I read an article from Perrin Performance, and they dyno'd an 08 wrx and they were consistently getting 210whp which equates to about 245hp. But there's lots of conditions that factor into dyno numbers. Outside temp, altitude, etc...could have just been a good dyno day.

 

Do a search and you'll find that it is true, although my car has not been on the dyno yet. Cobb Tuning's dyno result of a stock 06:
http://www.cobbtuning.com/images_products/2656.jpg

This is common BTW. My 2000 Camaro Z28 was rated 305hp 335tq. But it dynoed stock around 305hp and 315 tq to the wheels. This was done by GM to not steal thunder from the Corvette.

 

I believe it's true from the evidence seen.

 

A search should turn up many posts on this; it was widely discussed and proven when the '06 first came out years ago.

 

car

Oh thanx guys I just never heard about cars being underestimated only overestimated by mazda.They overated the hp on miatas and got in some trouble I heard.I was in japan for 2 years so this is all news to me sorry that im behind:rotfl:

 

First I've heard of it, but I'm not exactly "in the know". Either way I would'nt be surprised.

 

So with this info, what about previous years 02-05 that were supposed to have 225hp, anyone??:sadwave:

 

they were rated correctly.

The thing is, from the 05 to 06 MY the engine got bumped from a 2.0 up to a 2.5, yet the car was still rated at 224 hp/ 226 lb/ft torque (same as 02-05). Obviously the bigger motor would produce some more power.

According to Cobbtuning.com, a stock 02-05 dyno'ed at 169.9 hp and 174.3 lb/ft of torque. According to the same people, a stock 06-07 dyno'ed at 202.0 hp and 234.2 lb/ft. of torque. (HUGE difference) The car has more torque at the wheels than it was listed to have at the crank.

So, according to Cobbtuning.com, and their dynos, the 06-07 put down 32.1 more hp than an 02-05 and 59.9 more lb.ft of torque than an 02-05.
Obviously, the 2.5 liter has a little more than the 2.0, and the 06-07 are underrated from the factory.
I have heard it was to either, make the STi look better or to help people with insurance rates, either way, I'll take it.

 

^^^^^bump it:sadwave:

 

And as others have mentioned, all cars dyno differently depending on a number of factors, including different dyno's.

One thing I knew for certain. When I first drove my car, I said, "no way this has just 224 torque". I come from the LS1 world, and the "seat of my pants meter" told me this car was underrated, even though it weighs ~300 pounds less than my Camaro...

 

Gentlemen, the rating std for HP changed in 2006.....er the MFG's were all required to change to a different rating method. As such you'll notice despite the increased performance, 2006 and 2007 STi's went down to 292 HP from 300 hp in 2004-2005.

Be that as it may underrating factory cars is nothing new and quite common. The big 3 most notably started underrating vehicles in the late 50's early 60's for insurance purposes. Then fast forward to late 70's and early 80's and it seemed the opposite were true. To my recollection, somewhere in the mid 90's and up the trend of underrating seemed to come back a little.

Do I think my 2006 WRX was underrated? Not on HP but definitely on TQ.

Who underrates the most today? IMO GM. I can think of the cobalt, corvette, and anything LS1-2-3 powered has been underrated frequently and substantially.

IMHO most imported brands like to get close to actual and always have. My only theory as to why imports like to rate exactly, is their need to be precise and accurate in every way they build a car, and they have no previous history of underrating or an established need to. Domestics stand to gain more by underrating as it gives them a more "bang for buck feel" and everything American has always been "look at me I'm a pushrod large displacement chest bangin motor!" But frankly we are the only country in the world with this mantra.
In the USA 8.1L gets you a gasoline V8 engine. In europe you get two V8's that equate to ~8.1L. Heck most european V12's are only 4L-6L.