EPA has released HP numbers

RMK-King · Aug 7, 2018

2019 EPA testing is done, the HP listed on the tests are as follows.

550 fan-75HP
600CFI- 123.7HP
800CFI-156.7HP
850-167 HP

All seem to be pretty accurate in comparison to past testing. Im sure independent dynos will be +/- a couple HP.

Ski-doo#1 · Aug 7, 2018

You are incorrect.

Those are torque numbers that you converted to HP.

Sorry but units of torque and HP aren't interchangeable. The EPA lists the values as kW which is power, but the EPA is incorrect.

If you did the same thing from that spreadhseet and converted the Doo 850's number from kW to HP you would get 193 HP.

So you're telling me the Doo 850 puts out 193 HP? Okay I agree, but no. ?

Ski-doo#1 · Aug 7, 2018

What you really should take from the EPA data is torque not power:

Poo 840: 124.5 Nm ~ 91.83 ft-lb

Doo 850: 144.5 Nm ~ 106.58 ft-lb (awfully close to what Dynotech found)

Timbre · Aug 7, 2018

Sounds about right.
Add a pipe and can to the 850 and it will be close to 180 HP.
Gonna be a BEAST!!

richracer1 · Aug 7, 2018

If you convert the 124.6kW to HP (KW power to mechanical horse power) it comes out as:

124.6 kilowatt = 167.09135236 horsepower (550 ft*lbf/s)

Kilowatts are used worldwide, typically to express the output power of engines and the power of electric motors, tools, machines, and heaters.

Mechanical horsepower, also known as imperial horsepower, is defined as approximately 745.7 watts (550 ft·lbf/s)

richracer1 · Aug 7, 2018

IMO the spreadsheet should read "max test power" instead of "max test torque"

Of course, I or the EPA could be full of you know what....LOL

damx · Aug 7, 2018

I would of liked it to be over 100 ft-lbs

Ski-doo#1 · Aug 7, 2018

richracer1 said:
IMO the spreadsheet should read "max test power" instead of "max test torque"

Of course, I or the EPA could be full of you know what....LOL

Also wrong, it should read "Max Test Torque (Nm)" The EPA is wrong. Cause the values in that column are torque values not Power and not kW values. They are Nm (Newton-Meter) Values.

You do that exact same calculation that you did above with the value for the Doo 850 on that spreadsheet and report back to everyone what your HP value is for the Doo 850. And then I will ask you: You still think it should say max test power?

richracer1 · Aug 7, 2018

Ski-doo#1 said:
Also wrong, it should read "Max Test Torque (Nm)" The EPA is wrong. Cause the values in that column are torque values not Power and not kW values. They are Nm (Newton-Meter) Values.

You do that exact same calculation that you did above with the value for the Doo 850 on that spreadsheet and report back to everyone what your HP value is for the Doo 850. And then I will ask you: You still think it should say max test power?

No need to recalculate, you are correct, should be "Max Test Torque, Nm" not kW. To many dang conversions going through my few brain cells at that time.

freekweet mods · Aug 7, 2018

So if doo had poo clutching?

AndrettiDog · Aug 7, 2018

freekweet mods said:
So if doo had poo clutching?

But it doesn't. It also doesn't have the same weight.

damx · Aug 7, 2018

I thought the axys 800 has more then 91 ft-lbs.

Ski-doo#1 · Aug 7, 2018

richracer1 said:
No need to recalculate, you are correct, should be "Max Test Torque, Nm" not kW. To many dang conversions going through my few brain cells at that time.

I understand. I am glad you understood cause that means I made sense.

damx said:
I thought the axys 800 has more then 91 ft-lbs.

That is a great thought because yes it does make about 95-100 ft-lbs according to dynotech.

One explanation could be this one was detuned for testing or it has been detuned since the release.

Another explanation would be that displacement, torque, and horsepower are not always linear relative to each other. Maybe it did drop but I assume power still went up with respect to the 800.

snowmobiler · Aug 8, 2018

looks like a old m1000 will spank it.

Perk · Aug 8, 2018

Regardless of how this was calculated - it looks like the % change (calculated {[New - Old] / Old} *100) I see 6% difference between the 850 and the 800. But I can't find the EPA results so just going off his final numbers....

Also, I saw some comments about not being able to correlate torque and horsepower.... I thought that HP = Torque * RPM / 5252 - have I been wrong all this time?

05900 · Aug 8, 2018

EPA home of your mileage may vary

Ski-doo#1 · Aug 8, 2018

Perk said:
Regardless of how this was calculated - it looks like the % change (calculated {[New - Old] / Old} *100) I see 6% difference between the 850 and the 800. But I can't find the EPA results so just going off his final numbers....

Also, I saw some comments about not being able to correlate torque and horsepower.... I thought that HP = Torque * RPM / 5252 - have I been wrong all this time?

Sure so you can use this equation to calculate HP given Torque and vice versa.

That is a different story than what the original poster did with the EPA data.

Your equation converts torque (Newton-Meters[Nm], Foot-PoundForce[ft-lbf], Inch-PoundForce[in-lbf], ect.) to horsepower

What the OP did was try to say that Torque = Power.
Torque and Power are not the same thing.

Power has units of Watts (W), Kilowatts (kW), or Horsepower (1 HP = 550 ft-lbf per second)

Power and Torque are not equal.

WestMont · Aug 8, 2018

You can have power without torque but you can not have torque without power?

RMK-King · Aug 8, 2018

The EPA might be wrong on skidoos numbers. I think the KW ratings listed for Polaris are right, the numbers shown closely match last yrs independent dyno numbers so I have no reason to think what they posted is wrong... Also everyone has been saying 167hp for the 850 long before this was posted.

Ski-doo#1 · Aug 8, 2018

WestMont said:
You can have power without torque but you can not have torque without power?

It can actually go both ways.

You can have no power but loads of torque.
You can have loads of power and no torque.

EPA has released HP numbers

Super-Moderator

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Well-known member

Embrace the BRAAAAAAP!

Well-known member

Well-known member

Super-Moderator

Well-known member

Similar threads