Lesser power rating Aus 5sfe vs Us/Japan 5sfe

[doozergreengrass]

I just came across this site in Australia: http://redbook.com.au/used-cars/deta...d=1334CEDCB0E1

It claims our version of the 5sfe as 93kw (125 hp) @ 5200 rpm, torque 189Nm @ 4400rpm.

Wiki however has no such power ratings for the 5sfe, the lowest being rated at 130 hp (97 kw)

Why are our Australian engines missing 4 kw or 5 hp compared to the lower rated California 5sfe? Is it the emissions system or maybe we have smaller injectors fitted? I'd really love to know, and try to rectify the problem if its cheap to do so!

EDIT: Maybe the web-site is simply incorrect. I just went and checked my owners manual and there's no reference to power output however it does refer to the valve clearances (cold): Intake 0.19-0.29, Exhaust 0.28-0.38. As well as, spark gap 1.1mm, Ignition timing: 10 degrees BTDC (with terminals E1 - TE1 of check connector connected). Are these specs the same as the U.S 5sfe?

[dorifuto.boi]

usually its in the ECU. like how you see same cars in japan with more power then the export. usually it has nothing to do w the engine because eveyrthing is the same.

maybe an extra cat in the exhaust can cause less power output. if its not that, then im gonna say its the ecu

[Silent Runner]

Not a perfect answer, but I do recall that Japanese engine (HP) ratings were for some time based on their own standards (JA?), and not SAE. As a rule for many years, we had to look at JA, numbers and knock them down at least 20%, to compare with NA., rating numbers. I guess the the Japanese horses were a little smaller back then.

[BMR]

It could be a mistake or it could be due to different testing methods. Way back when, American car mfrs used a method that didn't require the engine to spin its own alternator, water pump, nothing. So HP numbers were ridiculously inflated. Now they usually test/publish SAE HP, which is fairly realistic. The engine has to have its usual peripheral equipment. And they correct to sea level, standard atmospheric pressure, and a standard air temperature (65 degrees??). So it could simply be that Aussie test standards are a bit tougher.

[Silent Runner]

Originally Posted by BMR

It could be a mistake or it could be due to different testing methods. Way back when, American car mfrs used a method that didn't require the engine to spin its own alternator, water pump, nothing. So HP numbers were ridiculously inflated. Now they usually test/publish SAE HP, which is fairly realistic. The engine has to have its usual peripheral equipment. And they correct to sea level, standard atmospheric pressure, and a standard air temperature (65 degrees??). So it could simply be that Aussie test standards are a bit tougher.

True about American (and Canadian), Hp, standards, just remembered the old American rating system was called Gross Hp. It was a very loosely monitored rating system of Dino ratings, without as stated, accessories attached, or real life exhaust systems. Gross standard ratings were generally about 20% higher than what the engines made in real life cars. After awhile though, it got even more bizzare, as the Detroit muscle car war heated-up. GM, Ford, and Chrysler started to underate some engines to sooth car insurance companies protests. Ex.: Chrysler Hemis were rated at 425hp., while properly tuned engines were running well over 400hp at the wheels. How else could a 4200lb, Charger run 13.41 @ 106mph, with a 3 speed automatic, and 3.23-1 dif. gears? (Car&Driver/Sportscar, 1969 test) - (modern racing tires would probably knock 1/2 sec. off that time)

Even California, and the rest of US., State numbers have often varied by at least that type of margin. So testing standards, and emissions equipment could easily account for those differences.