[UnknownJinX]

Originally Posted by HCI2000SS

They are advertising the type r at 305 at the crank, so 290 at the wheel shows it definitely underrated. I do agree about the torque though. No comparison there. Plus it's a fairly light car as well

FWD drivetrain has an efficiency advantage against FR RWD. The engine's rotational axis is parallel to the wheels and the distance between flywheel and wheels is much shorter.

290 WHP and 306 BHP translates to about 95% of efficiency, which I agree is a bit high, but the engine isn't underrated much. Besides, the way dynos work means you can read different WHP between different dynos even with the same condition.

Sent from toaster or something

[HCI2000SS]

Originally Posted by UnknownJinX

FWD drivetrain has an efficiency advantage against FR RWD. The engine's rotational axis is parallel to the wheels and the distance between flywheel and wheels is much shorter.

290 WHP and 306 BHP translates to about 95% of efficiency, which I agree is a bit high, but the engine isn't underrated much. Besides, the way dynos work means you can read different WHP between different dynos even with the same condition.

Sent from toaster or something

I agree and that's definitely true about FWD have less total loss on the dyno. But even still a 10 hp loss between crank and wheel power shows that it's still a bit underrated. As far as different dynos with different variations, calculations, etc...I totally agree with that as well. In the case of the type r I have now seen three different tests on different dynos showing similar numbers to this one, so odds are that it's probably a fairly accurate number overall

[Thill444]

I’m too old to drive a Type-R (late 40’s). I appreciate them for what they are but I see them competing more against something like a WRX than a Camaro SS1LE. It would be very hard for me to go from a NA V8 to a turbo 4.