Check it out!!

http://www.vividracing.com/forums/project-evo-x/21415-project-evo-x-has-arrived.html

Also First impressions.

http://www.vividracing.com/forums/mechanics/21414-evo-x-first-impressions.html

Good find and the numbers are good for a stock car.

So 256 torque and 232 Hp?

so he thinks it will go over 300 with just some bolt ons and a tune well thats good then.

That thing is running rich. I wish they would throw an mbc on there and get a few more psi.

Wow, those things run SILLY rich from the factory. Lots of power to be made from tweaking them.

Wonder how those dynos compare to a dynojet.

[br] http://www.vividracing.com/forums/project-evo-x/21415-project-evo-x-has-arrived.html (http://www.vividracing.com/forums/project-evo-x/21415-project-evo-x-has-arrived.html)
http://www.vividracing.com/forums/gallery/files/5/5/4/3/evox3.jpg
http://www.vividracing.com/forums/gallery/files/5/5/4/3/Scan10281a.jpg

Merged and moved to News.

can someone explain to me the difference between a mustand dyno and a dynojet.

Mustang dyno shows lower number relatively to dynojet.

hey guys, i have one thing to say...

fck the haters.

review after review after review, it's been nothing but thumbs up. :rock:

Ah..noob question...

what exactly is "running rich" ?

Ah..noob question...

what exactly is "running rich" ?

A car can run rich, lean, or anywhere in between.

What this refers to is the air:fuel ratio of the motor.

Ideally, while not on boost, a standard gasoline engine runs a 14.7:1 air:fuel ratio.

That means that for every 14.7 parts of air in the cylinder, there is 1 part fuel. 14.7 is an ideal ratio that cars run as a good balance between power, fuel economy, and emissions.

if you run 13.7:1, you're running a little richer, and if you're running 15.7:1, you're running a little lean. Remember, the LOWER the number on the left, the MORE fuel you are running.


To understand it, take it to an extreme. If you ran a 1:1 air fuel ratio (which the engine couldn't actually run at), then your engine would burn as much fuel as it did air. On the other hand, if you ran a 100:1 air fuel ratio, you'd barely be burning any fuel at all.

Under load, most engines run a bit rich (in the neighborhood of 12:1) for two reasons.

1-a slightly richer air:fuel ratio will usually give you more power.

2-It's safer to run richer than leaner. Extra fuel in the cylinder will keep the temperatures lower (the fuel cools the combustion temps) whereas too little fuel will cause the combustion temps to rise, which is dangerous to a motor.

Most boosted engines I've tuned make the most power at 13:1 or so (which is slightly rich). However, it's dangerous to tune a car for that ratio, as it has little room for error...if it leans out a little, you could lose your motor. With that in mind, we normally go a full point richer for a safety margin (so 12:1 or so). Mind you, this is only under load (full throttle, etc). Under normal driving, you won't be boosting, so you should be running 14.7:1 or so.

Anyway, the air:fuel charts on the dyno posted earlier indicated an air:fuel ratio deep into the 9s. Mitsu obviously did this for safety...they detuned it on purpose. When a car is THAT rich, the fuel is actually hindering performance since it doesn't get to fully burn, and it tends to bog down the motor. I can almost guarantee you that if you pulled some fuel and ran it at 12:1 or so,
you could probably pick up at least an extra 12-20 horsepower (guestimate) without too much work.

thanks for the info, Kooldino :)

good find I cant wait to get mine

230 whp on mustang dyno is about 260-270 whp on dynojet

Thanks Dino.

thanks for the info, Kooldino :)

+1 I learned something. Havent touched that stuff since the good ole days of twisting the mixer nob on Holley 650's. :rock:

+1 I learned something. Havent touched that stuff since the good ole days of twisting the mixer nob on Holley 650's. :rock:


Old school!

To whoever asked, the main difference between the mustang and dyno jet dynos are as follows. Dyno Jets are what is called inertia based. This means that the way that they measure hp and torque is calculated based on how quickly then spin the rollers. This is not a very accurate method of measurment, and tends to read much higher than what the car is actually making. Mustang dynos, much like Dyno Dynamics, are what is called load based. This means that the measurment is based on load values like what a car actually sees when driving on the road. Since certain manufacturers, i.e. subaru, uses different power splits other that 50/50 (sti is 65 rear, 35 front), the load based dynos can be tuned to provide diffferent levels of load for the front vs the rear for safe, accurate simulation of the road weight that the engine would see in real world driving conditions. FTR, inertia based dyno's are notoriously bad when it comes to ensuring that the speed of the front and rear wheels is the same. When they are not, bad news for center diff. Plus, since the car will most likely see greater load on the road than on an inertia based dyno like a Dyno Jet, the tuner can tune the car too aggresively on the dyno, and then when you get the car on the road, detonation and other issues can crop up. Dyno Dynamics and Mustang dynos deliver a better quality, safer, more reliable tune, and ensure that your transmission is not in jeopardy when on the dyno. I've had my STi tuned on both, and although the numbers were higher on the Dyno Jet, of course, the tune on the Dyno Dynamics was far smoother, and the power band was better. The tuners were of equal knowledge and skill so I would equate the difference purely to be the dyno making it easier to get a proper tune out of. Anyway, I hope that in my long, probably boring, explanation that I answered your questions. KoolDino, please take no offense if you use a Dyno Jet at your shop, I'm sure that you are probably a good tuner, this is just my .02.

Don't worry, it will be a long time before I have my own dyno.

FWIW though, since I'm mostly known for tuning Mazdas, I've had the opposite problem on the DynoJet. The dyno put too much load on the car. IIRC, the rollers weigh somewhere between 3100 and 3300lbs. However, the cars I tune weigh in at around 2700lbs. So when I tune a car on a Dynojet, it's actually putting more load on the car than it will ever see on the street.

When I drive off of the dyno, the power band is smooth, but it's about 1.5 points richer than it should be. I end up having to pull fuel from the whole map just to make it streetable.

Interesting... but you do see my point on the dyno dynamics being a better dyno though, right? I mean it's not to say that the dyno jet doesn't still get the job done, it's just that I don't think it holds a candle to a dyno dynamics or a mustang when it comes to transmission safety and overall accuracy.

Dyno with just intake I believe...

http://www.vividracing.com/forums/gallery/files/5/5/4/3/Scan10283a.jpg

We finished the prototype components for the EVO X intake system. This includes the suction pipe to the turbo and short ram intake kit with heat shield that connects to the factory air scoop.

The car did really well actually with the complete intake kit and suction pipe. The car by nature from the factory ran quite rich. With the addition of the intake components, it leaned the car out to a safe tunable AFR which gave it a ton of power. The boost was consistant but heavily drops off. We definitely need to get a boost controller and/or have some ECU tuning done. We suspect that with the intake and a good turbo back exhaust (coming soon) the car will pick up about 40HP easily.

Final testing will be done on the intake kit which will be sold as just the short ram or just the suction pipe. You will be able to get it at a combination as well. We hope to start production by Monday and have product shippable within 2 weeks.

Here is the dyno sheet from the run. Stay tuned!


HELL YA :D

wow. from just an intake those numbers are impressive.

Awesome! This new motor probably won't have the power holding capacity of the old iron block 4g63, but it is a more advanced engine with extremely conservative tuning from the factory, and I really think that mod for mod, it will make more power than the 4g63 did. I can't wait. Normally, intakes add a little bit of power, but damn, that's the biggest gain from an intake kit I've ever seen! With an exhaust and a reflash, I really think they'll hit OVER 300 whp. Hell, the car comes from the factory with a twin scroll turbo, which means that it could benefit big time from a header (turbo manifold) upgrade, depending on how good the factory header is. The possibilities are starting to really show. Badass. Period. Eat it, evo 9 owners.

Awesome! This new motor probably won't have the power holding capacity of the old iron block 4g63, but it is a more advanced engine with extremely conservative tuning from the factory, and I really think that mod for mod, it will make more power than the 4g63 did. I can't wait. Normally, intakes add a little bit of power, but damn, that's the biggest gain from an intake kit I've ever seen! With an exhaust and a reflash, I really think they'll hit OVER 300 whp. Hell, the car comes from the factory with a twin scroll turbo, which means that it could benefit big time from a header (turbo manifold) upgrade, depending on how good the factory header is. The possibilities are starting to really show. Badass. Period. Eat it, evo 9 owners.

:wtfsign:

Go over to the Mazdaspeed boards and check out their intake-only dyno numbers.. 30whp was average.

And the IXs with exhaust and reflash got over 300whp.

You sound like an unrealistic fanboy.. :shades:

Interesting... but you do see my point on the dyno dynamics being a better dyno though, right? I mean it's not to say that the dyno jet doesn't still get the job done, it's just that I don't think it holds a candle to a dyno dynamics or a mustang when it comes to transmission safety and overall accuracy.

Obviously, I wasn't arguing that.

They seriously need to upload some better dyno sheets. My eyes hurt just looking at that thing.

Anyway, looks like there's a good power gain from the intake. That alone should make up for the acceleration deficit of the X vs the IX.

Anyway, the air:fuel charts on the dyno posted earlier indicated an air:fuel ratio deep into the 9s. Mitsu obviously did this for safety...they detuned it on purpose. When a car is THAT rich, the fuel is actually hindering performance since it doesn't get to fully burn, and it tends to bog down the motor. I can almost guarantee you that if you pulled some fuel and ran it at 12:1 or so,
you could probably pick up at least an extra 12-20 horsepower (guestimate) without too much work.

Are you sure Kool I just looked at the graph again...The Minimum AFR was 10.0 it AVG 10.2 and had a Max of 12.8 where did it say it was in the 9s....

Sure, whatever, 10.0 then. We're not splittling hairs here. Like I said above, their scans suck and are hard to read. Regardless, my point remains the same. Whether it's 9.something or 10.0, it's still far too rich.

Also, fwiw, most widebands can't read anything richer than 10.0:1, and if that's the case here (which is likely), then wherever it read 10.0:1, it was in fact richer than that. Again, irrelevant, as my point is that the car can be leaned out significantly for more power.

i dont know about accurate , but i would go with the Mitsubishi whp-wtq numbers as a base line. They are on the the IX around 255 whp 250 wtq . And that is exactly right on with the Dyno jet.
But i would never pay too much attention on those numbers. Doesn't matter it comes from mustang dyno or dyno jet.
i think the best possible tune is a road tune period.

Sure, whatever, 10.0 then. We're not splittling hairs here. Like I said above, their scans suck and are hard to read. Regardless, my point remains the same. Whether it's 9.something or 10.0, it's still far too rich.

Also, fwiw, most widebands can't read anything richer than 10.0:1, and if that's the case here (which is likely), then wherever it read 10.0:1, it was in fact richer than that. Again, irrelevant, as my point is that the car can be leaned out significantly for more power.


Oh I know I didnt mean any disrespect just was using the graph somewhere else and didnt want to say 9 or 10 without it saying the other...yah know?

Yeah, I understand, I'm just saying that it's not like we're making specific calculations here or anything, so no need to be precise about things. I was just trying to make a general point.

ROBEVO, the numbers of different dynos are important. Dyno Dynamics and mustangs are much more accurate and conservative than dyno jets. An evo 9 puts down about 255 on a dyno jet, and about 220 on a mustang and dyno dynamcs. that's a 35 hp difference. So, if the evo x put down 235 on the mustang, then thats about 270 on a dyno jet. This means that the evo x is putting down more power to the wheels than the 9 is, which would make sense since the evo x has more at the crank. And for the record, dyno tuning is far more precise and effective compared to a road tune. When road tuning, there is no way to tune in real time, it's all based off of looking at a log of the cars behavior after doing a pull, and then making guestimations. It's guess and check tuning...inferior. Not meaning to be insulting, but you should do some research on these things before making an incorrect statement like that.

Oke i got it. Can you explain to me why the Mitsubishi numbers are a closest to the Dyno jet numbers ,if the dyno jet is not that so accurate? I'm not good with dyno's.
Also the road tune as far as i remeber was never guess . They logging your car /so there goes the guessing/ and readjust it,just like on the dyno. But it was never been done with me on stock ecu. So i don't know how it works on that. But i have a good tuner and we will see how the road tune will work vs dyno on stock ecu.The dyno is a best tool to get your base numbers on your car. Then you readjust it for real life,this is how i got tuned on race cars before.
So then why dyno tune only for the most time? Because, and for most it is cheaper. Also it is more then enough for most of us. Since most of us will never use the evo for race only. But that is doesn't mean it is best tune you can get on your car. Also just remember most race cars in the rally or the F1 /just an example / get the final tune on road not on dyno. It is very simple why, because the whole enviroment of tune is changing soon as you leave the dyno. So you get out in the real life ./More air coming in + colder etc./ So based on my knowledge i'm not really incorrect.But if i do, so those racing teams too.No hard feeling though.:thumbup:

A car can run rich, lean, or anywhere in between.

What this refers to is the air:fuel ratio of the motor.

Ideally, while not on boost, a standard gasoline engine runs a 14.7:1 air:fuel ratio.

That means that for every 14.7 parts of air in the cylinder, there is 1 part fuel. 14.7 is an ideal ratio that cars run as a good balance between power, fuel economy, and emissions.

if you run 13.7:1, you're running a little richer, and if you're running 15.7:1, you're running a little lean. Remember, the LOWER the number on the left, the MORE fuel you are running.


To understand it, take it to an extreme. If you ran a 1:1 air fuel ratio (which the engine couldn't actually run at), then your engine would burn as much fuel as it did air. On the other hand, if you ran a 100:1 air fuel ratio, you'd barely be burning any fuel at all.

Under load, most engines run a bit rich (in the neighborhood of 12:1) for two reasons.

1-a slightly richer air:fuel ratio will usually give you more power.

2-It's safer to run richer than leaner. Extra fuel in the cylinder will keep the temperatures lower (the fuel cools the combustion temps) whereas too little fuel will cause the combustion temps to rise, which is dangerous to a motor.

Most boosted engines I've tuned make the most power at 13:1 or so (which is slightly rich). However, it's dangerous to tune a car for that ratio, as it has little room for error...if it leans out a little, you could lose your motor. With that in mind, we normally go a full point richer for a safety margin (so 12:1 or so). Mind you, this is only under load (full throttle, etc). Under normal driving, you won't be boosting, so you should be running 14.7:1 or so.

Anyway, the air:fuel charts on the dyno posted earlier indicated an air:fuel ratio deep into the 9s. Mitsu obviously did this for safety...they detuned it on purpose. When a car is THAT rich, the fuel is actually hindering performance since it doesn't get to fully burn, and it tends to bog down the motor. I can almost guarantee you that if you pulled some fuel and ran it at 12:1 or so,
you could probably pick up at least an extra 12-20 horsepower (guestimate) without too much work.


thanks a lot for that explanation comes handy for a person who is learning about workings :) can you please tell if adjusting the "timing belt" to make engine advance or lean has the same purpose or is that another subject altogether?