.

[razoredge]

I always thought they were all about the same modern internal combustion engines and their "ratings" that is

[Satty]

Go get 100 Corvettes. Dyno all of them. I bet a couple make less than 400hp, maybe 397, 399, and I'm sure some make 404hp. It isn't false advertising because no two engines are going to be exactly alike, there are going to be variances that may lead to a pony or two being lost or found. And if you can feel the difference(seat of the pants) between 400 and 398hp or 270 and 268hp then you have the most sensitive ass ever.

[cmattson]

When can liberals finally admit to themselves that faulty intelligence does not equal lying?

I guess when you have several people inside your own intelligence agency debunking a few of the claims (ahem, Niger uranium), my personal standards would say that standing in front of the country in a State of the Union address and holding it up as one of the key reasons why we need to go to war against another nation wouldn't exactly fall under "completely truthfull". Would I call it lying? Not exactly. I wouldn't call it truthfull either.

Here's the complete transcript of that Jan'03 State of the Union address:
http://www.whitehouse.gov/news/releases/20...0030128-19.html

Go ahead and re-read it. Pay close attention to how many references are made to "installing a democracy" and "bringing freedom to the Iraqi people (zero). Pay close attention to how many times it's mentioned that the Iraqi people need to be free'd from a horendous dictator (zero). Now look at the *absolute pile* that is presented about WMD. Meanwhile the United Nations and it's weapons inspectors were saying that there was nothing conlcusive - and that they needed more time. People within your OWN intelligence agencies had doubt and concern about the validity of some of the claims in questions. Don't forget that our military left weapon stores unguarded and Nuclear waste storage facilities unguarded in their advance on Bahgdad. Just space me the fairy tale about "keeping our country safe from terrorists", okay?

You may not be able to blame Bush for "lying", but you can certainly blame him for not presenting all of the information available to him (pro-war AND con-war). You can also fault him for surrounding himself solely with "yes people". There's no room for a dissenting view (on any topic) within this admnistration. Everything is put in perspective of black or white, with-us or against us. IMO, that's very small minded -- and it's cost this country dearly.

[carman21]

Liberal Politics=Childish Rants :rolleyes: Get over it! Why is politics in this forum anyway? Merry Christmas!! :CG_all: Opps, I'm being politically incorrect, sorry :o :rolleyes: Happy Holidays! :)

[cmattson]

Liberal Politics=Childish Rants :rolleyes:
Get over it! Why is politics in this forum anyway?

Merry Christmas!! :CG_all:
Opps, I'm being politically incorrect, sorry  :o  :rolleyes:
Happy Holidays! :)

[post="63136"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Kudo's to carman for putting everything into perspective! I'll get on board with that: Merry Christmas everyone! Edited December 24, 2005 by cmattson

[Flybrian]

Yes, let's get off this pointless, circular political argument. Merry Christmas!

[Northstar]

the only overated car that i know of GM having is the Vibe. I Dynoed my mom's at 104 HP when they claim 120 HP thats 16 HP!!!

[post="63082"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Was the dyno for HP at the wheels? If it was 104 HP at the wheels then the rating of 120 is pretty accurate.

[Polish_Kris]

I appologize, got over the edge there.... shouldn't have involved politics, especially Bush and the Iraq war, could have stated the comparison in a different way.... However Merry Christmas everyone! And yes here in Canada, the politically correct was to say it is "Happy Holidays" But screw it. And getting back to me being Liberal, actually, suprisingly I'm not. Federal elections are coming up, and I believe the Conservatives deserve to win. Liberalism is good for only the short term.... there I go again.... anyways, Merry Christmas :cheers:

[siegen]

GM has never over rated engines they have underrated there engines.

But since they aren't going to be testing any of their old engines using the new SAE standard, how would we ever know if they were over rated or not?

the only overated car that i know of GM having is the Vibe. I Dynoed my mom's at 104 HP when they claim 120 HP thats 16 HP!!!

You might think o its the type of dyno you used. The dyno that i used at the shop has software that deletes the drivetrain. it really read 99 HP at the wheels and 104 after the software think what is at the flywheel.

You have a bit more to learn about dynamometers. That dyno was most likely a roller Dyno (the most common), which reads TQ inaccurately at the wheels. Software has to be used to account for the diameter of the tires, and the gear ratio chosen. The software cannot "delete" the drivetrain (accurately at least). A roller dyno should never be used to compare power between different cars or between different shops and their dynomometers. Roller dyno's sole purpose is to establish a baseline for tuning/modifying, and to track changes in TQ on the same car as the owner changes out parts and adjusts a/f ratios, timing, etc.

Roller dyno's are tuning tools for people who don't have access to a Dynopack, they should not be used to compare results between different dyno's.

The only fairly accurate dyno is a Dynopack, which attaches directly to the brake hub. The software can accurately account for the gear reduction, and give exact results (as long as the dynopack is adjusted properly).

[Guest gmrebirth]

Its worse than that Paulie. 270 Toyo power = 195 GM power, they just gear the cars down like dragsters so they appear fast.

Ha !

[post="63052"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yeah, real dragster the Toyota Avalon is ... the whole car shakes when you change gears. :rolleyes:

Give me a break! Toyotas tend to be as smooth as butter. I find GM's cars to be a bit rougher gearing-wise.

You want to talk about gearing, let's talk about the super-high gearing in Corvettes, which along with the Vette's light weight, gives the LS2 such "great" fuel economy. When the same LS2 in a CTS-V or Escalade gets much worse fuel economy.

[ToniCipriani]

Yeah, real dragster the Toyota Avalon is ... the whole car shakes when you change gears.  :rolleyes:

Give me a break! Toyotas tend to be as smooth as butter. I find GM's cars to be a bit rougher gearing-wise.

You want to talk about gearing, let's talk about the super-high gearing in Corvettes, which along with the Vette's light weight, gives the LS2 such "great" fuel economy. When the same LS2 in a CTS-V or Escalade gets much worse fuel economy.

[post="63348"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

When did the Escalade get the LS2? Don't argue with me that the Vortec and the LS2 the same blocks. There are enough differences to be the different.

All I can see that you are just mindlessly praising Toyota for some reason. Have you really sat in one? I have. All my friends around me drive Toyotas and Hondas, some even drive Bimmers.

Enough is enough. People really have to stop bashing domestics for no reason whatsoever. My friend who has been in imports for long enough, even he admit that my Cavalier has a better transmission than his Accord. Shifts are unnoticeable on my Cavalier whereas his Accord gives him a big jerk when shifting. His Accord's even newer than mine and better maintained, as his father works at a Honda dealer and he keeps it nice and well worked under the hood.

[Sixty8panther]

Go get 100 Corvettes.  Dyno all of them.  I bet a couple make less than 400hp, maybe 397, 399, and I'm sure some make 404hp.

First off I highly doubt it. GM has a track record of always rounding down. They under-promise and over-deliver. Which is what any decent self respecting manufacturer should do. Just in the past decade there has been like a half dozen times that GM cars were dynoed and they turned out to be more powerful than advertised. Esp. the F-body and Corvette. Even crate motors. My crate 350 motor should be producing exactly 377 wiht the setup I have. And yet even with the 20K or whatever miles it has on it, 14 years of abuse and beat up headers taht restrict flow it still outpreforms it's ratings. GRanted I've never had it dynoed but when old time dragracers ask you if you've got 400+ HP then I think it's safe to say it's more than 377.


Second, that'snot the point. The point is the HP shoulnd't be rounded up. Esp. when that manufacturere has had to adjust their HP because according to SAE it was exagerated already. <_<

[razoredge]

Yeah, real dragster the Toyota Avalon is ... the whole car shakes when you change gears.  :rolleyes:

:unsure: "the whole car shakes" :unsure: Whats that got to do with tractor final drives ?

Give me a break! Toyotas tend to be as smooth as butter. I find GM's cars to be a bit rougher gearing-wise.

:unsure: Strange ! I thought GM was always bashed for its slow, smooth shifts, termed as "sloppy" by the hateing media, because they dont slam the next gear. You right though with 50 some years of automatics no way could GM possibly build good ones.......that shifted to suit the needs all know it alls.

You want to talk about gearing, let's talk about the super-high gearing in Corvettes, which along with the Vette's light weight, gives the LS2 such "great" fuel economy. When the same LS2 in a CTS-V or Escalade gets much worse fuel economy.

:unsure: So the Corvette is light ? Wow, thats news ! I thought is was modeled to fit in the same segment as the Suburban.....which would explain why it should get the same mileage as the fit and trim, aerodynamic Escalade :lol: Im not sure on what final drive ratios are available, but the dual OD 6 sure is some ultimate transmission  :lol: Oh wait, I forgot........."a bit rougher gearing-wise."

[post="63348"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

[sciguy_0504]

Did anyone care to read the small print, if there was any, on this Toyota ad? Did it mention what type of fuel was being used? For the old SAE standards, Toyota would use premium fuel during testing so HP numbers would appear larger. Under the new SAE standards only one type of fuel can be used and it's the normal stuff almost everyone uses. That's one big reason the Avalon and Camry dropped (and can gain) HP.

[Polish_Kris]

Did anyone care to read the small print, if there was any, on this Toyota ad?  Did it mention what type of fuel was being used?  For the old SAE standards, Toyota would use premium fuel during testing so HP numbers would appear larger.  Under the new SAE standards only one type of fuel can be used and it's the normal stuff almost everyone uses.  That's one big reason the Avalon and Camry dropped (and can gain) HP.

[post="63375"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

They test them under 91 octane

[razoredge]

Did anyone care to read the small print, if there was any, on this Toyota ad?  Did it mention what type of fuel was being used?  For the old SAE standards, Toyota would use premium fuel during testing so HP numbers would appear larger.  Under the new SAE standards only one type of fuel can be used and it's the normal stuff almost everyone uses.  That's one big reason the Avalon and Camry dropped (and can gain) HP.

[post="63375"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

If you have time sometime do a little research on octane. Octane has nothing to do with horse power. Burning rocket fuel will not give you a rocket. Octane is the ability to resist preignition under compression. In otherword waiting for the spark timing before it ignites. Picture is you can, how fast those pistons are moving at even 3000 RPM, ignition is so critical, if you have a high compression or forced induction engine 87 octane will light off long before it is supposed to, this is why these types of engines require high octane. That is all. You can run all the high octane you want in your typical standard transporting engine and you are simply throwing away 20-30 cent per gallon. High octane gas in not some majic power packing formula.....it actually burns cooler.

Toyotas still suck, but Im just telling you this so you dont have that misunderstanding. I somewhat had it for many years but my seat of the pants and wallet kept telling me different. Then finally one day I was set straight by a race builder.

There are some variables in today engines due to knock sensors and computer controlled spark advance, however whatever octane the manufacturer calls for is what achieves that givin engines optimum performance. So if they say 87, you can not boost that by spending more at the pump. If you have a SC engine..say... and buy 87 rather than the 92 or 93, under hard acceleration your knock sensors will detect knock(preignition) and retard the ignition timing and that engine will loose some power on account of the less advanced timing. You will also eventually do some engine damage.

[capriceman]

Do you really thik i just roll a car on to a "roller" dyno and just let er rip? Yes I no about all the technical crap. the wheel size and everything. Listen The software I used in the run was used before. on a engine dyno at the fly wheel we tested a 350 with some modifications it read 403 HP 427 TQ in a truck with complete drivetrain the actualy read was 393 HP 410 TQ at the wheel. NOW when those numbers went in to this program it said the engine power would be 402 HP and 426 TQ at the fly wheel. thats Damn close. So maybe I have to much trust in this program. Yes satty is right not every engine will make the same exact Horse Power. But to me 16 HP is huge.

[Guest gmrebirth]

When did the Escalade get the LS2? Don't argue with me that the Vortec and the LS2 the same blocks. There are enough differences to be the different.

All I can see that you are just mindlessly praising Toyota for some reason. Have you really sat in one? I have. All my friends around me drive Toyotas and Hondas, some even drive Bimmers.

Enough is enough. People really have to stop bashing domestics for no reason whatsoever. My friend who has been in imports for long enough, even he admit that my Cavalier has a better transmission than his Accord. Shifts are unnoticeable on my Cavalier whereas his Accord gives him a big jerk when shifting. His Accord's even newer than mine and better maintained, as his father works at a Honda dealer and he keeps it nice and well worked under the hood.

[post="63359"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I don't have to argue. You have your opinion and I have mine. The Vortec is derived from the LS2, simple as that.

Mindlessly? Excuse me? Unlike most fanatics on this forum, I can back up just about anything I say with facts or proof, other than my own opinion, because you can't prove an opinion.

Some of you really need to start being objective and not so one sided, but I feel as if this is too much to ask from many here on C & G.

[Guest gmrebirth]

"the whole car shakes"  Whats that got to do with tractor final drives ?

Strange ! I thought GM was always bashed for its slow, smooth shifts, termed as "sloppy" by the hateing media, because they dont slam the next gear. You right though with 50 some years of automatics no way could GM possibly build good ones.......that shifted to suit the needs all know it alls.

So the Corvette is light ? Wow, thats news ! I thought is was modeled to fit in the same segment as the Suburban.....which would explain why it should get the same mileage as the fit and trim, aerodynamic Escalade  Im not sure on what final drive ratios are available, but the dual OD 6 sure is some ultimate transmission Oh wait, I forgot........."a bit rougher gearing-wise."

Uhh, what does gearing have to do with tranny smoothness? That's like asking what does butter have to do with toast.

It may be a matter of opinion. GM's 4 speeds, combined with their OHV engines, to me are "rough" shifting, but I'm not going to debate this, as it is simply an opinion.

I don't even need to bring up the Escalade to show my point. You conveniently left out the CTS-V, which despite having a 6 speed manual like the Vette, gets only 15/23 EPA mileage. It's curb weight is about 3500lb. Comparing it to the LS2 C6 6 speed manual, it gets 18/28 EPA mileage. Curb weight is about 3200lb.

A difference of 300lb in weight alone is not enough to warrant the considerable difference in fuel economy. Take a look at the Lexus LS430 and the GS430. They both use the same tranny and engine, and there is a 250lb weight difference between them. But they both get the same EPA mileage (18/25 EPA).

My point is that the LSx is not some magical engine series that always gets great economy. It only gets good economy in a Corvette, which is extremely light.

I've always said it's economy would greatly differ when put in other vehicles, and I was right.

[Guest gmrebirth]

If you have time sometime do a little research on octane. Octane has nothing to do with horse power. Burning rocket fuel will not give you a rocket. Octane is the ability to resist preignition under compression. In otherword waiting for the spark timing before it ignites. Picture is you can, how fast those pistons are moving at even 3000 RPM, ignition is so critical, if you have a high compression or forced induction engine 87 octane will light off long before it is supposed to, this is why these types of engines require high octane. That is all. You can run all the high octane you want in your typical standard transporting engine and you are simply throwing away 20-30 cent per gallon. High octane gas in not some majic power packing formula.....it actually burns cooler.

Toyotas still suck, but Im just telling you this so you dont have that misunderstanding. I somewhat had it for many years but my seat of the pants and wallet kept telling me different. Then finally one day I was set straight by a race builder.

There are some variables in today engines due to knock sensors and computer controlled spark advance, however whatever octane the manufacturer calls for is what achieves that givin engines optimum performance. So if they say 87, you can not boost that by spending more at the pump. If you have a SC engine..say... and buy 87 rather than the 92 or 93, under hard acceleration your knock sensors will detect knock(preignition) and retard the ignition timing and that engine will loose some power on account of the less advanced timing. You will also eventually do some engine damage.

[post="63485"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Yes, octane CAN affect horsepower that much.

Let me explain:

The 2005 Camry SE V6:
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/toyota/ca...5315/specs.html

It made 225HP and 240 lb-ft torque. It was tested using premium fuel.

http://toyota.com/camry/specs_v6.html
2006 Camry SE V6. Same engine, same vehicle basically, yet now it makes 210HP and 220 lb-ft torque. Many of you jump on the bandwagon and say this is because Toyota "overrated" and "lied" and that this huge drop is due to the new SAE standards.

But, lets look at the Lexus ES which uses the same 3.3L V6 engine as the Camry SE V6:

http://www.edmunds.com/used/2004/lexus/es3...2064/specs.html
2004 Lexus ES made 225HP and 240lb-ft torque, the SAME figures as the 2005 Camry SE V6. This is because *both* cars were tested with premium fuel.

http://www.lexus.com/models/es/specifications.html
The 2006 Lexus ES with the same engine now makes 218HP and 236 lb-ft torque. Funny, why then doesn't the 2006 Camry SE V6 make those kind of numbers? Or why did Toyota state different numbers?

Simple: the 2006 Camry SE V6 was tested with regular fuel, as opposed to premium. The 2006 ES was tested with premium just like the 2004 ES. Thus the small power drop you see is the actual drop experienced due to the new SAE changes.

The drop the Camry SE V6 experienced is mainly due to using a lower octane gas. Now why is this? Because Toyota designed the 3.3L V6 primarily for premium fuel, even though it works fine under regular. The knock sensors are overly sensitive, and when going to a lower octane of fuel, the knock sensors ensure smooth and refined power delivery at the cost of some HP and torque.

This is a similar story with the Avalon's 3.5L V6 engine: For 2005, the Avalon was tested with premium fuel, and got 280HP and 260lb-ft torque. For 2006, the Avalon's engine is listed at 268HP and 248 lb-ft torque. These numbers are achieved using regular fuel. The drop in listed power was due to the 3.5L V6 using a lower octane fuel. But as you can see, the knock sensors in Toyota's new V6 are not as sensitive, so the power drop when switching octanes is smaller than the 3.3L V6.

As for SAE ratings, check this out: http://www.toyota.com/rav4/specs.html

The Rav 4 V6 with the Avalon's engine makes 269HP and 246 lb-ft torque. I believe this is re-rated using the new SAE guidelines. Edited December 30, 2005 by gmrebirth

[siegen]

My point is that the LSx is not some magical engine series that always gets great economy. It only gets good economy in a Corvette, which is extremely light.

I've always said it's economy would greatly differ when put in other vehicles, and I was right.

[post="65397"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The weight is important, but Aerodynamics play a big role as well. The Corvette has a very small frontal area compared to the Cadillac, and the rear windshield slope doesn't create drag like a normal sedan or coupe does (air doesn't detach from the contour of the body so much). I imagine the underbody has significant improvements when compared to a Cadillac as well, since the Corvette is designed to see speeds well over 100mph.

This is probably why you see the most difference in the highway mileage.

[siegen]

Yes, octane CAN affect horsepower that much.

Let me explain:

The 2005 Camry SE V6:
http://www.edmunds.com/used/2005/toyota/ca...5315/specs.html

It made 225HP and 240 lb-ft torque. It was tested using premium fuel.

http://toyota.com/camry/specs_v6.html
2006 Camry SE V6. Same engine, same vehicle basically, yet now it makes 210HP and 220 lb-ft torque. Many of you jump on the bandwagon and say this is because Toyota "overrated" and "lied" and that this huge drop is due to the new SAE standards.

But, lets look at the Lexus ES which uses the same 3.3L V6 engine as the Camry SE V6:

http://www.edmunds.com/used/2004/lexus/es3...2064/specs.html
2004 Lexus ES made 225HP and 240lb-ft torque, the SAME figures as the 2005 Camry SE V6. This is because *both* cars were tested with premium fuel.

http://www.lexus.com/models/es/specifications.html
The 2006 Lexus ES with the same engine now makes 218HP and 236 lb-ft torque. Funny, when then doesn't the 2006 Camry SE V6 make those kind of numbers? Or why did Toyota state different numbers?

Simple: the 2006 Camry SE V6 was tested with regular fuel, as opposed to premium. The 2006 ES was tested with premium just like the 2004 ES. Thus the small power drop you see is the actual drop experienced due to the new SAE changes.

The drop the Camry SE V6 experienced is mainly due to using a lower octane gas. Now why is this? Because Toyota designed the 3.3L V6 primarily for premium fuel, even though it works fine under regular. The knock sensors are overly sensitive, and when going to a lower octane of fuel, the knock sensors ensure smooth and refined power delivery at the cost of some HP and torque.

This is a similar story with the Avalon's 3.5L V6 engine: For 2005, the Avalon was tested with premium fuel, and got 280HP and 260lb-ft torque. For 2006, the Avalon (and now Rav 4 V6) have the engine listed at 268HP and 248 lb-ft torque. These numbers are achieved using regular fuel. The drop in listed power was due to the 3.5L V6 being re-tested under new SAE guidelines, as well as using a lower octane fuel. But as you can see, the knock sensors in Toyota's new V6 are not as sensitive, so the power drop when switching octanes is small.

[post="65406"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

Hmm. Do you have proof of the different octane usage? From my understanding, the difference in the new SAE testing standards had to do with accessory usage during the tests. Now cars are tested with all accessories running (or something to that effect). There's a good possibility that the Toyota uses belt driven accessories, while the Lexus has electric accessores (electric A/C and P/S pumps), which have less drivetrain loss than their belt-driven counterparts.

That would give results like the difference in HP/TQ from the Toyota to the Lexus after the new SAE testing numbers. Unless Toyota didn't choose the correct octane originally, it would not effect the output of the engine. Edited December 30, 2005 by siegen

[razoredge]

thanks siegen, you covered some of the obvious. I cant be bothered with someone that rates octane value according to EPA estimates and corporate publicity stunts. I surrender, all GMs suck and always have and always will. Where do I sign up for the GM sucks club ? Rough vibrating gas gussling underpowered dont like to rev engines sloppy shifting with a touch of roughness on the side transmissions, cheap plastic interiors bench seats column shifters, small wheels, harsh soft suspensions and antique chassis and body designs.............did I forget anything ? ho boy Edited December 31, 2005 by razoredge

[Guest gmrebirth]

The weight is important, but Aerodynamics play a big role as well. The Corvette has a very small frontal area compared to the Cadillac, and the rear windshield slope doesn't create drag like a normal sedan or coupe does (air doesn't detach from the contour of the body so much). I imagine the underbody has significant improvements when compared to a Cadillac as well, since the Corvette is designed to see speeds well over 100mph.

This is probably why you see the most difference in the highway mileage.

[post="65408"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You make it sound as if the CTS-V is a brick in comparison to the Corvette. While true that these things do make a difference, the C5 Vette also had similar economy using the LS2, and it's aerodynamics are not nearly as good as the C6.

I can also point to the Lexus SC430, which is about 200lb less than a Lexus LS, it has a smaller frontal area and less drag on the windshield. It also gets 19/25 EPA mileage, slightly better than a GS430 or LS430. This is despite the car being heavier than a GS430, and despite the GS430 having a lower coefficient of drag. Edited December 31, 2005 by gmrebirth

[cmattson]

The octane rating of gasoline tells you how much the fuel can be compressed before it spontaneously ignites. When gas ignites by compression rather than because of the spark from the spark plug, it causes knocking in the engine. Knocking can damage an engine, so it is not something you want to have happening. Lower-octane gas (like "regular" 87-octane gasoline) can handle the least amount of compression before igniting.

Octane is commonly (and a bit misguidedly) intertwined with horsepower because high-compression motors require that higher-octane gasoline (to avoid detonation due to compression). High compression motors commonly produce more horsepower. Now, this isn't to say that higher octane doesn't give you marginally better performance. If you go and put 110-115 octane racing fuel in your car, you might feel a difference. I've used ethynol in my truck (flex fuel = cheap gas) and that stuff is 100 octane -- a 13 octane difference than the normal 87 stuff -- and I couldn't feel a difference. So you can't tell me that Toyota's 210hp 3.0l dropped to 190hp from testing with 91 octane as opposed to 87--that's complete and utter bull.

The simple fact is that both Toyota and Honda were using archaic "standards" when measuring horsepower; standards that allowed them to disconnect various vehicle equipment that you and I simply could not due and still be able to drive the vehicle (i.e. disconnect the waterpump, alternator and power steering pump).

Lastly, I wouldn't exactly call the Corvette "extremely light weight". It weighs a shade under 3200 lbs -- about the same as a traditional mid-sized sedan. In comparsion, a Honda Accord sedan weighs around 3150lbs, A Camry sedan weighs between 3200-3450lbs (4cyl & 6cyl). A Dodge Viper weighs just over 3400lbs.
The common rule of thumb is that every 200 pounds of extra weight shaves one mile per gallon off your fuel mileage. Weight isn't as big a factor as you thought (gas mileage-wise), huh?

A bigger factor in the vette's gas mileage numbers is probably the gearing of the vehicle. A large SUV, built for towing will have the low gearing necessary to pull a boat/travel trailer, etc. A Corvette doesn't need to have that.

More octane info:
http://auto.howstuffworks.com/question90.htm

[CaddyXLR-V]

CTS-V isnt 3500lbs either, more like 3800lbs. And razor is right about the octane, you can only gain hp if the timing is being pulled due to detonation. You could then use higher octane gas, and restoring the timing.

[CaddyXLR-V]

Edmunds-CTS-V specs

CTV-V is 3850lbs, I dont know where 3500lbs came from. That is over a 650lb difference from the Corvette.

[Guest gmrebirth]

Hmm. Do you have proof of the different octane usage? From my understanding, the difference in the new SAE testing standards had to do with accessory usage during the tests. Now cars are tested with all accessories running (or something to that effect). There's a good possibility that the Toyota uses belt driven accessories, while the Lexus has electric accessores (electric A/C and P/S pumps), which have less drivetrain loss than their belt-driven counterparts.

That would give results like the difference in HP/TQ from the Toyota to the Lexus after the new SAE testing numbers. Unless Toyota didn't choose the correct octane originally, it would not effect the output of the engine.

[post="65411"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The new SAE guidelines are more than just adding the accessories during testing. The specifics of the new guidelines are sort of hard to find, and I don't really know all of them with confidence.

http://www.thecarconnection.com/Vehicle_Re...S181.A9686.html

"The optional, engine is straight from the Avalon, basically in the same tune, and due to recalculation of SAE power figures it's now rated at 269 horsepower and 246 lb-ft of torque."

Gee golly, the SAE ratings made the 3.5L V6 gain one HP, and lose 2 lb-ft torque. I guess Toyota lied about it's power ratings :rolleyes:

Here's more:

"All U.S.-bound RAV4 models have an automatic transmission, with no manual option, but they're very frugal. The front-wheel-drive 2.4-liter returns EPA fuel economy figures of 24 mpg city, 29 mpg highway, which is the highest in its class, not counting hybrids. And with a highway rating of 28 mpg, the V-6 RAV4 ties with the V-6 Saturn VUE for the best fuel economy among V-6 utes. Both engines will be certified for California 's ULEV II standards and are designed to run on 87-octane."

As you can see, the changes due to SAE specs barely changed power at all in the 3.5L V6. Then how did HP drop from 280HP to 268HP? By different fuel being used. When the Lexus ES and RX both get the 3.5L V6, we will see the difference that premium fuel makes.

http://www.lexus.com/models/rx/specifications.html
Here is another example: The 2006 RX330 with the 3.3L V6, same one as used on the Camry SE V6 in this case makes 223HP and 238 lb-ft torque, based on the new SAE guidelines. This engine is tuned a bit differently than the ES330/Camry engine though. But as you can see, it's power figures are noticeably higher than the Camry SE V6.

With regards to some of the accessories being electric vs belt driven, the Camry, Highlander, Lexus RX, and Lexus ES all share many of the same components.

From the Camry specs:

http://toyota.com/camry/specs_v6.html
"Variable-assist power rack-and-pinion"

From the Lexus RX330:
http://www.lexus.com/models/rx/specifications.html
"Engine-speed-sensing, progressive power-assisted rack-and-pinion"

Both are power-assisted rack and pinion, so I don't see a difference here, other than the RX having a fancier version. If the RX had electric steering, it would be indicated (like it is for the new Rav 4).

And lastly, again from the RX330 link:

"[3] Ratings achieved using the required premium unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher. If premium fuel is not used, performance will decrease. "

There you have it, directly from the manufacturer. Seeing as the Camry SE V6 has the same engine, using premium will increase performance (and power), and likewise, moving from premium to regular fuel will decrease performance. Edited December 31, 2005 by gmrebirth

[razoredge]

ho boy, we got someone who knows everything there is to know about engines...... according to the book :rolleyes:

anywho - I found this interesting, its a near exact flip flop of the spec on the 1996 GM L67 3800 Supercharged V6.

toot toot Toyota......your so special

Avalon "it's now rated at 269 horsepower and 246 lb-ft of torque."

L67 240 hp / 280 lb ft. 1995-2004

and GM clearly states that the forced induction engine does indeed require high octane fuel

[Guest gmrebirth]

thanks siegen, you covered some of the obvious. I cant be bothered with someone that rates octane value according to EPA estimates and corporate publicity stunts.

I surrender, all GMs suck and always have and always will. Where do I sign up for the GM sucks club ? Rough vibrating gas gussling underpowered dont like to rev engines sloppy shifting with a touch of roughness on the side transmissions, cheap plastic interiors bench seats column shifters, small wheels, harsh soft suspensions and antique chassis and body designs.............did I forget anything ?

ho boy

[post="65443"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You can't be bothered with objective reasoning is more like it.

You have a talent for answering a question nobody asked.

I stated my opinion on GM's powertrains, and you blow it out of proportion.

[Guest gmrebirth]

So you can't tell me that Toyota's 210hp 3.0l dropped to 190hp from testing with 91 octane as opposed to 87--that's complete and utter bull.
 

I just did. The new SAE ratings, combined in tandem with lower octane fuel caused the drop.

How come the Lexus ES330 dropped 7HP and 4 lb-ft torque under the SAE guidelines, yet according to many fanatics, the Camry SE V6 having the SAME engine dropped 15HP and 20 lb-ft torque?

[Guest gmrebirth]

Edmunds-CTS-V specs

CTV-V is 3850lbs, I dont know where 3500lbs came from. That is over a 650lb difference from the Corvette.

[post="65454"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

How about Cadillac's own website?

http://www.cadillac.com/cadillacjsp/model/....jsp?model=ctsv

Hmm, Cadillac says their own CTS-V is about 3500lbs, yet Edmunds says it's more around 3800lbs. Who to believe?

In this case I believed Cadillac.

But I did double-check the figures, and it looks like you're right. Funny then that Cadillac's own website has such an obvious mistake.

Weighing slightly above 3800lbs, I guess the CTS-V's economy makes a bit more sense. But apart from economy, I keep hearing just how light and small the LS2 engine is, so if that's the case, why all the porkiness in the CTS-V? The 6 speed stick and upgraded brakes I doubt added that much weight.

[Guest gmrebirth]

ho boy, we got someone who knows everything there is to know about engines...... according to the book  :rolleyes:

I post lots of proof because otherwise the fanatics and zealots on this board would never believe me. Even with proof, I have several fanatics breathing down my back with doubt as we speak.

You seem to be one of them, and it looks like you're in denial that Toyota didn't make "outrageous" claims regarding it's power ratings.

What's really funny is all this hate centered towards Toyota who historically doesn't really overrate their engines, yet Nissan's VQ seems to be totally overlooked. The 3.5L VQ is an engine that stretches from 230HP (in the Quest) all the way to 300HP (G35 and 350Z). The engine is basically the same in all the Nissan vehicles, with only minor tuning differences between models. Minor tuning does not cause a 70HP variation. Edited December 31, 2005 by gmrebirth

[razoredge]

The 3.5L VQ is an engine that stretches from 230HP (in the Quest) all the way to 300HP (G35 and 350Z). The engine is basically the same in all the Nissan vehicles, with only minor tuning differences between models. Minor tuning does not cause a 70HP variation.

[post="65478"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

its probably the octane gas they are burning :rolleyes:

I spent quite a bit of time posting about the reality of octane. Someone posted stateing that 91 octane was used in all testing. From there the topic went into some kind of twilight zone where the reality of the purpose of octane was insignificant and ignored the fact that someone, whom I assume knows 91 octane is used in all testing.

You are correct though instead of breathing down your back I should have once again began my speel about octane and pointed out the fact that someone said 91 octane was used in all tests.

Now two other posters have repeated my speel about octane and its purposes.

Im not in denial of anything in regards to Asian built cars, I pay absolutely no attention to them whatsoever. They are insignificant to me so I only quick glanced your posts and I also knew why you posted your references as proof. I believe my first post on this topic stated something about I wouldnt worry about a few HP, then I probably went on to degrade Toyota and I will because they are screwing up my favorite car companies, I grew up on Motorcity Madness and I want to die knowing its still there. Thats why I do it and will continue to do so.

I also know nothing about mileage on CTS V or GTO or any other such equiped cars. I do know my buddy whom has a C5 has an accumulated average of 23 and his PU that has the ??? 327 ??? is also very good on gas for a fullsize but thats all I know. I know drag coefficient and weight are big factors.

When I answer a question that no one asked its becasue they asked the wrong question or started running the bases from second and still then decided to skip third and just run right back straight to the plate.

Perhaps I should look into electro shock theropy :lol:

[siegen]

"[3] Ratings achieved using the required premium unleaded gasoline with an octane rating of 91 or higher. If premium fuel is not used, performance will decrease. "

There you have it, directly from the manufacturer. Seeing as the Camry SE V6 has the same engine, using premium will increase performance (and power), and likewise, moving from premium to regular fuel will decrease performance.

[post="65463"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

You're looking at that statement in the wrong way. If a car requires 91 octane, it's because its compression ratio, timing, or other variable require it. If you use less than the required octane, the knock sensor will have the ECM retard the timing, to prevent knocking (preignition).

If a car requires 87 octane, if you use a higher octane rated fuel, it will not increase performance. The only circumstances under which using a higher rated octane than the manufacturer suggests to increase performance, is if the manufacturer made a mistake and rated it too low to begin with.

The Camry probably does not have the same engine as its Lexus counterpart. The Lexus probably has a better flowing head, intake manifold, exhaust manifold, etc. It probably has changes in its timing and c/r to increase power (which is why it requires higher octane rated gasoline). Why they both rated the same before the new SAE standards, I don't know. Edited December 31, 2005 by siegen

[pow]

You're looking at that statement in the wrong way. If a car requires 91 octane, it's because its compression ratio, timing, or other variable require it. If you use less than the required octane, the knock sensor will have the ECM retard the timing, to prevent knocking (preignition).

If a car requires 87 octane, if you use a higher octane rated fuel, it will not increase performance. The only circumstances under which using a higher rated octane than the manufacturer suggests to increase performance, is if the manufacturer made a mistake and rated it too low to begin with.

[post="65498"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

I think what gmrebirth is suggesting is that the 3.3 V6 runs best on premium fuel, thus the 218 hp on Lexus models, but Toyota "recommends" only regular for the 210 hp Camry. I remember Honda offered two horsepower numbers (210 vs 205) for the 99-01 Odyssey -- one for premium, one for regular. Edited December 31, 2005 by empowah

[siegen]

I think what gmrebirth is suggesting is that the 3.3 V6 runs best on premium fuel, thus the 218 hp on Lexus models, but Toyota "recommends" only regular for the 210 hp Camry. I remember Honda offered two horsepower numbers (210 vs 205) for the 99-01 Odyssey -- one for premium, one for regular.

[post="65502"]<{POST_SNAPBACK}>[/post]

The Lexus runs best on premium fuel, because it uses more aggressive timing, C/R, piston design, etc. Toyota recommends regular for the 210 hp Camry because they designed it to run off of regular (87 octane).

This is very common. Generally someone who is buying a Lexus will have more cash or won't mind paying more for fuel. The Toyota on the other hand, will appeal to a lot more buyers who do not want to spend anymore than they have to at the pump. The required fuel is often times a selling point between two very similar cars, as it effects the overall ownership cost of the car.

The Lexus will be faster due to the modifications to the engine, but will require a higher octane rated fuel. It does not matter that they are the same displacement or have a similar engine code.

The 3.5L VQ is an engine that stretches from 230HP (in the Quest) all the way to 300HP (G35 and 350Z). The engine is basically the same in all the Nissan vehicles, with only minor tuning differences between models. Minor tuning does not cause a 70HP variation.

Just because a manufacturer gives an engine a similar engine code, does not mean it is similar. Honda has 3 different versions of their k20 engines (all 2.0L) ranging from 160-220hp. You wouldn't know the difference unless you looked at the whole engine code and knew the difference between k20a, k20a2, and k20a3.

"Minor tuning" can account for those big differences in same-displacement engines. Like I said above, differences in intake, exhaust manifold, head design, timing, compression ratio (the higher end models usually require higher octane), and when a VVT mechanism is involved, the differences can be even more. In Honda's case, they have two very different versions of their vtec mechanism. One aimed at economy and one aimed at performance. You can guess which engines get which version :)