[RAV4Don]

Motor Trend magazine reports that the '06 RAV4 2.4L engine will have 166HP or 5 more than the '05 version. Is this correct? If so, what accounts for the 5hp difference?

I am always torqued (pun intended) when the power train engineers find another 5hp from a simple change that could have easily been included in previous year engines.

 

[csis_agent]

Motor Trend magazine reports that the '06 RAV4 2.4L engine will have 166HP or 5 more than the '05 version. Is this correct? If so, what accounts for the 5hp difference?

I am always torqued (pun intended) when the power train engineers find another 5hp from a simple change that could have easily been included in previous year engines.

Keep in mind the ratings system also changed this year. Which means the previous models hp would be even less. The HP ratings is actually closer to 175hp when you compare it to the previous years, but under the new system it gets less hp.

 

[RAV4Don]

I understand that the rating methodology has changed and that most likely the 05 2.4L, if unchanged for 06, might actually be rated less. This even more makes me more curious what Toyota did to the 2.4L engine for 06 such that MT has it listed at 166hp.

 

[RAVMAN]

From 1997 to 1998 the "3S-FE" (RAV4 inline 4 banger) ratings increased by 7 hp and 7 lbs. of torque via a distributorless Toyota Direct Ignition System (TDI), an optimized intake system as well as lighter pistons and connecting rods.

In other words... no easy task :roll:

I'm sure Toyota will be releasing more information on the 2006 engine upgrades... soon

 

[Marcutio]

Since its invention, the formula for calculating horse power remains the same. I don't know what changed in the past year for the way companies rate power but the basic principals have to apply.

Is it at the wheels or at the crank that horse power is now rated?

I know for years now when it comes to Japanese equiptment such as snowblowers for example the power rating was always the output power and not rated just at the crank such as Craftsman equiptment and other North American Manufacturers. A Yamaha snowblower like I had was a 8HP but was stronger than a Craftsman 10HP because if you rate them the same way the Craftsman would really only be a 5.5 or 6HP output.

Dyno testing is what all manufactures should have to do to give the consumer an accurate measure of the output HP. We don't need some blown up version of the truth to make it seem like you are buying a rocket ship instead of a steam ship. In most cases that I've experienced this is true. The 148 that they claim I have in my RAV may not be anymore than a VW Jetta from 1986.

Thats it. M. :twisted:

 

[nouse4aname]

Since its invention, the formula for calculating horse power remains the same. I don't know what changed in the past year for the way companies rate power but the basic principals have to apply.

"Under the old testing procedures, there were small factors that required a judgment call: how much oil was in the crankcase, how the engine controls were calibrated and whether a vehicle was tested with premium fuel. In some cases, the little adjustments added up to a big change in horsepower ratings. The new SAE procedures allow less wiggle room."
http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosinsider/0508/17/A01-283759.htm

 

[Marcutio]

I read the article you attached and it just backs one of the points I was trying to make.

That is: Horse power for these car maunufactures is just the engine horse power before it is installed in the car. Everyone knows you loose HP throught the drive train among other things. A car maufacturer should provide us with an accurate measure of useable horse power at the wheels and not with the engine all hopped-up on lab machines in an environment that is just waiting to hype-up the numbers. Put the thing on the dyno and let us know how much power it has after installing the crappy tranny or poor clutch set-up you sold us. An engine is just an engine. It doesn't matter if you have 500 HP if the drive-train provided doesn't do a good job of transfering that power to the wheels. Pay $120,000 for 510hp and really all you get is and overpriced muscle car with a total output of 413hp. ????

If we just rode the engine around town we could boast about our 510hp. Fortunetly there is a whole lot more to a vehicle than just the engine. We some how have to make the wheels spin and maybe the auto makers should work on how effective they do this a little more instead of wasting time blowing up numbers coming out of the lab.

Anyway, Does anyone see my point? Thanks.M.

 

[Marcutio]

Didn't mean to ramble on yesterday but it burns me up when Mega Corporations think the general population is ignorant. M :x

 

[Mohit]

It all comes down to marketing. The general popluation doesnt know much about engines and performance. Advertising a car's power as 510hp is going to sound better and bring in more sales than advertising a car's power as 413hp.

 

[nouse4aname]

I read the article you attached and it just backs one of the points I was trying to make.

That is: Horse power for these car maunufactures is just the engine horse power before it is installed in the car. Everyone knows you loose HP throught the drive train among other things. A car maufacturer should provide us with an accurate measure of useable horse power at the wheels and not with the engine all hopped-up on lab machines in an environment that is just waiting to hype-up the numbers. Put the thing on the dyno and let us know how much power it has after installing the crappy tranny or poor clutch set-up you sold us. An engine is just an engine. It doesn't matter if you have 500 HP if the drive-train provided doesn't do a good job of transfering that power to the wheels. Pay $120,000 for 510hp and really all you get is and overpriced muscle car with a total output of 413hp. ????

If we just rode the engine around town we could boast about our 510hp. Fortunetly there is a whole lot more to a vehicle than just the engine. We some how have to make the wheels spin and maybe the auto makers should work on how effective they do this a little more instead of wasting time blowing up numbers coming out of the lab.

Anyway, Does anyone see my point? Thanks.M.

Well they'd sell a whole hell of a lot less automatic transmissions if the average consumer knew how much power they sapped. That's the auto industry's most popular $1000 option, heh.

 

[RAV4Don]

Well they'd sell a whole hell of a lot less automatic transmissions if the average consumer knew how much power they sapped. That's the auto industry's most popular $1000 option, heh.

Well, I agree with your thinking. When I was considering a new 05 RAV, I spent sometime driving AWD, FWD, autos and manuals. Based on my driving needs and my priorities I ended up with a FWD manual. I avoided the $1k additional cost of the auto, although I know the resale of a manual will probably be more difficult and I'll get much less. I like the feel of more power on the FWD due to less weight and less drivetrain power loss. An AWD with auto tranny simply felt under powered to me. I am also sure there will be driving conditions when I wish I had AWD.

 

[jabba2000]

I can't imagine buying a 2WD RAV4. As for auto vs. manual, having driven my wife's manual (300Z), for me if I'm in an emergency situation, the last thing I want to do is get in an accident while fiddling with the clutch & stick shift. I have a '02 Camry w/ a I4 engine & Auto tran, and while it won't win any Indy 500's, it plenty strong enough (while I do feel the I4 auto on her '96 RAV4 is pathetic).

Not insinuiating that everyone should have this opinion, just sharing mine

 

[DECO]

Hi Jabba.
- "I can't imagine buying a 2WD RAV4 "
Well, I've got a few reasons for you... I know it's a Rav4 not a Rav2, but when I suddenly needed a new car (transmission problem) I still owed a little on my last one, so price was an issue. The 2wheel was cheaper. Get's better MPG than the 4wheel, so with the current gas prices, that GOOD. Still has better traction than a regular car in deep snow (unless it gets too deep). It has better visiblity because of the height. I'm sure there's more reasons, but those are mine.
Jim.

 

[nouse4aname]

Yeah, we had no problems with traction last winter in our FWD Rav. The traction control system was enough to keep us moving. Only issue we had was when we got 2 feet of snow and the car just bottomed out. Not enough ground clearance. It's not like you can go rock climbing in a RAV.

Meanwhile we're getting 30mpg with the utility of an SUV. Don't know why you'd want the AWD

 

[RAV4Don]

Jabba, everyone has different needs and wants. So I guess we should all be glad that when selecting a vehicle we have lots of choices of manufacturers, vehicle types, models, options, colors, etc.

For my needs I simply do not believe I have any need for AWD. Wifey has an AWD RX300 and I am glad for those very rare ocassions when we need an AWD vehicle.

For me I could not justify the addtional cost of an auto and AWD. Not that I don't like those features, but for my third vehicle I need something not too expensive, more practical and fuel effcient (than my Camaro and truck that both have highly modifed engines and really suck gas). I am a new owner of my '05, but was really pleased when I got 30.6 mpg on a long trip (w/rear seats removed) with an engine that is not even broke in yet.

Moreover, I personally find that a manual tranny gives me more control on the road than an auto, but that is just my opinion.

So while I did carefully consider an auto and AWD, for the reasons mentioned in my posts, I ended up with 5spd FWD.

 

[Stafford Meadow]

The AWD version can easily get over 30 MPG on the highway if you don't drive to fast and aren't loaded up. Not everyone will want to drive slower and can't always not have the vehicle loaded up, but the RAV gets impressive mileage for an AWD vehicle.

 

[Marcutio]

Thats what's great about Toyota! They have a vehicle for everyone. Mine serves me just fine. We get a S#!T load of snow here in the winter and the rest of the year we like to explore different trails even when on vacation. We travel in the winter too for Skiiing and vacation to the south on occasion. Let me tell you that we are glad to have been driving our 4x4 Rav coming out of the great white north many times over the past year. As my only vehicle the 4x4 is the only one I would have in my driveway.

Suits our needs perfectly. Wouldn't give it up for anything right now. Winter is on the way! Thanks. M.

 

[Rioux]

Tell me about the snow, it is hell!
I have always wanted a rav, the acura just doesn't cut it when there is 2 ft of snow!

 

[nread]

The sad truth is that the HP ratings are more tied in to the Marketing department than it is to the Development department. For example, the 2003 350Z has 287hp, and the the 2006 350Z has 300 hp. Yet, if you look at the track times, the 2003 is consistently (albeit marginally) quicker. Why? Well, in order for the 2006 to get to that 300 horse, Nissan ended up reducing torque by [email protected] Also, the torque curve is more linear to redline in the 2003. BUT, when the average joe sees 300 on the sticker, instead of 287, it sells cars. And that's just one example. Sometimes I have seen cars HP ratings get adjusted for one year to the next with NO CHANGE. One recent car that comes to mind is the Tiburon, which was reduced from something like 200 to 187 or something. Those numbers may not be accurate, but you get the idea.

The point is, don't be so hung up on the numbers; there is a lot more to it than than just numbers. The 05 WRX has 227 horse. But ask anyone who has one, and they will tell you the car can be hard to drive in town, because the car has no torque until it hits boost around 3k rpm.

Of course, you have to expect that as the engineers get more familiar with the engine, they will find more power out of the engine; it's a natural progression. Just look again at the 35VQDE in the 350Z. Not only is it engineered for more power depending on application, but if you look at the engines history, it actually was introduced with an output of 255. Which, by the way was derived from the 190-22 horse VQ30DE, which was derived from the 157-160 horse VG30DE. I'm rambling...