Toyota's new Tundra strikes fear among Big 3

[TravisAe86]

lets see honda bulid a REAL truck...lol vtec 5.8 liter 10,000rpm

[Toysrme]

All figures are corrected to current SAE standards. Engine brake dynos done to the new SAE standard are in every Toyota engine's data sheet in the repair manual.





Power figures must now be run on the recommended fuel. If an engine is sold as preffered to run 87 octane. It will be rated at 87 octane. This is also why a 3.5L 2gr-fe in a Camry makes 268hp, while the identical engine in an ES 350 makes 272bhp.

A 20 horsepower differance is nice bullshit, even on 8 cylinders. That tells you the tuning of the engine is piss-fucking-poor, or that it is being SEVERLY knock limited - to the extint an engine would never make it out the door in the first place, for fears of massive warranty claims.

[gear_head]

Originally Posted by plane

Where did you come up with a 20 horsepower difference? It sure looked like 15.48 versus 15.68 in the 1/4 mile in that article, which would mean no difference between 87 and 91 octane gas.

The Denali lost 1.8 miles per hour in the quarter mile mph trap speed on 87 octane. Trap speed is an indicator of horsepower. Here is a horsepower calculator using knowns of vehicle weight and it's quarter mile trap speed. http://www.speedworldmotorplex.com/calc.htm


Denali(87 octane) - 90mph, 5886lbs(incl 180lb driver) = 335 hp at the rear wheels
Denali(91 octane) - 91.8mph, 5886lbs(inc 180 lb driver) = 355 hp at the rear wheels
A 20 rear wheel horsepower/24 flywheel horsepower loss from using 87 octane.
Still not convinced? Look at GM's LQ4 and LQ9 6.0l engines, they are 20 hp apart with the LQ9 having higher compression and a premium fuel recomendation. The engines are mechanically the same except for pistons - compression ratio.

Comparing the Tundra(Edmunds test) and Denali(Trucktrend test)...
The Tundra had a 93.7 mph trap speed for the Edmund' test. Test altitude list at 1121 ft above sea level.
Tundra 93.7 mph, 5817lbs(w/driver) = 373hp at rear wheels

The Denali had a 93.9 mph trap speed for Trucktrend's test.
Old Bridge Township Park Raceway in New Jersey is listed at 60 ft above sea level.
Denali 93.9 mph, 5886 lbs(w/driver) = 380 at rear wheels

The Tundra was tested 1061 feet higher altitude than the Denali. This is a 12 hp disadvantage for the Tundra. Tundra's rear wheel horsepower is 385 adjusted for altitude.
That would put the Tundra's rear wheel horsepower at 385 - on 87 octane.
12 hp would also give the Tundra a higher trap speed - on 87 octane

Altitude HP loss formula
(elevation(ft) x .03 x hp)/1000

The Denali in the Trucktrend test most likely had more advantageous(cooler) temperatures being tested in late March in NJ.

All new engines are rated at the new SAE standard. Certification - 3rd party witness is optional. After seeing the Silverado in the Edmunds test perform like it had 60 less horsepower(4 sec delay) than it's SAE Certified rating, your horsepower Certification argument does not hold too much weight.

[Toysrme]

Originally Posted by plane

Hidden away on your desktop? Under a half-eaten ham sandwich?
Come on. Posting that information on the web would be much better.

Or you could get off your lazy ass and get it yourself lol!

Where did you come up with a 20 horsepower difference? It sure looked like 15.48 versus 15.68 in the 1/4 mile in that article, which would mean no difference between 87 and 91 octane gas.

See gearhead's previous post.

[Car_Lover]

Do they, well that's great news. I think that Toyota can keep up with competitors with the Tundra.


______________
Caloy
Download Parkinson Cowan manuals

[andy82481]

Wow I thought GM fanboys would trump the 6.2L engine as their ace. Doesnt look like much of an advantage for me. Looks like those 400 Horses have gotten a bit lazy or GM is overrating the 6.2L engine's power output