Anyone know why the '88 d16a6 was rated at 105hp instead of the 90-91's 108hp?

Reply Subscribe

Thread Tools

Search this Thread

Mar 15, 2010 | 12:26 AM

wakaranai

Thread Starter

Honda-Tech Member

Joined: Aug 2007

Posts: 1,576

Likes: 0

From: SF, CA, USA

Anyone know why the '88 d16a6 was rated at 105hp instead of the 90-91's 108hp?

I am aware that Wikipedia doesn't always contain the most accurate information, but I remember reading on there that the 88 CRX Si's d16a6 is rated at 105 vs 108 for the other years. I know this is rather insignificant, but I am just curious. ECU? Piping? IM? Thanks in advance.

Mar 15, 2010 | 12:57 AM

~sp33~

EFB055

Joined: Dec 2005

Posts: 13,249

Likes: 14

From: Brisvegas, QLD, Australia

Re: Anyone know why the '88 d16a6 was rated at 105hp instead of the 90-91's 108hp?

Could it be the unit of measurement was different? 108 metric hp = 105 US mechanical HP.

108 x 0.98 = 105.8

US mechanical HP being 98% of metric HP. Just throwing it out there.

Mar 15, 2010 | 04:02 AM

ef-hatchcrap

Honda-Tech Member

Joined: May 2005

Posts: 1,327

Likes: 0

From: DeLand, fl, u.s.a

Re: Anyone know why the '88 d16a6 was rated at 105hp instead of the 90-91's 108hp?

I thought it was the ecu? I may b wrong

Mar 15, 2010 | 08:31 AM

wakaranai

Thread Starter

Honda-Tech Member

Joined: Aug 2007

Posts: 1,576

Likes: 0

From: SF, CA, USA

Re: Anyone know why the '88 d16a6 was rated at 105hp instead of the 90-91's 108hp?

Quote:

Originally Posted by ~sp33~

Could it be the unit of measurement was different? 108 metric hp = 105 US mechanical HP.

108 x 0.98 = 105.8

US mechanical HP being 98% of metric HP. Just throwing it out there.

That is what a friend thought as well. Maybe they decided to change it to make it more appealing to the American market?

I have a spare '89 PM6, but I doubt I would be able to feel those 3 hp's if it were the ECU haha. Maybe if it's all lumped in one area of the power band.

Last edited by wakaranai; Mar 15, 2010 at 09:19 AM.