Horsepower cuts embarass Asians

Is that new Honda or Toyota less powerful than last years model? Well, yes, and no. The engines in the new models don't make any less power than last year's engines, even though the numbers on the specification page are lower. Its just that the Asians have been caught playing the loopholes in the standards, putting in premium gas for horsepower testing while rating annual fuel cost based on regular, tweaking engine controls to non-standard settings, and turning off accessories.

formatting link
Despite the blatant deception, analysts don't expect the kind of backlash against Honda and Toyota that plagued Hyundai several years ago. After being caught redhanded overstating horsepower, Hyundai paid cash compensation to over 800,000 owners. "Honda and Toyota owners aren't like that", said Joseph Camel of the Brand Research Institute. "They're pretty docile owner groups. After all, they bought the idea that its normal maintenance to automatically replace water pumps at 75,000 miles.

Meanwhile, Honda is proposing a new "Effective Horsepower" rating system. "We intended our horsepower ratings to simulate effective horsepower when the vehicles are five years old. Our vehicles lose an average of 46 pounds by that age, meaning better performance" said Honda spokesman Kor Oshon.

Toyota, however, is a hesitant supporter, saying Honda's version of Effective Horsepower penalizes it. Studies show that at age five, the average Toyota loses only 32 pounds due to rust.

Meanwhile, Mitsubishi wants an adjustment for the lower weight of its cars due to parts that fall off within five years. But Nissan wants no part of the Effective Horsepower program, claiming rust is a localized problem, only occurring in the snow belt, near ocean areas, and in places where it rains.

None of the GM and Ford engines that have been tested have shown power losses. Some have shown power gains. For those who critcize Detroit for being stupid, one thing is clear: at least they're smart enough not to lie.

Reply to
Comments4u
Loading thread data ...

So, um, where is it that cars do NOT rust?

Actually, Mazda (which is owned by Ford) did something similar when they introduced the RX-8, downrating its horsepower to 238 and offering to buy back vehciles from anyone who felt ripped off. And don't forget the big debacle over the 1999 Cobra, which was discovered after owners tested their cars on dynamometers. Ford took so long to find a fix that they cancelled production on the 2000 Cobras. They eventually had to replace exhaust systems and other parts in every

1999 Cobra they produced in order to actually achieve the advertised horsepower.
Reply to
Scott en Aztlán

your headers say it all there guy.

Organization: Usenet Education and Entertainment Bureau Keywords: auto, lie, deception, cheating Summary: Troll X-Funding-Provided-By: The National Endowment for the Arts, Mercury Outboards, and your local PBS Television Station

detroit is quite capable of shooting itself in the foot without your help.

Reply to
jim beam

Arizona, for one. Rust is unknown in the Phoenix area except in cars brought in from areas where roads are salted.

Mike

Reply to
Michael Pardee

Near Tucson, (and in nearby California deserts) there are a couple of airplane graveyards, where thousands of planes sit, virtually rust- free.

Reply to
Larry J.

How many of those planes are made of steel?

Reply to
Alan Baker

You'd be amazed at how much of an a/c is made of steel...and most sheet aluminum is actually a sheet of steel covered on both sides with aluminum so where the sheets join with rivets and the edges of the panels there is some small access to the steel. Also aluminum can corrode when exposed to salt and moisture, they do very little corroding in those long term storage facilities...

Reply to
Gord Beaman

God!...remember while accelerating hard in a driving rainstorm and having to let up on the accelerator for a second so as to get a swipe of the wipers so you can see again?!?...

That's why Phyllis Diller said "Old age ain't for sissies" :)

Reply to
Gord Beaman

I never had to worry about vacuum wipers too much - my 1962 International Scout 4X4 was the only car I ever had with them, probably the last car model in the USA built with them - IH was slow on adopting newfangled things like those unproven electric wipers...

(Nope, upon further research it looks like AMC stayed with vacuum wipers through the 1971 model year. And I thought IH was slow...)

It had a vacuum booster on the fuel pump. They slowed down some when you got on the gas hard, but they didn't stop. Only mattered when the rain was coming down by the tanker-load and you were in heavy traffic where seeing is important...

-->--

Reply to
Bruce L. Bergman

My dad had a '67 Ambassador, I think it had the vacuum wipers. I think AMC was an early adapter of unitized construction. My dad loved the car, I wasn't so impressed. The power brakes were so touchy that a tap on the pedal would simulate running into a brick wall, the Reverba-Tone speaker rumbled like thunder any time you went over railroad tracks or washboard bumps, and the LR power window took about 3 minutes to go from the down to the up position, and that was only if you grabbed the glass and pulled it up.

Reply to
Ray O

Detroit's decades-long obsession with HP -- and NOTHING else -- has made it a worldwide laughingstock when it comes to sports cars.

Reply to
senna

so true. i think that every time i massively out-corner a mustang in my

89 civic hatch on my skinny little 185/60-14's. a friend of mine has a seriously rodded mustang, and we went out one day into some hills where there are some nice twisty narrow roads. first, we both went in his. no question, /way/ more power. seriously way more power. then we went in mine. thing is, power doesn't mean squat when you have to brake and corner hard with two wheels in the ditch. after i drove, he wasn't speaking much. then he drove. when we were done, he just got out and threw me my keys and walked away! it took him days to stop sulking. i love civics!
Reply to
jim beam

Methinks you friend does not know how to drive. One of my neighborhood kids challenged my stock 2005 Mustang GT convertible to a timed run with his riced up 2006 Civic up over a local six mile mountain road, loaded with hairpin turns where all the locals 'test' their cars . If we had been running for titles I would have yet another car for one of my grand children, if he had the title instead of the bank. LOL

mike

Reply to
Mike Hunter

Wasn't that an unfair competition? RWD vs FWD, real competition experience vs. (probably) none? ;-)

Reply to
Ray O

More likely it was my 60 some years of driving experience, vis-a-v his 6 or so years I supose. I guess he never heard of the Ford GT 500 that blew the doors off every sports car in Europe, in the sixties

There is no question a RWD vehicle will out handle a FWD vehicle and that is the point. The original poster seem to think otherwise. ;)

mike hunt

Reply to
Mike Hunter

with respect, that's not the point. /he/ drove /my/ car and [correctly] concluded that it handled better in those conditions. it really doesn't matter how well he was able to drive [although he's not bad] - it's the comparison between cars that counts.

Reply to
jim beam

Having grown up driving Mustangs (now drive something else), the 'Stang can handle just fine in the twisties. You need good shocks and tires. Certainly should be able to outdo a Civic - Mustangs are not that bad in the turns.

Reply to
Newsgroup User

that's what my friend thought. he had 5 digits of upgrades into that thing.

you need more than that - you need a good independent rear and decent geometry. my tires are only continental "touring" 185/60-14's. my shocks are only kyb gr2's.

you haven't /driven/ a civic when you say "should".

Reply to
jim beam

Upgrading what? Engine upgrades won't help squat in the twisties.

Not necessarily. Independent rear will mainly help you on the bumps. But other than that, it helps, but not a huge amount. Pre '99 Cobras posted some impressive skidpad and slalom numbers. Using basically stock Mustang rears. I owned a 97 Cobra - it did fine in the twisties.

By that token, the '87 Escort I used to have should have beat the Stang as well - 4 wheel independent, decent weight, etc....

Reply to
Newsgroup User

i know that! he had torque control tubes, special springs and special shocks on a limited slip rear, springs, shocks and rack & pinion conversion on the front.

motor was a small block 5.0 with extensive mods.

but how much wider are cobra tires???????? the point is, my ratty little civic, with stock spec suspension and stock "si" tires embarrassed the 'stang. if tires alone were the criteria, the civic would be a joke. it's very much not.

escort has mcpherson struts on front so i'm not surprised. mcphersons are great off-road, but they just don't do on-road as well as the civic's wishbones. we also took a subaru wrx out on the same road that same day. it was ok on power, but nothing really special on the bends. not as good as the 'stang or the civic.

Reply to
jim beam

MotorsForum website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.