2017 Civic Type R puts down 295WHP bone stock on the dyno

[Banshee]

It isn't wrong. You can do the math either way. Your numbers are just higher and I was trying to be more conservative

Ok. Thanks.
Have you every AutoX'ed with OVR? I see you are in Central Ohio.

Sponsored

 

[totopo]

Admittedly, I know nothing about the SAE ratings and no more than 1 % standard you mentioned. What I do know: How much HP/Torque was actually measured on a dyno!

Using various drivetrain losses in percentage with the known HP rating on a dyno, you could compute an estimated HP/Torque rating. Time for some math:

Known HP 288

12% Drivetrain loss:
288 x 1.12 = 322.56 HP at the Flywheel (loss of 34.56 HP due to drivetrain)

15% Drivetrain loss:
288 x 1.15 = 331.20 HP at the Flywheel (loss of 43.2 HP due to drivetrain)

18% Drivetrain loss:
288 x 1.18 = 339.84 HP at the Flywheel (loss of 51.84 HP due to drivetrain)

Using averages, you could say that the CTR that was videoed being dynoed is making around 330 HP at the flywheel.

It would be interesting to see what octane was used and what gear they were in when they tested the car. How many pulls were made on the dyno? Those will have an impact on the HP/torque ratings for sure. Hopefully that helps?

Numbers have been from 288whp - 301whp that I've seen. Although I doubt the credibility of the 301. No evidence of it being a CTR that I've seen.

I'm not buying it. The SAE standards measure steady state power in a lab with freaking expensive, accurate machines (+- 0.5% accuracy). I am under the impression you are actually not allowed to underrate with SAE Net. The egregious errors in HP in the past was because of a lack of such standard. That's also why now cars are coming out with hp numbers reported down to the last digit, because you aren't allowed to round to the nearest 5 or 10hp (unless your car makes like over 300hp, then you have +/- 3hp to round with). Not all car manufacturers re-dynod or reported SAE around 2005 if the engine was developed before then, but almost all new cars use it by now.

I think it is more reasonable that the inertial dynos are not accurate and do not correlate well with the steady state hp measured at the crank.

When you talk about "drivetrain loss" for an inertial dyno it's different from drivetrain loss from a steady state dyno. Actual drivetrain loss is the efficiency of the drivetrain in getting power from the crank to the wheels. This is actually not that high. What inertial dynos add in there is the rotational energy to spin everything up after the crank. ie the power lost in the various spinning parts and the wheels (part of the reason why 4wd show so much more "drivetrain loss" than 2wd on an inertial dyno; they have 4 wheels to spin up instead of 2).

I think a big problem is historically dynos believed most manufacturers numbers, and threw in a fudge factor to correlate their measurements to the expected measurements at the wheels given a manufacturers' claimed bhp. Part of the reason why different dynos from different manufacturers are wildly (like sometimes >15%) different. Are you telling me when you dyno a car on a mustang dyno it miraculously looses hp? that the dynojet is the more accurate one? Which do you think actually represents true hp? (neither). I think that's why now under the more stringent SAE like every single new car coming out dynos at some high HP and everyone is like WOW, Underated!! but it's probably more due to the method of measurement.

edit: I guess another way of saying it, is that if this exact current civic had come out in 2005, they probably would have advertised 330hp, and all the results would come out like expected. But by the new stringent post 2005 sae, it is ACTUALLY making 306hp in a steady state at the crank at the reference conditions.

 

[NoelPR]

Some guys in PR strapped a 100 miles CTR on a dyno and the car is underrated as suspected.

For reference that dyno reads a stock SI 8th gen between 160s to 170s. Depends on the year. Later years put down more stock.
A stock EVOX reads ~250whp
A stock Ralliart Turbo reads ~190whp.


In other words in that particular shop I was expecting around 270whp on a stock CTR. 295 is way too much over my estimates.

upload photo

 

[NiltyTypeR]

They could be understated for insurance/EPA reasons. My GTi is rated 210 or 220 factory but made 238whp on a dyno with just an intake no tune or anything which is more than what a "265hp" focus st ever makes stock on a dyno. I saw another dyno of a type r that said 301whp so they might just be underrated from factory or honda is claiming acutal BHP numbers and not Crank horsepower numbers? We will see as more dynos come out!

 

[NoelPR]

I'm not buying it. The SAE standards measure steady state power in a lab with freaking expensive, accurate machines (+- 0.5% accuracy). I am under the impression you are actually not allowed to underrate with SAE Net. The egregious errors in HP in the past was because of a lack of such standard. That's also why now cars are coming out with hp numbers reported down to the last digit, because you aren't allowed to round to the nearest 5 or 10hp (unless your car makes like over 300hp, then you have +/- 3hp to round with). Not all car manufacturers re-dynod or reported SAE around 2005 if the engine was developed before then, but almost all new cars use it by now.

I think it is more reasonable that the inertial dynos are not accurate and do not correlate well with the steady state hp measured at the crank.

When you talk about "drivetrain loss" for an inertial dyno it's different from drivetrain loss from a steady state dyno. Actual drivetrain loss is the efficiency of the drivetrain in getting power from the crank to the wheels. This is actually not that high. What inertial dynos add in there is the rotational energy to spin everything up after the crank. ie the power lost in the various spinning parts and the wheels (part of the reason why 4wd show so much more "drivetrain loss" than 2wd on an inertial dyno; they have 4 wheels to spin up instead of 2).

I think a big problem is historically dynos believed most manufacturers numbers, and threw in a fudge factor to correlate their measurements to the expected measurements at the wheels given a manufacturers' claimed bhp. Part of the reason why different dynos from different manufacturers are wildly (like sometimes >15%) different. Are you telling me when you dyno a car on a mustang dyno it miraculously looses hp? that the dynojet is the more accurate one? Which do you think actually represents true hp? (neither). I think that's why now under the more stringent SAE like every single new car coming out dynos at some high HP and everyone is like WOW, Underated!! but it's probably more due to the method of measurement.

edit: I guess another way of saying it, is that if this exact current civic had come out in 2005, they probably would have advertised 330hp, and all the results would come out like expected. But by the new stringent post 2005 sae, it is ACTUALLY making 306hp in a steady state at the crank at the reference conditions.

All I have to say is that one of the dynoshop posted in this thread I had the experience to take two cars in there.

Stock 2009 Lancer Ralliart - 190whp (237hp)
Stock 2006 Civic SI -166whp (197hp)


Then a stock Civic Type R puts down on that same shop 295whp?
The car is underrated no matter what SAE says.

Unless Honda did the test with 87oct fuel
Premium fuel is recommended not required.

 

[Boostlag]

we need a point of reference what other cars got on the same dyno. Each dyno reads bit differently, Dynojets are pretty generous, Mustang dynos are almost ways lower.

 

[zx2down]

we need a point of reference what other cars got on the same dyno. Each dyno reads bit differently, Dynojets are pretty generous, Mustang dynos are almost ways lower.

Look at VitVipers dyno. He's dyno tested MANY civics, and his Si put down about 205 in stock form on 91oct. Should be easy to dig up past dyno numbers from his shop since hes done so many. All the new Turbo civics are making at the wheel, on MANY dynos what they are rated at.
I don't see why this would not apply to the Type-R also.


I'll say it again, its not likely that so many shops have poorly calibrated dynos.

 

[NoelPR]

we need a point of reference what other cars got on the same dyno. Each dyno reads bit differently, Dynojets are pretty generous, Mustang dynos are almost ways lower.

Stock runs on the Dynocenter Dyno. Same dyno shop as the red CTR with 295whp.
Blue: Stock 2006 Civic SI
Red: Stock 2009 Lancer Ralliart (only one quick run before flashing it)

**I still have the DRF files around. I can plot them on WinPep.

 

[Honda2112]

this "thang" is a BEAST!!!...makes my car look like a PUZZY!

Hey hey hey, our Si's are plenty fast and plenty fun.

 

[Type-JZ]

wow, that's impressive!! Underrated! I'm seeing lots of other articles saying 316hp. But still. Or maybe you got one of those loser toleranced engines that make more hp than others..

 

[firsthonda]

I want to see this car up against some muscle cars on a straight away. I know I know it's more about handling but I want to see some drag racing

 

[NoelPR]

I want to see this car up against some muscle cars on a straight away. I know I know it's more about handling but I want to see some drag racing

No chance against a new
Mustang GT
Charger/Challenger 392
Camaro SS

 

[Boostlag]

end of quarter mile.

Fk2 type R trapped 105mph. Same engine, similar weight.

Mustang GT traps 113mph

Camaro SS traps 116mph.

Hellcat traps 126mph

 

[UberCivic]

It isn't wrong. You can do the math either way. Your numbers are just higher and I was trying to be more conservative Normally you come up with around 5 HP at the flywheel difference. If the bigger numbers is your style, why not

It's wrong. You can't do the mat in reverse without accounting for it. You multiply by the same factor that you divide by and that is always starting at the crank numbers.

350 x .85 = 297.5 at the wheels

297.5 / .85 = 350

 

[dallasjhawk]

I was reading that Honda puts the lowest number output expected as it HP number, so 306 at the crank on 87. Not sure how accurate that statement, but it would make some sense.

Sponsored