IW STi Forum banner

1 - 20 of 55 Posts

·
Registered
Joined
·
67 Posts
Discussion Starter #1
Dealer Markup

Quoted from Evolutionm.net -

You might want to talk to your spies The EVOs didn't make anything close to the 220 wheel hp you guessed. That's more like what we saw with the pinging EVO VII import we dyno'd a few months back.

The three US EVO VIIIs we've tested (under nearly identical conditions) put down right around 180 wheel hp. That's only ~20 more wheel hp than a stock WRX. Hence my concern about the 271hp rating. Thes dyno figures would suggest closer to 255hp, IMHO.
A few interesting findings:

Peak hp occurs around 5500rpm, not the claimed 6500rpm. Peak torque is right around 4000rpm.

One of the three cars we tested ran 2psi less boost (17 tapering to 15 vs. 19 tapering to 17) than the others. It had a one month earlier build date (1/03 vs. 2/03), FWIW. It ended up making the same power as the other two higher boosting EVOs but with slightly less torque in the low end and midrange.

Our EVO VIII, for some reason, only has a 1bar MAP sensor. Strange seeing it in a turbo car that runs 19psi of boost. I would expect nothing less than a 3bar unit for the car. With the 1 bar MAP sensor, it maxs out (reads a full 5v) at 0psi of boost. Bizarre and pretty useless, as far as I can see. While I didn't check the other cars we tested, I suspect they are similarly equipped.

The car is especially knock prone at certain engine speeds. At least it is on the lovely 91 octane gas we run in CA.

The car runs a frequency-based MAF sensor. Not the usual 0-5v types seen on most other cars.

The car is under-advanced above 5500rpm. Adding just 1-2 degrees of timing at high rpm bumped hp by over 10 wheel hp without any detectible knock.

The EVO VIII's factory ECU is a bit more sophisticated that the older EVOs which had no type of active knock correction or smart ignition learning capabilities. Even the processor on the board is bigger These new ECU smarts will present more complications on the tuning end. But that's what we do so we consider it a challenge.

The EVO, like the WRX, is suseptible to MAF misreadings through intake modifications. We measured some pretty wild MAF errors when trying out different intake configurations.

There's a lot more info we've dug up during our tune-a-thon. Some of it we'd like to keep to ourselves for now and some we'll elaborate on on our website (http://www.vishnutuning.com/lancer.htm). There's nothing there right now but a pretty picture. Give us a couple of days and it'll start filling out. It's past midnight and we just came back from our first test drive of our mildly tuned EVO Lots more info to come....

Cheers,
Shiv
www.vishnutuning.com

PS. As mentioned earlier, all testing on all EVOs were done on 91 octane gas. I did test our car with slightly higher octane (by mixing in a couple of gallons of 100 octane) and found significant gains (6-9 more wheel hp). But still shy, IMHO, of the factory's claim. I think the car's short gearing, great turbo response, and strong midrange torque make it feel quite a bit more powerful than it really is. Still an awesome car. And it's bound to get only better as we get a handle on how to make more power safely.

PSS. Also, keep in mind that these numbers are from our Dyno Dynamics dyno which, while arguably more accurate, reads more conservatively (lower) than Dynopacks and Dynojets. While it's the best dyno for tuning, it's not the best "big number generator" that some people like


Wow a whopping 180whp! :lol:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
149 Posts
Mitsubishi has a horrible reputation for this type of thing, and build quality, especially here in the states. Sadly, I fear we'll be seeing a recall or some other bad thing from the Evo side of things very soon.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,468 Posts
allocations: an anecdote

i'm reserving judgement on the evo until we see what vishnu reports for the sti. *hopefully* it'll be more respectful. hopefully.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
saw the outback paint..

Hmmm, 180 hp... The possiblities as I see them (pick one or more):

1) This is a 33-34% hp loss from the flywheel to the wheels. Mitsubishi has just made an appallingly inefficient drivetrain.

2) There's something wrong with Vishnu's dyno.

3) Mitsubishi is lying to us.

4) The cars are still in "break-in" mode. I've heard stories of the WRX's ECU "releasing" 10 hp after a certain number of miles. Don't know if that holds any water or not.

5) The gas companies are putting 86 octane in the Premium tanks. :evil:

Who knows? But if it gets bad enough, Mitsu will be forced to pull a "Cobra" and fix it quick.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
191 Posts
If these numbers were true, then it shouldn't be having mid 13 second quarter mile runs. Of course this is subjective, but still it has to be more than 180hp to the wheels!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,816 Posts
chawklit said:
i can't believe the mitsu is having knock problems.
That was on a Evo VII Vishnu tested on 91 octane. So, its not the Evo VIII.

If these numbers were true, then it shouldn't be having mid 13 second quarter mile runs. Of course this is subjective, but still it has to be more than 180hp to the wheels!
Exactly! The car has more than the 180awhp that Shiv's dyno shows. I would have to agree that the car needs more breaking in to get more power, but when vishnu used a 93 octane gas wheel horsepower jumped up about 10 hp. That's a lot of gain just on gas. I think the 1/4 tells more of a story than the claimed hp on Vishnu's dyno, which is the lowest in the country. Its not a high-claiming dynojet like the majority use.

No matter what numbers you see these cars are going to be very competitive no matter how much anyone wants to desktop race! :D
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
12 Posts
FROM SHIV

Given the 271hp claim of Mitsubishi, I expected to see approx 200 wheel on my dyno. I arrived at this number from my experiences with tuned and modified WRX. Our Stage Zero kit for the WRX, for instance, makes approx 200 wheel hp on our dyno. As a result, we rate it for 275 flywheel hp. Our Stage 2 which, similarly, which makes 250 wheel hp, is rated at 340 flywheel hp.

So why is the EVO number lower than expected? Well, I can thing of a few reasons. First, all the motors tested had no more than 700 miles on them. While Mitsu says that only 600 miles of break-in is needed, I'm sure they will loosen up with additional miles. Two, all motors were tested in CA with 91 octane gas. We know from testing that a few extra octane points is worth up to 8 or 9 wheel hp. Furthermore, it is likely that Mitsubishi makes its claims assuming nothing less than the 93 octane fuel most states get. Three, it has been brought to my attention by someone I trust that the EVO drivetrain is likely to induce more driveline loss than that of a Subaru (which is alarmingly elegant by virtue of its flat-four, longitudinal configuration mounted in front of the front wheels).

Add all this stuff up together, jumble it around, wait for the dust to settle, and it's not unreasonable to expect the EVO to read ~20 wheel hp lower than expected. It's just unfortunate that the octane issue might be true since I suspect most EVOs sold in the US will be in CA and run on 91 octane fuel.

Of course, please take the above pontifications as nothing more than a guess based on assumptions. Without additional testing and the feedback from the right folks at Mitsubishi (something I'm working on right now), they are NOT FACT. It is too early in the game to refer to anything as being fact.

Cheers,
shiv
www.vishnutuning.com
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
I took the story to be more of an informational alert to potential buyers or owners than as a trashing of the numbers. They have several qualifying statements in the story and even say stay tuned as they learn more. Plus, the cpu board has changes, so their mapping will have to adjust accordingly. Like the last post says....wait to meet it on the street before desktop racing it. Given the engine platforms past history, it will be a strong contender. Now...not that I can' wait to go head to head with it in an STi...but then...thats still desk top racing 'cause we just don't know enough real time date yet.

On a bit of a side trip...is anyone aware of a NE dyno capable of handling AWD? I know I'll be heading there after it's broken in.

Ciao,
Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,816 Posts
Scott,
If you go to a dynojet gyno (the most common) they just released an awd dyno, but it isn't as accurate as Shiv's and will post higher numbers. For example the Evo posted over 250wheel hp on the dynojet dyno.

Another thing to mention on this is even though Shiv got a lower number than expected he also performed a few tweaks and got the number closer to 215awd hp on his dyno. Approxximately 30 wheel hp w/o touching the boost!!! :eek: Looks to me like there is power to be found in these cars.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
575 Posts
Motorcycles usually always have big power discrepancies between two identical engines had no clue cars were like this too...
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
866 Posts
Then Shiv posted this:
I just talked to Richard at the Dyno Comp. We are indeed using very different settings for the dyno. This, by our calculations, accounts for much of the differences. So... we've decided to put our heads together and come up with some standard settings (inertial factor, ramp-up rate, intake temp sensor placement, etc,.) so that our results are reasonably comparable. This may take a little time though. But we're working on it. His numbers are likely to come down substantially. And ours may go up a bit. We'll probably end up meeting in the middle like all good negotiators

Cheers,
shiv
www.vishnutuning.com
So apparently now they have tune the dyno's.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
3,816 Posts
4MLA1FN said:
91TB78 said:
Scott, If you go to a dynojet gyno......
[snicker snicker, he said "gyno"] :p
oops...that sucks!!! fruedian slip I guess!


Well, this is good news if Vivid got much, MUCH better results.
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
105 Posts
Todd...thanks for the info..I'll check out Dynojet.

Anyone remember if you can slightly engage the e-brake and transfer all power to rear wheels? Wondering if this was an option, even though the numbers won't be the same as the powertrain losses wouldn't be as much.

But then...AWD launch followed by center differential adjustment to rear wheel power....sounds like a good combo.

Scott
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
541 Posts
I would think it would be the other way around: RWD launch followed by gradual adjustment to AWD, like the Skyline. "Gradual" is of course relative.

Besides, I don't think anyone would be pulling the e-brake during a drag race just to send torque to the rear, even if it worked that way... :wink:
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
2,773 Posts
Yeah, with the weight transfer to the rear, you'd want the power to initially go straight to the back, then transfer. I don't think you can pull that off by a simple addition of brake lines or anything like that and do it without hurting yourself all the while.

The Skylines hydraulic clutch allows this to take place. Since we are all mechanical, we really don't have a way to make the differential throw power to the back without stopping the front wheels altogether, which obviously won't help your launch!
 

·
Registered
Joined
·
83 Posts
Actually, pulling the e-brake will drop all power to the rear (ie. become FWD) so that you aren't burning the rear brake pads or damaging the drive line components. It is useful in rallying to get the rear end to slide quicker around sharp corners and hairpins. I definitely wouldn't recommend it for drag racing.

However, the DCCD does allow adjustment to a maximum of 65% rear wheel torque - enough to improve acceleration, but likely not enough to allow the rear to break loose during a drag launch. You should still try to protect the AWD drivetrain and not do any 3000-4000 rpm drops. The way I see it, it's better to slip the clutch too much and burn it up than it is to risk damaging the transmission. Clutches are a lot cheaper, and easier to replace.
 
1 - 20 of 55 Posts
Top