Asian Family Sedans - Will they ever peak in Power?

Home  \  Asian Imports  \  Asian Family Sedans - Will they ever peak in Power?

I just noticed the new engine specs for the 2007 Camry are these...

2.4L DOHC I4 - 158hp (basically same base motor now, but a little more power, remember, it's the NEW SAE, so if you compare to most other manufacturer less Honda it's REAL power is around 170).

2.4L DOHC HYBRID I4 - 192hp (so really about 202-205hp)

3.5L DOHC V6 - 268hp (think 280hp)

So, Toyota went the route of Nissan with a big V6 in the bread and butter sedan, only now it blows away Nissan in power (with the V6). Not to mention the Accord which is rated at 244hp (~255hp old SAE) with the 3.0L SOHC V6. Toyota got criticized for the Camry V6 being underpowered compared to the rest of the Asian family sedan market, so I guess they basically said FU and came out with a more powerful engine over EVERY competition. With the 3.5L V6 though I dont know how much economy will suffer (especially considering curb weight is said to be UP by probably 200lbs on the V6 model, 175lbs on the I4 model).

What I like the most, FINALLY a four cylinder hybrid bread and butter sedan has HIT the market. They did what I wish Honda would of done instead of coming out with the hybrid V6 (And selling it for an astronomical price). I wish Honda also came out with a hybrid I4 with about 200hp and it was price marked INBETWEEN the petrol only I4 and the petrol only V6. I think that's the ultimate goal here.

So, when will the power war stop with just plain old bread and butter Asian family sedans?

If you turn the clock back 5 years to the 2000 model year the Accord, Camry and Altima looked like this power wise...

Accord I4 = 150hp
Camry I4 = 136hp
Altima I4 = 155hp

Accord V6 = 200hp
Camry V6 = 194hp
No Altima V6

And for the 2007 model year (As far to my knowledge, this converting Toyota/Hondas hp into old SAE for comparison) we'll have this...

Accord I4 = 177hp
Camry I4 = 170hp
Altima I4 = 175hp

Accord V6 = 258hp
Camry V6 = 280hp
Altima V6 = 260hp

Wow, just wow...when will it end?

Where the Camry info was obtained.
http://auto.consumerguide.com/Articles/index.cfm/act/sneakpeeks/


As for the looks, the '07 Camry looks to be pretty boring still, but looks like it stole some designs...

http://auto.consumerguide.com/cmsimages/Sneak_Peeks/Dec.%2005/07_Camry2_400 .jpg
http://auto.consumerguide.com/cmsimages/Sneak_Peeks/Dec.%2005/07_Camry__400 .jpg

This is what I deduct...Mazda front, typical camry boring side, '06 Sonata rear end.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I want to see a v12. :mrgreen:

posted by  GreekWarrior

Mazda 3 front, Kia Amanti rear, on a Toyota. I thought they were bad enough, now they want to look like Kias?! I can't even comprehend...

posted by  jedimario

so, when is everyone going to use the "new SAE" so we dont have to add 5-10% to get this "real" hp, which according to SAE is "fake hp"? :banghead:

and about the camry, i like the '07 look WAY more the the current generation... i've never liked the way it looks now... it looks like the ugly child of a boat and a monte carlo... :screwy:

posted by  pik_d

I said 06 Sonata because of this...

http://auto.consumerguide.com/cmsimages/Sneak_Peeks/Dec.%2005/07_Camry__400 .jpg
http://us.autos1.yimg.com/img.autos.yahoo.com/ag/hyundai_sonata_gl_2006_ext erior_5_346x270.jpg

About the same, just the Sonata is bet less "Edgy".

But yeah, the front end is SUCH A ripoff of Mazda...

posted by  thunderbird1100

Maybe more importantly, what is all this talk about "real" and "fake" SAE horsepower? Will somebody please enlighten us with facts and not bullsh*t?

posted by  vwhobo

I explained the horsepower thing in the other thread you asked it. IT's not "Fake" horsepower, but a more ARTIFICAL horsepower is achieved on the older SAE standard from the newer SAE standard, in the fact LESS accessories are dynoed along with the engine. Think of it the way horsepower was measured WAY back in the 1960s-1970s and today, it's measured differently. One day I hope we will FULLY move to just what measured at the wheels in a way that it's measured the way you GET the car.

posted by  thunderbird1100

You moron. You're talking about the difference between SAE gross and SAE net. The difference has been explained on this forum plenty of times, usually by me. You don't even know what they're called. Furthermore, this isn't some new development, the change was made back in 1971/1972 and has been used for rating cars sold in the US ever since. By my count that's a little over 30 years.

Is everybody at LSU as stupid as you are, or are you special? Save the indignant response, I've heard your whining too many times before. Just admit to yourself that there's something you didn't know (what a surprise) and let it drop.

posted by  vwhobo

I do believe what they are talking about is the revised SAE standard J2723 for measuring hp, changed in April of '05 (revising, and making more strict, standard J1349 that was enacted in '71). Most Japanese manufacturers ended up with lower hp ratings for the same engines in '06 vs '05.

The '06 Corvette Z06 was the first car certified with the new standard (at 505 horsepower @ 6300 rpm and 470 lb-ft @ 4800 rpm). Mnay American engines actually saw an increase in certified power...

posted by  ChrisV

Good try Chris, but... SAE standard J2723 still uses the same test procedure as J1349, as a matter of fact it is referenced in J2723. The difference is not how power is measured, the difference is in how it is witnessed and certified. Basically there has to be a third party certification. Essentially it's a way to keep automakers from falsely saying "my dad's car is faster than your dad's car". If the numbers go down, it's only because they were fudged before. In some cases the numbers may even go up.

posted by  vwhobo

Thats what I said. I mentioned that it revised and made more strict standard J1346. I didn't say it "replaced" that standard. Only that it made it more strict. I also mentioned that many cars made more power under the new stnadard (which, in fact, this revision is).

What I find intersting is how many japnese engines got rated lower, and how many American engines ended up with more rated power.

posted by  ChrisV

It just shows who was fudging the numbers. I wonder what the numbers are gonna look like as Euro cars start getting recertified.

posted by  vwhobo

Wow, you're truely an inbred ass. I was explaining it in LAMENS terms. I wasn't using it as the perfect example, just so MAYBE he can pickout SOMEWHAT the difference is, the horsepower was measured differently from one standard to the next - the whole point. I dont even know WHY you went into gross and net horsepower, AS I MYSELF HAVE SAID THAT ON HERE BEFORE. Just not in this thread. So I know what the difference between NET and GROSS horsepower was (gross = before power taken away by accessories, kind of like gross/net income, gross = money before taken away by taxes in the most simpliest terms), and why I even SAID it was in the 60s/70s (although not ALL of the 70s, still IN the 70s). You truely are an inbred POS. Just because I didn't FOR THIS ONCE use the term "gross" when explained that you try and ram yourself in my ass... I see how it is hobo, you just are going to harp me from now on, go ahead and be an ass, ev eryone knows you are, you dont have to prove it. I just cant believed you used the WORST case scenario to try harp me. I even thought you were smarter than that.

BTW - what college did you go to again?

I could of went to many other colleges (including Georgia Tech and Tulane basically two colleges in the top 10 academically in the nation; but not like CAR KNOWLEDGE has anything to do with what I do in college, or 99% of people, because that makes a whole lot of sense hobo, "oh he doesnt know something about cars, he must be the dumbest person at his college"). Your logic is about as dumb as Al Sharpton's. At least you could TRY and use relevant information to TRY and prove if someone is "the dumbest person at place X". But oh no, that would be too hard for your nutmeg of a brain to comprehend.

Really, what college did go to that was so prestigous? What degree did you get?

You have GOT to be the DUMBEST smart person I know. Just so you know.

I knew that with the new optional standard about the third party observer has to be there and under the tighter conditions on which it is measured, but I also read somewhere that there was an extra "Accessory" that was thrown in, maybe it was non-factual information. Maybe instead of just saying it, you could provide a direct link to the new standard and the EXACT differences between the last. That would help this dumbass argument immensely.

posted by  thunderbird1100

1. I'm the inbred ass? In most parts of the country it's known as laymans terms. Too many big letters for you no doubt.



2. Once again, there is is no difference in how it's measured, only in how it's certified.

If you want to find the dumbest person you know, just go look in the mirror. Oh, by the way;

You're very predictable, but we'll give this one more shot.

posted by  vwhobo

Wow I dont have perfect spelling, go figure a human being who misspelled a word or two here and there, they must be dumb... :wink2: I'll be the bigger of the two of us here and say English isn't my best subject, it honestly is not. I only have to take two english classes in my entire college career. Matter fact, English has, and always will be my worst subject, I'm a logical mathematical person. I do much better in math topics and in more math based Sciences (like Physics, and some of Chemistry). Also very good with history.




That's exactly what I meant, it's measured a different way in the fact of the tighter conditions it's measured in and the people who observe it. The way it's physically measured (As you say and Chris) has not changed. But I still would like a link to prove it.



Wow hobo, that was REAL original :sleep:

Even I expect more from you as you EASILY take the award for the most OVERUSED insults here on CF, and you know it.

That's weird, how was it predicted by me you'd totally dodge the college question? Wow, looks like you're just as easily predictable. Dont go somewhere where you, yourself, will look like an ass.

Why is it I believe ONLY on the internet do you act like such a hardass. It's really funny, and I think other people on here think it's quite laughable as well. I can just picture in person (As you never posted a picture of yourself in that thread where we post pictures of ourselves) that you're some tool who got beat up all his life and is basically a whimp. Probably dont talk like that to anyone in real life, because you probably know anyone would kick your ass.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Well I think it kinda droops the same way an Amanti does, but it is definately similar to both.

posted by  jedimario

Yeah, should be interesting...

posted by  ChrisV

Do a google on the standard. F*ck it. Here's the SAE direct link since you can't be bothered...

http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm

As we said, they still use SAE standard J1349, which has been in place since '71. SAE standard J2723 tightens up the procedure ACCORDING to those earlier standards.

"To tout power and torque ratings as "SAE-certified," engine manufacturers must have an SAE qualified witness watch over the entire testing procedure to ensure that it is conducted in conformity to SAE standard J1349. Third-party witnessing is the main provision of J2723. An existing SAE standard, J1349, spells out how the actual testing is to be done. J1349 was updated last year to eliminate some ambiguities that allowed engine makers to cite power and torque ratings higher than the engine's actual capabilities. Engine makers are free to cite power and torque figures drived from testing conducted outside the scope of the SAE standards, but they may not claim the figures are SAE-certifed."

So as you can see, there is NO CHANGE to what is on the enigne or what accessories are driven, or where the readings are taken from. ONLY tht they have to be more consistently in line with the currently held standard and have an SAE qualified witness on hand.

Apparenlty having a witness on hand was enough to get Honda and Toyota to drop their hp ratings on the same exact engines. Hmmmm...

posted by  ChrisV

That link doesn't get what I'm looking for. I'm looking for the differences between the standard before that one and this one. I want to see EVERYTHING they test (physically). I've been snooping around many other forums and saw that EVERYTHING driven by a belt is tested on a new one; many of them said the power steering unit is something new to be added, of course this is just some people talking, I've been trying to find a list online and still can't find one.

OH and BTW - even though some of the ratings dropped with Honda, I can tell you to strap a new Civic (any trim level), Accord 5MT or 6MT, S2000 or TSX 6MT on a dynojet or dynapack. It WILL put down more than rated power. So much for that...

2006 Civic DX/LX/EX rated - 140hp
Tested - EX Coupe 5spd
Measured Hub Horsepower - 136 hub horsepower
Actual Crank Power - 150hp-155hp
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=415957

2006 Civic Si rated - 197hp
Tested - Civic Si 6spd
Measured Hub Horsepower - 204 hub horsepower
Actual Crank Horsepower - 220-225hp
http://www.vtec.net/articles/view-article?article_id=403644

They also tested a broken in Si which did 218 hub horsepower.

Just to show two, newly rated Hondas.

posted by  thunderbird1100

If you were paying attention to that link, it doesn't say what you were looking for because you were looking for something that doesn't exist! There IS no difference in the test itself! Nothing new has been added to what is or isn't hooked up. ONLY that now they have to adhere to the standard that has been in place since 1971! And that they must have an SAE certified withness to make sure it's on the up and up.

So what you are looking for (a difference in the testing method between the '71 standard and the '05 update) does NOT EXIST. It's just that the '71 standard is now being enforced in order to say they are SAE certified.

The power steering pump is NOT one new thing added. It's always been there, but many manufacturers opted to not use it, saying it was "optional." It was always part of the standard to have all the accessories "as installed" on the engine. But there were apparently loopholes and ambiguity. Those loopholes have been closed. (like the types of fuels allowed). If manufacturers are adding things like power steering now, it's becaeu they didn't adhere accurately to the standards as have been in place since 1971.

SAE standard J1349 on some sites is listed as a new standard, but the SAE site I linked to SPECIFICALLY states the update (J2723) is to the EXISTING J1349 standard.

posted by  ChrisV

Okay, makes sense now.

posted by  thunderbird1100

It's been pretty much accepted here that SAE net, EEC and EEC Din figures quoted for Jap cars are based on 100 RON tuned engines.

Personally I don't subscribe to peak power figures being a most important indicator of engine performance.

thunderbird1100 I would suggest you resist using degree snobbery as a weapon, it doesn't guarantee superior knowledge:- only a degree of knowledge that many others know too, without a piece of paper to prove it.

posted by  Wally

That would be pretty sweet :hi:

Looks kinda futuristic...not sure if exactly like the way it looks, though...

posted by  chris_knows

....yeah, the 3.5V6 in a camry is kind of overkill. I think that the customers would rather have the old 3.0V6 instead. No family is complaining about the lack of power in the old Camry. Its the enthusiasts, magazines, automotive journalists. The Camry is oriented towards the average family, and not all the average families would want to pay a lot more at the fuel pump for a horsepower increase that isn't needed.

posted by  aerith

3.5 V6 Camry?? What's gonna happen with the Avalon??

posted by  elchango36

Stay with the 3.5L V6 but with more power.

Probably bump up displacement in a few years to like 3.7L or 3.8L.

posted by  thunderbird1100

I like the direction this new Camry is aiming in. More power is not anything to complain about.

Styling looks nice but yet is rather unoriginal.

posted by  hondaman

Accord hybrid = 255

posted by  newyorker

Was what that in response to?

posted by  thunderbird1100

Well, it's nothing to complain about if you are us; car enthusiasts. But im sure Soccer mom's and other average families would prefer the 3.0V6 over the 3.5 because it's a lot more gas efficent. Camry = practicality, 3.5V6 does not equal practicality; i think that the 3.5 is going to drive away some customers; who will rather go for the I4 Camry or the 3.0V6 Accord.

Toyota is really milking their new 3.5 V6 engine huh? First the Avalon, then the IS350, and now the Camry. Well, at least not as bad as Infiniti/Nissan, they have been basically been using the same 3.5 V6 for like 5 years and is available on almost every model they carry. Well, i guess every car company is like that; Honda with their J35 is on the RL, Pilot, MDX, Ridgeline.

posted by  aerith

The Toyota 3.5 V6 is also in the 2006 RAV4, and will probably be out on the Highlander and Sienna soon enough.

posted by  thunderbird1100

To the thread. 255 horsepower is a good number, and for a hybrid its really nice. The thread is about asian family sedans, and the accord is one. Surprisingly the Hybrid puts out a nice number.

posted by  newyorker

Okay, got it, just was out of the blue, didn't know exactly what you were getting at... :laughing:

I personally dont like the Accord Hybrid V6. I see no point in it. It only gets "okay" gas mileage more than the Accord 6MT V6 for a Hybrid IMO (21/30 vs. 29/37), costs an astromnomical amount of money over the top of the line 6MT Accord EX Sedan ($27k vs. $30k) and isn't faster than a 6MT Accord Sedan not only because it's offered only in 5AT but the fact it weighs 130lbs more than it.

I just dont see the cost justification for it.

Honda would of been much better off offering a Hybrid I4 like the Camry is going to do, they would of sold MANY more.

The I4 already gets 26/34 mpg with 166hp (new SAE). Imagine a hybrid I4 with 200hp (slotted nicely between the EX and EX-V6 in power) that gets 35/45 mpg and is priced between the EX and EX-V6 ($24,875 is the smack dab middle price). That would be a seller.

I just think it's weird how high it jumps in power from the I4 to the V6 (166hp vs. 244hp). Instead of making a more than expensive EX-V6, 255hp hybrid V6 they should of made a cheaper than the EX-V6, 200hp I4 Hybrid. IT just makes more sense, and I like the way Toyota set that up. Just think if Toyota did the same thing Honda did...

You jump from the 158hp I4 to the 268hp (A 100hp JUMP!) V6 then like a 285hp Hybrid V6! Doesnt make sense.

posted by  thunderbird1100

True. But at least Dad will have more fun now should he get stuck with it. :wink2:

posted by  hondaman

Two things, nearly half again as much fuel mileage at the same power levels is actually pretty damn good justification.
third, implimentation of new tech is almost ALWAYS expensive at first. the kind of peole that buy it do so becau they WANT it, not because teh need it. Kind of like paying more for orgaincally grown food because that's what you believe in, or paying more for recycleable products, etc. And of course, tech is tech, and by people buying new tech at a higher price now, then it justifies increasing production to get lower prices later.

Compare the cost of a 486DX2-66 in '98 vs a P4 3 gHz machine now.

posted by  ChrisV

I dont care if they buy it, my case is basically Honda would of sold many more $6k cheaper Hybrid I4's than Hybrid V6's. I'm looking at this as a profit standpoint.

posted by  thunderbird1100

Your Message