HP for 4.7 underrated?

[SigShooter]

Before I bought my 2003 Tundra Limited in October I drove the competition. I have the 4.7 4x4 with 3.91 LS. I drove a couple of Fords and they all had the 5.4 which is rated at 260 hp. These Fords all had 3.55 LS and 4x4.I drove a couple of GMC's that had the 5300 Vortec rated at 285 hp with 3.73 gears. Also drove the Hemi Ram rated at 345 hp with 3.92 LS. Hemi and GMC also 4x4.Naturally I wanted to see how much stuff each one had so here is my conclusion.

I think that the 240 hp for the Tundra seems underrated, it feels more like the 285 that is in the 5300 Vortecs, which is a nice engine.The Fords felt the most sluggish of the group. Now for the Hemi, it sure does sound cool and has tons of throttle response around town but when I merged on to an expressway at 60 mph I kicked it down and was expecting to get thrown back, not so. I thought it felt more like the 5300 Vortec when merging. So It's just my opinion that the Hemi is overrated at 345 hp and the Tundra is underrated at 240 hp. I think my Tundra really has some cajones and I love the 4.7 iForce.

[stegert]

Originally Posted by SigShooter

Before I bought my 2003 Tundra Limited in October I drove the competition. I have the 4.7 4x4 with 3.91 LS. I drove a couple of Fords and they all had the 5.4 which is rated at 260 hp. These Fords all had 3.55 LS and 4x4.I drove a couple of GMC's that had the 5300 Vortec rated at 285 hp with 3.73 gears. Also drove the Hemi Ram rated at 345 hp with 3.92 LS. Hemi and GMC also 4x4.Naturally I wanted to see how much stuff each one had so here is my conclusion.

I think that the 240 hp for the Tundra seems underrated, it feels more like the 285 that is in the 5300 Vortecs, which is a nice engine.The Fords felt the most sluggish of the group. Now for the Hemi, it sure does sound cool and has tons of throttle response around town but when I merged on to an expressway at 60 mph I kicked it down and was expecting to get thrown back, not so. I thought it felt more like the 5300 Vortec when merging. So It's just my opinion that the Hemi is overrated at 345 hp and the Tundra is underrated at 240 hp. I think my Tundra really has some cajones and I love the 4.7 iForce.

Toyota is a VERY conservative company.
They quote a number that they know they can produce on every engine so it is highly likely that the output could be much higher than advertised.

Note you have not seen Toyota nailed for claiming more horsepower than engine really outputs like Ford, Mazda or Hyundai

[gnb]

Originally Posted by hovisimo

there's no real way to measure exactly "what" a certain HP rating feels like. too many variables. 245 feels about right, but if i didn't know what 245 feels like in this truck, wouldn't know if it was making 220 or 260. ford 5.4 with 260 feels about the same. GM's 275HP I6 in an envoy feels like 190HP in a 4runner.

I have a 2002 Sequoia -Though I hate to admit it, my old 1995 supercharged 4 cylinder Previa mini-van was "at least" equal in acceleration.

The Sequoia is plain just too heavy for the 240HP powerplant- IMHO.

But then it's my wife's vehicle, I drive a 285 HP turbocharged and tuned Volvo 850 which plain flies.

[DJ]

I'm with SigShooter. I don't use full throttle as is, and I live at 8,700 feet. If it developed more horsepower, I wouldn't use them either.

[v8Toilet]

You can't feel horsepower but you can feel torque. Horsepower is just a mathematical calculation derived from torque. The Tundra makes 315 ft. lbs. of torque at a very low 3400 RPM. The GM Vortec 5300 makes 325 ft. lbs. of torque at 4000 RPM and weighs more than the Tundra. The HEMI trucks are quick for there size and that motor makes 375 ft. lbs but the Dodge is heavy and has a lot of drag. The Dodge is not much quicker than the Tundra. The Toyota also has a more efficient drive train. I got to see this first hand during my dyno run when I put down more horsepower stock than a GM vortec 4800 that is rated at 270 crankshaft horsepower. He put down 196 horsepower and I put down 204. His torque was also 35 less than mine stock and his motor is bigger.

[H2O_MAN]

Originally Posted by SigShooter

... I have the 4.7 4x4 with 3.91 LS.

Test drove... FORD: 3.55 LS and 4x4, GMC: 3.73 gears, Hemi Ram: 3.92 LS.
I think my Tundra really has some cajones and I love the 4.7 iForce.

-Quote in a nutshell-

The power of multiplication at work here.
Toyota makes up any hp short comings with
gear ratios in both the transmission and rear axle.
And, I think the power to weight ratio is better with a Toyota.

Toyota is learning what Honda does so well, employing systems that when broken down on paper and compared with others don't win in many if any catagories, but when the sum total of these systems are applied to real world driving they work together to form a superior vehicle.

HP ain't everything.

[stcj]

I still enjoy the feeling of getting pushed back in the seat with very little pedal movement. I have a buddy who always compares my Tundra to his F-150 5.4L. I got him to stop by letting him drive my truck.
This was his expression
This was mine

[H2O_MAN]

Originally Posted by stcj

This was his expression !
This was mine

Sweet!

[gnb]

The Sequoia's 240 HP cannot out accelerate a 168Hp supercharged 1995 Prvia Minivan- way overweight for the nominal output of the engine.

Glad it's my wife's vehicle.

[Bradley]

V8 Toilet,
Lets see my 93 F150 V8 5.0 has 195 HP and 270 Torque as stated in the sales brochure:the Turbo Diesel offered that year has 190 HP and 395 Torque: so with this comparison I should feel a lot more acceleration with the diesel engine than with the 5.0 V8 based on Torque numbers: well when both trucks are un loaded the 5.0 out accelerates the bigger diesel engine 0 to top end, and the feel of acceleration from the 5.0 is fantastic the diesel is ho hum. Bottom end Torque on the 5.0 it will spin the rear tire to oblivion if held to the floor, the diesel has a slow departure. So much for the Torque and Horse power theory when compared to gas engines Vs diesels on acceleration !!!

[BlueRanger]

What about the H1's, they have like 400ftlbs. torque, and im not sure, but around 200hpish. They are slower then hell, but man, they will friggin pull tree stums outa the ground with all that torque. Maybe the theory doesnt apply to diesel? And i did drive one, ROTC dude was aweseome, we even got to go curb hopping!

[v8Toilet]

Originally Posted by Bradley

V8 Toilet,
Lets see my 93 F150 V8 5.0 has 195 HP and 270 Torque as stated in the sales brochure:the Turbo Diesel offered that year has 190 HP and 395 Torque: so with this comparison I should feel a lot more acceleration with the diesel engine than with the 5.0 V8 based on Torque numbers: well when both trucks are un loaded the 5.0 out accelerates the bigger diesel engine 0 to top end, and the feel of acceleration from the 5.0 is fantastic the diesel is ho hum. Bottom end Torque on the 5.0 it will spin the rear tire to oblivion if held to the floor, the diesel has a slow departure. So much for the Torque and Horse power theory when compared to gas engines Vs diesels on acceleration !!!

Bradley,

The Tundra has 315 ft. lbs. of torque at 3400 RPM and 240 horsepower at 4800 RPM. Lock your truck in first gear and mash the pedal when the engine RPM is about 3300 RPM. Do it again but this time with the engine RPM at 4700 RPM and tell me which one puts you into the seat harder.

A stock Chevy heavy duty with the 300 horsepower Duramax Diesel will out accelerate a Tundra but the same truck with the 320 horsepower 6.0-liter gas engine can’t. Most gas engines have the advantage of revving much higher than a diesel and so therefore a gas engine can take advantage of gear multiplication.

In Car and Driver Magazine the 2003 Honda S2000 with 153 ft. lbs of torque @ 7500 RPM and 240 horsepower @ 8300 RPM can go 0-60 in 5.4 seconds. The 2004 S2000 can also accelerate from 0-60 in the same 5.4 seconds and run the same quarter mile time but it has 162 ft. lbs. of torque at a lower 6500 RPM and makes the same horsepower @ 7800 RPM. The 2003 car can only accelerate from 30-50-mph in 9.9 seconds and 50-70-mph in 9.4 seconds. The 2004 model with more low-end torque due to 160 more cc can now go from 30-50-mph in 8.8 seconds and 50-70-mph in 7.9 seconds for an improvement of 1 second and 1.5 seconds. It is the same car with the same weight and horsepower yet more low-end torque!

[Bradley]

V8 Toilet

Where did you get the numbers, what web page can you ascribe that shows a Duramax out accelerating a Tundra 0 to 60, the statistics I have seen put the Duramax in the 8s at best and 10s at worst, are you referring to a 6 cylinder Tundra ?? Check out this web page http://shadetreemechanic.com/tdr%20ride%20n%20drive%20duramax.htm

[Agent WD-40]

Originally Posted by v8Toilet

In Car and Driver Magazine the 2003 Honda S2000 with 153 ft. lbs of torque @ 7500 RPM and 240 horsepower @ 8300 RPM can go 0-60 in 5.4 seconds. The 2004 S2000 can also accelerate from 0-60 in the same 5.4 seconds and run the same quarter mile time but it has 162 ft. lbs. of torque at a lower 6500 RPM and makes the same horsepower @ 7800 RPM. The 2003 car can only accelerate from 30-50-mph in 9.9 seconds and 50-70-mph in 9.4 seconds. The 2004 model with more low-end torque due to 160 more cc can now go from 30-50-mph in 8.8 seconds and 50-70-mph in 7.9 seconds for an improvement of 1 second and 1.5 seconds. It is the same car with the same weight and horsepower yet more low-end torque!

I see your point. I believe they changed the gearing on the 2004 S2000 as well. I don't think it was drastic, but it could have contributed depending on which way they went with the ratios.

[Brian M]

Originally Posted by gnb

The Sequoia's 240 HP cannot out accelerate a 168Hp supercharged 1995 Prvia Minivan- way overweight for the nominal output of the engine.

Glad it's my wife's vehicle.

May not.....but I can say with a straight face and complete honesty that it will run away from an Expedition.