This is a post from the guys at agp turbo from an evom thread. The haters/9 fanboys are pissed off and just can't accept the facts. Here's what kevin had to say...

Still on the dyno trying different parts. So far with just an AGP TBE and the Turbonetics billet boost controller we gained 55whp over our stock base dyno. Stock we did 261whp and just now did 316whp. Both are at 23psi with 91oct AZ **** gas. The stock runs dropped to 15psi at redline and right now they are dropping to 17psi. We're going to swap in our stronger waste gate actuator and see if we can get it to hold more boost to redline.

More to come.......

Kevin@AGP

Oh, this is where it gets good...


Update-
We built a more efficient FMIC and a new hot side charge pipe. Changed the cold air intake pipe a little and dyno'd again. 345hp/330tq. I think the turbo is running completely out of air, we were running 24psi now and it's falling to 18.

Just as we suspected the better intercooler solved a lot of the knocking problems. From what we've learned so far I'd say TBE is by far the first mod anyone should do and honestly I think intercooler should be next. Next week we will test another FMIC core and see what we get. The core we used is OK but not the greatest.

Next week we will get serious and start working hardhttp://forums.evolutionm.net/images/smilies/biggrin.gif Stay tuned for more fun.

Kevin@AGP

Well, to me this just shows how detuned the EVO X really is from the factory. Amazing!

good to know!

I'm not much of a car guy, and have never really owned a high performance car before, so excuse my newb question... How much do these sorts of upgrades cost? (installed and tuned) Even stock the Evo X is going to be considerably quicker then my current car, so I probably wont do anything with it right away, but I may consider these sorts of things down the line so I'm curious.

Dan

Perfect timing, I just posted a new thread with my EVC install.:thumbup:

Haaah?

Are you sure this info is correct?

It's about the better intercooler solve the knocking problems...

Is it true?

Haaah?

Are you sure this info is correct?

It's about the better intercooler solve the knocking problems...

Is it true?

Hot air causes the combustion chamber temperatures to rise. This can result in detonation which is the premature combustion of compressed air/fuel. When detonation occurs, the piston is forced down with a shockwave type of effect which basically is "engine knock".

he talking about 345 whp or bhp?
Because if that bhp is very simular tp the IX with same level. Wich is great news. If that whp that is awsome!!!!

Thats a huge jump in HP. Id like to see the dyno sheet.

he talking about 345 whp or bhp?
Because if that bhp is very simular tp the IX with same level. Wich is great news. If that whp that is awsome!!!!

He's talkin' wheel..

He's talkin' wheel..

than that is almost i would say is little over the top. That 345 whp makes the car at the crank aprox. 396 bhp....
wich is right there the FQ400 territory.
and this with only: TBE, CAI, 24 psi, 91 octain, hotside pipe , FMIC, NO TUNE....
I would raise the flag:
:bsflag:

just step back for the second and think about it... I dont want to get too much into this , but with those mods with no tune ,the car have to have some issues via ECU. Just remember the more simple evos before with those bolt ons got all kind of problems.The ECU is the most of the time does some safe reactions to prevent the engine from any damage. /limp mode, fuel cut, boost cut etc. /Now if you raise the hp with only those mods over 100 bhp...
:weirdosign:

something is not right here, or my poor english the reason why i dont get it.
:workout:

Kevin at agp turbo uses a chassis dyno, which reads very similar to a dynojet. I'll go to evom and see if he's posted thedynographs of the latests runs yet. But, believe it... the x makes outstanding power with small mods, more than the 9, a lot more. Now no one is disputing the fact that the iron block 4g63 can handle more power than the aluminum 4b11, but unless you plan on going over 6-700 hp, the 4b11 makes more power mod for mod. Part of the reason that they're making so much power is that the car is running too rich stock and chocking on itself from the middle of the rpm range to redline. Leaning it out with an intake and more boost nets a huge gain. Second, the car has mivec on both cams now instead of just the intake like the 4g63 did. When the 9 got mivec, it gained a shit-load of power compared to the 8. Well, what did you think was going to happen when they added mivec to the other cam in the x? The heads flow even better than the 9's do too, which is amazing. All of this equals huge power. My guess is when they reflash the ecu the driveability factor will be great, and some more power will obviously made on top of all this. And uh, robevo, you have to do the math right. If their dyno reads 261 at the wheels stock, and factory crank hp is 291, that's exactly a 30 hp loss, according to this dyno. Now, that's like a dyno jet, it's reading on the high side, but the gains are whats important. 30 HP + 345 = 375 at the crank. Now, the car really is making more in the 235 range at the wheels on a more conservative reading dyno like a dyno dynamics or a mustang, so add the 84 hp gain to 235 and you're at 319, if I'm doing the math in my head correctly. A stock evo 9 with the same mods + a reflash only makes about 290. So that's basically 320 compared to 290 with the 9 having a reflash on top of the other mods done to the x. The x maes more power, a lot more.

But can the stock turbo hold 23psi steady across the rpm range? it looks like the stock turbo can't handle much power. Just to run 350hp the turbo is probably at 100% duty

The turbo is running from 24 psi down to 18 at redline. I'm not sure what duty cycle it's running, but it's olny a 1-2 psi increase over stock. It's the taper where the turbo is working harder. I'm not sure what kind of wastegate duty cycles the car is running, although the ecu is still stock, they're just running a manual boost controller. I would imagine ecu tuning could turn out some incredible results. And considering that the car is making close to 400 at the crank on a stock turbo, your theory of the stock turbo not being able to make much power seems like it just went out the window.

good info i really hope that is the case in this car.

Holy crap.

As pointed out earlier, 80whp over stock for just a few bolt-ons is questionable, but even if it's half that, that's still a good gain. I'll email AGP and see if we can get them over here. I'm really excited to hear this news!

" And uh, robevo, you have to do the math right. If their dyno reads 261 at the wheels stock, and factory crank hp is 291, that's exactly a 30 hp loss, according to this dyno. Now, that's like a dyno jet, it's reading on the high side, but the gains are whats important. 30 HP + 345 = 375 at the crank."

Uh,well lot to learn from this .... the math is not to add 30 whp ...this is just poor math. :pokeowned:

the power train loss in the evo is aprox. 15%. So do the math aprox. 396.
I don't even go further. :wallbash:

"but unless you plan on going over 6-700 hp, the 4b11 makes more power mod for mod. "
I'm not doubting but i would like to know where you get your info's?:slaphead:
about the 8-9 gain difference:
The IX gain more because of the mivec, after tune. Also didn't gain a shit load more. :googlesign:
since after cams and bolt ons the 8-9 equaled it out, for mod to mod.:rock:

"A stock evo 9 with the same mods + a reflash only makes about 290. So that's basically 320 compared to 290 with the 9 having a reflash on top of the other mods done to the x. The x maes more power, a lot more. "

I'm speachless, are you from EvoM by any chance?

Keep things cool, guys.

i'm cool, just making sure we not going to too much ahead ourself...

new regulations make the exhaust more restrictive from what ive seen on the new EVO... i think thats why you see such a gain with the TBE

Hello. This is Kevin@AGP.
The exhaust on the X is a way bigger restriction that on the IX. So even with the X running more boost it makes less whp stock/stock. We swap out the exhaust on the X and it of course gains way more power than a IX (that had an OK exhaust to begin with).

Kevin

Now i'm confused... not the X makes more whp and torque? What i have see in this thread it was stock X. 261 whp,/ wich is more then the IX/?
But anyway can you clear out this bump from ahead of us. So the X makes TBE, CAI, 24 psi, 91 octain, hot side pipe,FMIC. with no tune 345 whp and 330 wtq?
If it does that would be awsome . But i'm little sceptical , since its not tuned.

We are using a DynaPack. It reads on par with the other Dynapacks and DynoJets in town. But Mustange Dyno nubers are always read about 10% lower. So like EVOXGSR said, don't take the numbers a gospel but the gains are what is important.

Kevin

We are using a DynaPack. It reads on par with the other Dynapacks and DynoJets in town. But Mustange Dyno nubers are always read about 10% lower. So like EVOXGSR said, don't take the numbers a gospel but the gains are what is important.

Kevin
that is great news then. huh the x dont even need the tune, to pass the IX stage 1 base numbers...:rock:
He he, i dont know how the 4B11 dislikers will react to this one...:bowlol:

Now i'm confused... not the X makes more whp and torque? What i have see in this thread it was stock X. 261 whp,/ wich is more then the IX/?
But anyway can you clear out this bump from ahead of us. So the X makes TBE, CAI, 24 psi, 91 octain, hot side pipe,FMIC. with no tune 345 whp and 330 wtq?
If it does that would be awsome . But i'm little sceptical , since its not tuned.

I've never personally dyno'd a stock IX. But from what I gather on the dyno we are using a stock IX would dyno about 270whp (245whp on a Mustang).
So the numbers we are making in the X now would only be like 310whp on a Mustang dyno.

I've never personally dyno'd a stock IX. But from what I gather on the dyno we are using a stock IX would dyno about 270whp (245whp on a Mustang).
So the numbers we are making in the X now would only be like 310whp on a Mustang dyno.

they usually do on dyno jet around 250-255. Very rare to find IX to close to 260whp. But it depends on the weather + tempeture too.
I personally never heard 270 whp from stock IX for me this is the first time. I never been even close to mustang dyno yet. So i dunno those numbers.

even with base mods usually making around like this:
http://www.norcalevo.net/index.php?option=com_smf&Itemid=2&topic=25926

from this web site little bit more of

this :http://www.netcarshow.com/mitsubishi/2005-lancer_evolution_ix/


"
Evolution IX
Mitsubishi introduced the 2006 Lancer Evolution IX at the 2005 New York International Auto Show. The 2.0 L 4G63 engine now gets MIVEC technology (variable valve timing), boosting official power output to 286 hp (213 kW) and torque to 289 ft·lbf (392 N·m) - however actual figures are significantly higher. The Evolution 8 first offered in 2003 would produce dynamometer readings of approximately 225 WHP and 225 ft·lbf. WTQ with a flywheel power rating of 271/273 respectively. The Evolution IX typically pulls 255 WHP and 250 WTQ on a dynamometer, a difference of 30 horsepower"

so the evox can make alot of gains (moreso than the IX), but maybe limited vs the 4G63 due to the aluminum open block?

will you guys be doing things for the ralliart also?

will you guys be doing things for the ralliart also?
can you imagine the ralliart with those mods ... i think it will kill the WRX sales the next couple years.

yea, I havent seen how close the engine is on the RA and EVO... same turbo and things? I think there would be alot of room to grow there...

is the RA more or less a flash away from the evo? (power wise)

will you guys be doing things for the ralliart also?

Buy one and drop it off at the shop and we'll prototype some parts on in. I'm not sure I get the ralliart. Isn't it going to cost like 3K less than the EVO?

This is incredible news!

I can't wait to start buying my parts! Any word on who'll be releasing them first?

OK. First thing monday we'll roll race the IX vs. X. We'll see where we're at.

Buy one and drop it off at the shop and we'll prototype some parts on in. I'm not sure I get the ralliart. Isn't it going to cost like 3K less than the EVO?

than a GSR.... no official word yet, but my rep thinks it'll retail maybe $500 more than a WRX.... so like $27k vs $32.... more like 5 grand....

plus it will have the SST.... which is okay since im getting a GTR also and the ralliart will be a daily driver... maybe SOME track time

I would bring it too you when I get it but im in Maryland... plus It'll be next summer for me

This is incredible news!

I can't wait to start buying my parts! Any word on who'll be releasing them first?

I'll give you one guess:rock:

than a GSR.... no official word yet, but my rep thinks it'll retail maybe $500 more than a WRX.... so like $27k vs $32.... more like 5 grand....

plus it will have the SST.... which is okay since im getting a GTR also and the ralliart will be a daily driver... maybe SOME track time

I would bring it too you when I get it but im in Maryland... plus It'll be next summer for me

Our GSR was like $33,6 so maybe it will be a real bargain. When is it suppose to be out?

We are using a DynaPack. It reads on par with the other Dynapacks and DynoJets in town. But Mustange Dyno nubers are always read about 10% lower. So like EVOXGSR said, don't take the numbers a gospel but the gains are what is important.

Kevin

:+1:

Welcome to the forums, Kevin. I'm really excited to see what AGP is going to have to offer.

Kevin, welcome to the forums! Great to have you here. You'll find that people here are a lot more supportive of the evo x than they are on evom. Btw kevin, since you are a dyno tuner, what do you think of this situation that robevo and I are not agreeing on. Power lost from the crank to the wheels doesn't increase when power is added at the crank. Now many people including robevo says that it's based on a loss %, but I've talked to many tuners and many agree that it's a fixed loss no matter how much power you are running. For example, the reason for the 30 - 40 hp loss from the crank to the wheels on the evo, or any car for that matter, is because some of the horepower from the motor has to spin the gears in the transmission, spin the driveshaft, spin the axles, spin the wheels, and then get to the ground. Now I'm sure that we can all agree on this. Now, although the percentage theory is popular, many tuners look at the equation differently. If 30-40 hp is required to move all those gears and axles and so on, more power added doesn't mean more of a loss through all those parts. Those parts are always going to eat up the same amount of power regardless of how much there is on tap. If more power is added, those parts aren't going to magically require more than 30 hp to move them, they need only what they need. This is considered to be a static, unchanging loss. So, depending on which theory you like to side with, in the end the gains are what's important, and you can just apply that number on top of what the manufacturer's crank hp is and that should be a good, conservative estimate as to what the motor is making at the crank, right? Oh, and kevin, I hope you don't mind me copying your posts from evom, I just wanted to share the great news with my fellow evo x enthusiasts. I think it's great to see what you guys are doing with the car. My evom name is sti2evox, and as I said there, I will definitely be ordering some parts from you guys when they are ready. Keep up the great work!

this summer.... wont have the evo's aluminum parts, ACD,, AYC, down 60 hp... same engine more or less, awd and will have LSD's

should be a great market for you guys...people wanting to save 5-10k and will want to mod it to get close to evo #'s for less

Robevo, I don't want to argue with you, that's not what we're here to do. The math of adding the lost power to the wheel hp is an accurate measurment. Now I know you say that it's based on a loss %, but I've talked to many tuners and most would agree that it's a fixed loss no matter how much power you are running.

Honestly, I normally see drivetrain loss referred to as a percentage. However, I haven't seen anything definitive either way.

For example, the reason for the 30 - 40 hp loss from the crank to the wheels on the evo, or any car for that matter, is because some of the horepower from the motor has to spin the gears in the transmission, spin the driveshaft, spin the axles, spin the wheels, and then get to the ground. Now I'm sure that we can all agree on this. Now, although the percentage theory is popular, many tuners including myself look at the equation more logically and simply. If 30-40 hp is required to move all those gears and axles and so on, more power added doesn't mean more of a loss through all those parts. Those parts are always going to eat up the same amount of power regardless of how much there is on tap.

Are you SURE? Please post scans of your mechanical engineering degree to back up your claims.

Obviously, I'm being facetious here, but my point is that until you can really prove what you're saying, don't be so cocky about it. Mechanical items have an efficiency rating, so you have to take that into account. You very well may lose more power through the drivetrain as the power from the engine increases.

The only real way to prove either side would be to dyno a stock evo, pull the motor, run the motor on a brake dyno, modify the motor, brake dyno it again, drop the modified motor back into the car, redyno, and compare what the dyno losses are on the stock vs modified motors. Unless we see a test that does something along these lines, it's a pointless argument.

As for the static number vs drivetrain loss percentage, this is what I was trying to say when I was talking about mechanical efficiency above. This is a post I came across from a random website when googling for drivetrain loss...

A constant percentage should be what happens. That percentage is determined by every moving interface that the power is transmitted through. For example, if the bevel gears in your diff are 98% effecient than no matter if you send 100 or 1000 hp through them you're only getting 98% out(98hp or 980hp in this case). What you do is multiply all the efficiencies together to get the overall net.

Trans input shaft -> output shaft (could vary depending on gear selected)

output shaft -> driveshaft (universal joint eff)

driveshaft -> diff input (universal joint eff)

diff input -> axles (bevel gear eff)

And then there are all the losses associated with seals, bearings and friction, which are also proportional. I think the bulk of it is all the gear to gear interfaces. So just using complete guesses for numbers this might be 95x99x99x95x99 etc and you get (in this made up example) 87% eff, a 13% loss. There also might be some items which are more static than proportional also.

That's what the textbooks say at least, who knows how close real life is to this.

Eric

Well, dino I'm not trying to be cocky as I'm honestly asking which theory is correct. I have heard both theories many times, and the fixed loss seems to make so much more sense to me. Why would the parts all of the sudden need more power to make them move? I'm no dyno tuner, and I respect your knowledge being more extensive than mine, so I only stated my opinion. Many tuners agree with this view, and many agree witht he percentage loss. Like you said, proving which is correct would require stock pulls on a wheel dyno, then motor dyno, and back and forth. PAIN IN THE ASS, I'm sure we can all agree on that. But c'mon, you were a unecessarily harsh in your response as you seemed to feel like I was attacking robevo. We're all enthusiasts here. I was simply stating a very popular oposing view on the power loss theory. And no, I don't have a mechanical engineering degree, but I'm no fool either. I have a master's degree in business. Like I said, I was stating which side of the fence I am on with the two theories. Since I have yet to see anyone prove either theory, It's really up in the air. I just like to heir on the conservative side and not add huge numbers to my crank numbers with the percentage theory.

^posted this before page refreshed with your latest post.

Well, like you said it could be accurate on paper and different in real life. After reading that the percentage theory sounds like it holds some weight, but the simplistic approach of the static loss theory is appealing, you have to admit.

Well, dino I'm not trying to be cocky as I'm honestly asking which theory is correct.

When you're saying things about how tuners like you find the loss % theory lolerworthy and how you "look at things logically" that's pretty cocky. It really didn't sound like you were asking which way was correct.

I have heard both theories many times, and the fixed loss seems to make so much more sense to me.

That's fine, I have no problem with that. But don't look down on people who think differently unless you have some real evidence to back up what you're saying.

Why would the parts all of the sudden need more power to make them move?

Again, mechanical efficiency. If a transmission is 95% mechanically efficient, then by definition, it's going to consume more power at higher levels. You're going to get more losses due to friction, heat, etc etc as you put something under more power.

I'm no dyno tuner, and I respect your knowledge being more extensive than mine, so I only stated my opinion. Many tuners agree with this view, and many agree witht he percentage loss. Like you said, proving which is correct would require stock pulls on a wheel dyno, then motor dyno, and back and forth. PAIN IN THE ASS, I'm sure we can all agree on that.

For sure.

But c'mon, you were a unecessarily harsh in your response as you seemed to feel like I was attacking robevo.

I wasn't being harsh at all. I was just pointing out that you were being a little condescending in your post, and didn't really have the credentials to back it up. Long story short, it's not really kosher to look down on someone else's opinion of something unless you have some cold hard facts or a lot of experience. I'm just trying to prevent a flame war here.

We're all enthusiasts here. I was simply stating a very popular oposing view on the power loss theory. And no, I don't have a mechanical engineering degree, but I'm no fool either. I have a master's degree in business.

Right, and a master's degree in business is zero percent useful when discussing mechanisms. Don't assume that the people on the opposite side of the debate are fools.

Like I said, I was stating which side of the fence I am on with the two theories. Since I have yet to see anyone prove either theory, It's really up in the air. I just like to heir on the conservative side and not add huge numbers to my crank numbers with the percentage theory.

I understand that and respect that. I'm just asking that you do the same to the people on the other side of the fence. If some day you end up being right, then we'll all bow down to you!

:bowlol:

So anyway, back to these nice numbers that AGP is putting out!

Others explain this before me , and much better:
" Effective horsepower / true horsepower / wheel horsepower
Effective horsepower (ehp), True horsepower (thp) or wheel horsepower (whp) is the power converted to useful work. In the case of a road vehicle this is the power actually turned into forward motion as measured on a chassis dynamometer (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamometer#Chassis_dynamometer).
"True hp" is generally 10% to 20% less than the engine's "bhp" ratings due to drivetrain losses.
Wheel horsepower (whp) is the more widely used term for effective horsepower."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Horsepower

Well, like you said it could be accurate on paper and different in real life. After reading that the percentage theory sounds like it holds some weight, but the simplistic approach of the static loss theory is appealing, you have to admit.

Hey, I can see both sides of the coin. I personally thing the % theory holds more water, but like you said, we won't know until someone tests it for sure.

it is funny how sometimes basics need to be explain. And they did test it many times before. So it is a fact, the drive train loss measured by %. But it is deppending on the car type model etc. It is easy to figure it out ,when you got the BHP and you got your Dyno numbers. Just make sure you always do it on the same dyno./for more precise measurment/ to find out your crank whp. /aprox/
the dyno jet is the closest with the Mitsubishi factory numbers.

If you guys want to further discuss the drivetrain static loss vs percentage loss, I started a thread for it here: http://www.evoxforums.com/forums/showthread.php?p=29780#post29780

That way we can stay on topic here for AGP's R&D on the Evo X. :)

For what it's worth dino, I edited my post before you responded because I realized how it sounded. However, you quoted the original while I was changing it at the same time. And robevo, don't be condescending and talk to me about needing to have the basics explained to me. It's insulting, and although the % loss theory may well be correct, it doesn't mean that the static loss theory is out the window either. For instance, depending on the dyno, the % loss theory can be way off. A dyno jet may well match up with mitsu's factory claims of crank hp estimated from a % loss, but dyno dynamics are widely regarded as more accurate dynos and they read SUBSTANTIALLY lower than a dyno jet. So the % loss will be far higher than the mechanical engineering formula's of moving part efficiency would imply. So if the more accurate dyno doesn't match up with the % loss theory, and the less accurate dyno does, it's more of a coincidence that it matches up than an exact science.

Back on topic, sorry dino. Well, one thing for sure, the x makes more power mod for mod than the 9 did, based on the results so far. Very promissing!

yep you are right, so that is why i said, if you doing your own.Then always try to use the same dyno. And you will be aprox. on it. So what i mean:
if you get your numbers on the dyno jet ,that precantige doesn't apply for the mustang dyno. You will theoraticly never be 100%. there is tempature and humidity issues etc. So that is why when you got your numbers +- will be off, but you can work with it.
and the fix number will never work. The engine in and out been done countless times before. And i personally never meet anybody who didn't used the %.

Yes and i stop this here. Back to the topic.

We are using a DynaPack. It reads on par with the other Dynapacks and DynoJets in town. But Mustange Dyno nubers are always read about 10% lower. So like EVOXGSR said, don't take the numbers a gospel but the gains are what is important.

Kevin

Hello Kevin and welcome to this forum! I have a question about your EvoX. I have talked to Monster Motor Sports here in Japan and in the latest edition of Evo Magazine (vol. 34) alot of tuners are talking about the electronic throttle of the Evo X. They are all saying that it backs off the throttle at high rpms and boost. Are the USDMs doing the same thing? I just installed an EVC on mine and the boost is still dropping (but not as much as stock) and I was wondering if this has to do with the throttle.

I'm not sure if we can get TPS readings out of the X on the scanner we're using. If nothing else next time the car is on the dyno I'll watch the throttle body. My gut feeling is that is not the problem. I think the waste gate is being blown open a tiny bit, and the turbo is almost maxed out anyway. But that would be incredible if it was the throttle. The car drops power after 5000 pretty fast and that would explain it.

What TBE?

I'm not sure if we can get TPS readings out of the X on the scanner we're using. If nothing else next time the car is on the dyno I'll watch the throttle body. My gut feeling is that is not the problem. I think the waste gate is being blown open a tiny bit, and the turbo is almost maxed out anyway. But that would be incredible if it was the throttle. The car drops power after 5000 pretty fast and that would explain it.

I know that the Mazdaspeed 3 backs the throttle off as well...it's definitely something I'd look into.

What TBE?

Turbo-back Exhaust.

Yes, I'm very curious to see about this "pulling throttle" thing in the ecu. If that's the case, it's retarded. Why would mitsu do that?

Yes, I'm very curious to see about this "pulling throttle" thing in the ecu. If that's the case, it's retarded. Why would mitsu do that?

Could be a number of reasons.

Maybe there's not enough fuel to keep up with demand?

Maybe for emissions?

Maybe they wanted to turbo to last longer?

I stopped trying to figure out why manufacturers do certain things that tuners see as "stupid" a long time ago. I'm just happy when we can fix them "our way".

:sway:

maybe some safe mode? to prevent the engine to damage itself? Every rpm has the certain air and fuel flow , and with those tunes you are def. mess that up. So the ECU don't know why. Could be bad sensor or leak etc. so it is cut the fuel .
And it is actually not stupid, if you think about it. They know you will flash it or retune it, when you modify it. That is why they bravely limited the RS always to 130mph.

Turbo-back Exhaust.
what the diffrence between caback and turbo back?

Man, you really are new to this tuning thing, aren't you. Ugh, well the difference is in where the pipe starts. Turbo back exhausts start at the turbo, which in a turbo charged car is the beginning of the exhaust system and arguably the most important part/biggest source of unlocked power. This is most commonly called the downpipe, or depending on the turbo's layout, the backpipe. This leads to the catalytic converter, or cat for short, then the rest of the system is called a cat back, because it starts at the cat and goes to the back of the car.TBE is far more effective than a catback, as a catback uses the stock downpipe, which is usually very restrictive. Hope this helps.

I asked this on the first page, but no one answered, so here goes again... What do these upgrades usually cost, installed and tuned? I'm curious how much the extra HP is going to cost.

Dan

A turbo back exhaust is usually $700-1000 range. Install would be like $100-$150ish when you bring it to a shop that you didn't buy it at. You could install it yourself with a basic set of hand tools and a tall jack.

Intercoolers are usually $600-800 and should be installed by someone who knows how to take a car apart. Install would run around $150.

Intake you could install yourself and can cost anywhere from $80 for a little filter upgrade kit to $300 for a full length cold air intake system.

Thanks. :)

Dan

I'm not sure if we can get TPS readings out of the X on the scanner we're using. If nothing else next time the car is on the dyno I'll watch the throttle body. My gut feeling is that is not the problem. I think the waste gate is being blown open a tiny bit, and the turbo is almost maxed out anyway. But that would be incredible if it was the throttle. The car drops power after 5000 pretty fast and that would explain it.
The TPS shows 4.43v for wide open and .65v for closed throttle on my EVC.

Kevin,

I noticed no one has asked about tip-in or part throttle. Have you guys driven the car since these upgrades? Has part-throttle response or tip in been affected at all? I would assume not since the car has a MAF and a MAP. I am also sure that leaning out the A:F will increase throttle response.

James

^I was wondering the same

I would imagine that the part throttle is more responsive after the mods, mainly because of the car running leaner. With a tune, it should improve even more. My sti has an electronic throttle, and the response was hugely improved when reflashed. I am still very curious about this "ecu backing off the throttle at high rpms" thing. Let us know what you find, kevin.

I think what he was wondering (or what I was wondering at least) by the "part throttle" question is in terms of driveability. Has it been affected negatively in any way?

Oh, hmmm, manual boost controllers can sometimes cause the boost to hit too hard for light throttle inputs, causing the car to be very jerky. This happened on my sti, and I took that thing off imediately. This is why I am so much more of a fan of letting the ecu reflash control the boost...much better quality boost curve + more driveable. But, the peak numbers and taper is what's important, as to me these results just show what the reflash can accomplish and then some. Oh, btw, I found AGP's latest video...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EH54OSMFFzI

i dunno about the factory numbers after 2100 miles...

http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?t=320586&page=5

post #68

after 2100 miles drive here is hes impression:
"I guess I need to post some impressions. Its late and I'm loopy tired, so this might not make too much sense. I'll try to expound some tomorrow if you guys have any questions.

"The seats are the best car seats I've ever sat in." -Andrew
I agree with that. He commented that they are more like Japanese market car seats, and its true. They are a lot tighter than the IX seats and have substantially better bolstering. When I drive on long trips, my lower back usually hurts. Nearly thirty hours of driving, two days and 2100 miles, and these seats did not bother my back at all.

Other than the great comfort of the new Recaros, I actually think the interior in my IX was a little nicer. The plastics in this car are even a little cheaper than the IX, and the seat fabric is lower quality than what covered the IX seats by a good deal IMO. The trim on the dash and doors is downright cheesy to me. The steering wheel was a bit odd to me at first, but now I like it more than my IX wheel.

There are some things that are better on the IX and some better on the X. The fit and finish of the X just smashes the IX. This car is screwed together so much better than a IX you have to drive it to believe it. It tracks with much more stability. No vibrations from the road are transferred to the wheel in this car like in the IX.

Power is alright, but its stock, lots heavier than the IX, and therefore boring. I was stuck with 90 and 91 octane a lot early on. I was really happy when I crossed the middle of Arkansas and hit 93 octane. I didn't get on the car until 800 miles and did not redline it until a little after 1000 miles. The midrange is decent, its a bit soft up at the very top.

Fuel Ecomony sucks. IMO, this is because of overall shorter gearing as well as the fact the car is heavier. At the best, the computer said we managed 23mph. At the worst when I was driving like a hooligan, 16mpg. The computer is nifty. They ripped off a lot of BMW ideas in its implementation.

The crown jewel of this car is its handling. I got to push it a bit, but I was nowhere near the limit. And the limit is _substantially_ higher than the IX in my opinion. SAYC is retarded cool. The fact we did not get it on the US market VIII and IX cars is a crime. To me, the mags that had the IX faster in comparos is because of power:weight. If these cars had the same power:weight, the X would crush the IX.

I didn't think the Advans could be better than before, but these new ones are. These tires are simply amazing. They are 245/40/18.

If you want a drag car, the IX is still way ahead, but if you want a handling car (like the Evo really is meant to be), this car is an Evolution in every sense of the word and has the (US spec) IX trumped with ease.

More tomorrow...

great review...23 mpg isnt so bad btw....

I think your right about the seat fabric....

I really think the X is better tahn the VIII or IX and I did have one of the 1st evo 8's

robevo, dyno dynamics read the lowest of any dyno. They are arguably the most accurate. FTR, 220 at the wheels on a dyno dynamics is about 250-260 on a dyno jet. Put it this way, a stock sti with 300 at the crank reads about 220-225 on a dyno dynamics. I know, it's what my car was run on when I had it tuned. This is normal with that kind of dyno.

great review...23 mpg isnt so bad btw....

I think your right about the seat fabric....

I really think the X is better tahn the VIII or IX and I did have one of the 1st evo 8's

yes the X should be a better car for sure. Evolution ,right? :bowlol:

my evo 8 had bad gas mileage also... (gearing) running 5000 rpm's in 5th gear on the hwy going 60.... gas drinker

i think my IX has slightly worst gas milage then my 8 was. But i actually never drove stock evo longer then 100 miles.
Even back in my origin country. So i have no idea about how bad is the factory. I know my evo's had always bad fuel economy.

Shahul, there's no way you were running 5000rpms at 60 in 5th gear on the highway. Not possible, sorry. All the mags rate it around the 3000 mark. robevo, you should include the name of the guy that actually wrote that...you made that look like your post, but it's some other guy from evom in case anyone didn't know. But for the record, mitsubishi said the evo x has longer gears due to the gear ratios being the same as a 9 with a longer final drive ratio. So, yeah...that's not why the gas mileage was worse. Increased weight is probably why.

im just exaggerating... lol

Oh, btw, wrong place to discuss this. STAY ON TOPIC GUYS!

"And nice writeup, robevo, you made that look like your post, but it's some other guy from evom in case anyone didn't know."

are you serius or just try to f&*ck with me ?

i didn't said there, if you actually read it :
" after 2100 miles drive here is hes impression"

don't go there dude.

my evo 8 had bad gas mileage also... (gearing) running 5000 rpm's in 5th gear on the hwy going 60.... gas drinker

5k rpms in 5th @ 60mph? I think someone's math is off.

:wtfsign:

"And nice writeup, robevo, you made that look like your post, but it's some other guy from evom in case anyone didn't know."

are you serius or just try to f&*ck with me ?

i didn't said there, if you actually read it :
" after 2100 miles drive here is hes impression"

don't go there dude.

Relax, relax.

@EvoGSR - He linked what he copied and pasted...it's pretty clear he's not trying to plagiarize here, although using the quote blocks is nice.

Let's play nice, fellas.

Sorry, I didn't have the page all the way scrolled up and the top was cut off where it showed the link. Robevo, I meant no disrespect. You have seriously got to relax though man, you get real heated over little stuff. I realize that we don't particularly like each other as evidenced by our constant disagreements in many posts, but lets try to get along and keep things on topic and not get carried away with petty arguments. It's not fair to the other members on this site to subject them to off topic rants back and forth at each other. Truce?

So, when are these mods they use for these numbers going to be available?

5k rpms in 5th @ 60mph? I think someone's math is off.

:wtfsign:

I'm just exaggerating about the bad gas mileage and want for a 6th cog

I'm just exaggerating about the bad gas mileage and want for a 6th cog

I hear ya.

That said, I'd take a strong 5 speed over a not-as-strong 6 speed.

And that's the sacrifice Mitsu made this time around for the manual.

Once we can tune the ECU on the X, we will most likely see some improvements in gas mileage. Especially highway. Working with Jester, we were able to get my Evo VIII with ~400WHP (depending on what the boost level was set at on the green) to 31 HWY, and around 21 in town. I would usually drift between 19-21 for in town, and it very much depended on how hard I drove it. On the track I got around 8 mpg. I swear, on some laps I could actually see my gas gauge going down.

Very nice.

By "green" are you referring to the FP Green?

How was the response on that turbo as compared to stock?

OK. First thing monday we'll roll race the IX vs. X. We'll see where we're at.
Any updates?

Yeah, the FP Green. It has VERY stock like response, but moves a LOT more air. This is compared to the stock Evo VIII turbo though. I dont know about the comparison to the IX, since it already uses a larger turbo anyway.

The car ended up getting taken apart to figure out coilovers. So we're doing a few things to it while it's down and have it back running in a couple days.

Awesome. Any plans to swap out the turbo for an FP green or something comparable?

mo EVO info-

Injector info-
The injectors are a high impedance saturated type injector. They measure 12.3ohms and are a disc style tip. This is all bad news for upgrading injectors because almost all large injectors are low imp peak hold. And here’s the real funky part. It’s got this long protruded tip because the injector boss hole is very deep. See pic-
http://www.agpturbo.com/images/evox/injector.jpg


The GREAT news is that none of this will matter to most EVO X owners. We got one of the injectors flowed down the street at AZ TPI and they are 650cc. I took a crappy camera phone pic of the spray pattern.-
http://www.agpturbo.com/images/evox/evo650.jpg


Fuel pump flow and upgrade info to come.


Kevin@AGP

All very exciting guys :)

Nice big capacity direct injectors there - great news :)

Really looking forward to all results and eventual products available with the engine modding scene on the X, well done guys, keep up the good work :)

P.S. my only concern...will the SST handle these nice/big and seemingly easy to attain power upgrades.....

this ai all good info thanks for sharing.

Nice, 650's stock. Thats great. The sucky part is they arent big enough to run E85 stock. Guess we are gonna have to wait for FIC to re-manufacture our injectors ;)

I dont plan on putting the green on the Evo X. Not even sure it will work anyway. Probably just going to sell it.

Thats great news on the injectors though! 650 cc stock! That's big enough to support some serious power. And besides, you know that some companies will come out with high impedance injector upgrades for the x before too long, so I look at this as a positive.

BTW Kevin, did you guys ever do that roll race with the X vs IX? I'd be real curious t see the results. The X may be heavier, but seems to gain more power mod for mod than the 9 did. Let us know...

I forgot about you E85 lovers. We don't have any E85 in the Phx area so it slipped my mind. Getting the factory injectors modified should be no problem.

We didn't race them. By the time I got to work monday they already had the struts out of the X and it's been apart ever since. I haven't had my IX on the dyno but would guess it's down ~20whp from what the X is making. With the added weight of the X, it would be a close race.

Kevin

Dont say that on that other evo board, youll start a riot!

We just got a new E85 distributer here in my area, so i have been thinking of checking it out. Problem is it takes a lot more fuel to run, and even at a lower cost, you still end up paying more for gas. But you do get to reap some great benefits, like higher octane and boost potential ;)

So do you guys re-work stock injectors?

mo EVO info-

Injector info-
The injectors are a high impedance saturated type injector. They measure 12.3ohms and are a disc style tip. This is all bad news for upgrading injectors because almost all large injectors are low imp peak hold.

It's generally easy to find up to 750cc high impedance injectors. Plus, it's easier (from an electronic standpoint) to drive a high impedance injector, so we may have more options on how to control them that way.

And here’s the real funky part. It’s got this long protruded tip because the injector boss hole is very deep. See pic-
http://www.agpturbo.com/images/evox/injector.jpg



Holy weird. Kind of a smart idea though.

The GREAT news is that none of this will matter to most EVO X owners. We got one of the injectors flowed down the street at AZ TPI and they are 650cc.

Sweet jesus!

I took a crappy camera phone pic of the spray pattern.-
http://www.agpturbo.com/images/evox/evo650.jpg


Fuel pump flow and upgrade info to come.


Kevin@AGP


Great work!

:thumbup:

I guess Monster Motor Sports wasn't kiddin' when they said the injectors were high capacity.

Yezzzer. I'm really impressed with mitsubishi this time around. I mean, the evo 8/9 supposedly had trouble with the stock fuel pump not even flowing enough from the factory to support even an exhaust system without being stretched to it's limit. I'm not sure what the new evo x's fuel pump will flow, but from what the injector's are doing so far, the pump should be at least 200 LPH. Let us know, Kevin.

my friend yesterday did on dyno with the IX , fuelpump, TBE ,O2 housing and apexi intake , MBC /hallmann pro:
352 whp and 335 wtq. Now it was my mistake when around 344 whp we run into some limits... i forgot to add a fuel pump... So the factory was able to support 344 whp... wich is i think not bad at all , yes it is a limit there but i think the factory fuel pump is a good unit on the IX.. Oh and that was in Dyno jet/Sean Ivey/
Also the AMS started to run they cars too on dyno , and they stated the factory X fuelpump out flow the IX pump between 15%-20% .:bowlol:

in the other note , it sucks we still dont have E85 in N.J.
I would love to have that.

Yeah, E85 has great octane ratings but I hear that it get's even worse mileage than normal fuel, which with the X not exactly having the best mileage to begin with, might be a situation where the drawbacks outway the benefits. Just a thought.

awesome info. Waiting keenly for fuel pump stats.. would be interesting how far we could go on stock equipment.

yep you are right . What i heard you need to run 2 pumps after certain whp. when with race gas you would still run on one.
But hack with it if you are tuner anyway.

food for thought.... being that you said your dyno reads like your town dynojet and that AMS runs 93 octane compared to your 91 octane.. but i still see from your posted results an increase of 84 whp... very nice(in the voice of borat)
AMS Evo X part one
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?t=322293
AMS Evo X part two
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?t=322326

nice very nice.its good that the pump its holding its end.

Great news, this seems to be consistent with AGP's results, as far as the gains are concerned. Now AMS just needs to put exhaust, intake, and fmic to see how their setup compares to AGP's 84 WHP gain. Granted, the dynos are different and reading different baseline numbers, it's the gains that are important. C'mon, Kevin chime in and let us know what you think. BTW, did the manual boost controller that you used on your project evo X also bypass the dual solenoids that are used from the factory? If so, what is used in place of them? I mean, MBC's don't have a boost conrol solenoid built in, so I'm guessing that one is deleted and one is retained. Is this right?

food for thought.... being that you said your dyno reads like your town dynojet and that AMS runs 93 octane compared to your 91 octane.. but i still see from your posted results an increase of 84 whp... very nice(in the voice of borat)
AMS Evo X part one
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?t=322293
AMS Evo X part two
http://forums.evolutionm.net/showthread.php?t=322326

Excellent links. good info.
I have the modding bug now.

Excellent links. good info.
I have the modding bug now.

:ohsnap:

As soon as AMS releases their line-up.

I'm buying one of everything......seriously..

http://www.vividracing.com/forums/project-evo-x/21448-agency-power-evo-x-exhaust-test-video.html

Well, here's vivid racing's progress. With an intake, cat-back exhaust, boost controller, and IC pipes they gained 70 whp on a mustang dyno. The agency power exhaust ( not really my style, but it sounds great ), doesn't include a downpipe... it's just a cat back. The downpipe may be pretty short on the X, but that's still the most important part. Either way, watch the video and look at the dyno graphs. Pretty impressive.

Okay I like the sound of that exhaust but it just looks goofy to me...

http://www.vividracing.com/forums/project-evo-x/21448-agency-power-evo-x-exhaust-test-video.html

Well, here's vivid racing's progress. With an intake, cat-back exhaust, boost controller, and IC pipes they gained 70 whp on a mustang dyno. The agency power exhaust ( not really my style, but it sounds great ), doesn't include a downpipe... it's just a cat back. The downpipe may be pretty short on the X, but that's still the most important part. Either way, watch the video and look at the dyno graphs. Pretty impressive.

Damn that sounds fuckin' nice!

It's looking like exhaust will be my first mod. God, I <3 this engine.

Got something else for you guys too, hang on...

Got something else for you guys too, hang on...


To what?

Ok, found this on evom, it's from Eric, at AMS. A taste of what's to come...

AMS EVO X Engineering Thread...let's make some parts
In addition to all the tests we are going to be doing on the EVO X I am starting this thread to outline the products as we make them available. Here you will see how an AMS product goes from Idea to a power producing part on your car.

Everyone knows AMS products are some of the best out there (if not them shame on you) and now you have the opportunity to see why.

So keep your eye on this thread as we bring you all kinds of goodies for the EVO X.

http://amsteam.net/files/2/AMS%20X%20Engineering%201.jpg


I will start this off by showing you some of our prototype FMIC Pics. This will be a plug and play piece and should give your new X a good kick in the pants for performance.

As we finalize this product I will post up some dyno numbers and some build pictures to show the detail that goes into our product.

On with the pics:

http://amsteam.net/files/2/AMS%20X%20FMIC%201.jpg
http://amsteam.net/files/2/AMS%20X%20FMIC%203.jpg
http://amsteam.net/files/2/AMS%20X%20FMIC%205.jpg
http://amsteam.net/files/2/AMS%20X%20FMIC%206.jpg

This is just the start. Things we are already working on are:

Turboback exhaust
Front motor mount (almost done)
FMIC (75% done)
Intake System
and of course..... a turbo kit

There are bunch others but we can't give everything away http://forums.evolutionm.net/images/smilies/smile.gif

Eric

__________________
Sales Manager
AMS Performance
1760 Metoyer Ct
West Chicago, IL 60185
www.amsperformance.com (http://www.amsperformance.com/)
Eric@amsperformance.com (Eric@amsperformance.com)
847 709-0530

That front mount looks badass! I don't know about you guys, but that'll be on my list of things to do ASAP.

And I also found this. Cobb is taking a pollon evom as to which design people like the best for their new exhaust. I like the oval, stock style orthe M3 style quad. Check it out...

Originally Posted by Josh(Cobb Tuning Master Fabricator)
We are working on some of the finishing touches of the EVO X Cat-back and wanted to get a few opinions on the tip style. For now I we will only do a dual outlet design to make it look proper with the bumper cut-outs.

Put your favorite in the poll and if you would be so nice, tell me why you chose what you did in a post. Thanks a lot.

Oval Tips
These are almost exactly like the factory tip's outer dimensions. They just do not have the round feature in the middle. So the sleeper look if you are into that. I think it fits the bumper cut-out the best but most people want their aftermarket exhaust to look...........at least a little..........well..........aftermarket. http://forums.evolutionm.net/images/smilies/smile.gif We will do a better job of snugging the tips up to the bumper skin than the factory if this option seems the way to go.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d32/iwannaratrod/Oval.jpg

4” Round Tips
These do fit the bumper cut-out nicely as well. Personally I think the only downside to these will be the fact that there are (in Japan) and will be more companies that make an exhaust that has this style of tip. If this option seems to be popular then we will use an angle cut tip and try to match that angle to the “diffuser” vertical strake looking features.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d32/iwannaratrod/Round.jpg

Dual 3” Single wall Tips (Quad, Dual Duals, whatever you want to call them)
I think I like this one best for the simple reason it looks aggressive and will be different. We would stagger them and also match the angle of the “diffuser” vertical strake looking features. The only thing that bugs me about this option is that the tops of the tips form a straight line that clashes with the round cut-out to those with a fine eye for such details.

http://i32.photobucket.com/albums/d32/iwannaratrod/Quad.jpg

I honestly like the quads, as non-functional as it is, then again, if you are going twins on a 4 banger, it is already non-functional, might as well put a quad on it.

The quads look great for some reason...But for practicality and atleast to take away the none functional argument away Id go with Option 2 Id go with one but theres nothing sleeper about an evolution especially if the opponent knows what it is.

:+1: on the quads.

We should see if we can get those guys over here posting.

They say the quads will be diffrent?Yah it will look like the back end of an 08 STI.

We should see if we can get those guys over here posting.

I PM'd them over there.

here we go:

http://www.evoxforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2296&highlight=AMS
http://www.evoxforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2297&highlight=AMS
http://www.evoxforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2298&highlight=AMS
http://www.evoxforums.com/forums/showthread.php?t=2291&highlight=AMS

they look pretty good i like both the 2 and 3 option.

the stock EVO X fuel pump flows about 15%-20% more than a stock EVO IX pump. Depending on what the stock injectors are rated at the EVO X could have a stock fuel system that is capable of handling over 350whp."

dang!! itch itch itch.. I've got the modding itch...

Yep, me too. And my evo won't even be here for another 2 weeks. I'm gonna feel ridiculous if I have parts for the car before I even have the car. Itch, Itch, Itch.

I was getting a little concerned that the DynaPack we're using was reading too high after seeing all these Mustang dynos. But AMS's car on a Dynojet at 2psi less is making 20whp less, seems like we're right on track.

We wasted all of yesterday fighting a bad AEM FIC with a mis-wired jumper harness. I can't tell you guys how frustrating that was. The odds of having both a bad box and bad jumper harness are like mil:1, but we got it. So we STILL have no way to tune this car, and we STILL haven't got it back on the dyno. We pulled the stock turbo off and tweaked it a little. The compressor wheel is smaller than the other EVO's 1.85ind / 2.68exd.
We did put in a Walbro too, just so we know that isn't going to hold us back.

Kevin

A MBC is completely standalone boost control. The solenoids are completely bypassed.

Is there any exhaust note difference from the 4" Duals and the Quads?

The compressor wheel is smaller than the other EVO's 1.85ind / 2.68exd.

We did put in a Walbro too, just so we know that isn't going to hold us back.

Kevin

1. Did you fit a larger wheel? Did the stock housing take it or did it need modifying?

2. Also did you fit the 255 L/Hr Intank Pump? AMS seemed to think that the stock system could handle up to 400HP without blinking...

What HP are you expecting to push up to with the walbro?

thanks for all the awesome info so far!

dang!! itch itch itch.. I've got the modding itch...

You sure it's not crabs?

:idhitit: :peepwall:

I was getting a little concerned that the DynaPack we're using was reading too high after seeing all these Mustang dynos. But AMS's car on a Dynojet at 2psi less is making 20whp less, seems like we're right on track.

:amen:

We wasted all of yesterday fighting a bad AEM FIC with a mis-wired jumper harness. I can't tell you guys how frustrating that was. The odds of having both a bad box and bad jumper harness are like mil:1, but we got it.

That sucks. I've been in similar situations before and it's just a huge waste of time.

So we STILL have no way to tune this car, and we STILL haven't got it back on the dyno. We pulled the stock turbo off and tweaked it a little. The compressor wheel is smaller than the other EVO's 1.85ind / 2.68exd.

What measurements was the compressor on the new one then?

We did put in a Walbro too, just so we know that isn't going to hold us back.

Did it drop right in?

1. Did you fit a larger wheel? Did the stock housing take it or did it need modifying?

2. Also did you fit the 255 L/Hr Intank Pump? AMS seemed to think that the stock system could handle up to 400HP without blinking...

What HP are you expecting to push up to with the walbro?

thanks for all the awesome info so far!

1. We re-machined the the housing and balanced it up with a 20g comp wheel.

2. We had already installed the Walbro before AMS posted the flow numbers for the fuel pump. The Walbro was not a difficult install once we decided it couldn't be installed exactly like stock. The stock pump is about an inch shorter, so you have to be a little creative.

1. We re-machined the the housing and balanced it up with a 20g comp wheel.

2. We had already installed the Walbro before AMS posted the flow numbers for the fuel pump. The Walbro was not a difficult install once we decided it couldn't be installed exactly like stock. The stock pump is about an inch shorter, so you have to be a little creative.
What are you trying to do by switching to a 20g comp wheel more boost?

More boost to redline, and better all around efficiency. Pushing the stock turbo as hard as it can possibly go has all kinds of negative effects.

Why not just replace the whole turbo? I mean it's really cool what you guys are doing, but the average person isn't going to want to have to take his turbo apart to do this, but rather just replace the whole turbo with a bigger one. It's far easier, and the gains would be larger. Great job so far though, I can't wait to see what the motor does with major mods done to it. I just want to see the breaking point, how much power till the block cracks or warps, the rods snap, pistons crack, etc. I want to see a company push the envelope so that I know exactly how much power this motor can really handle. Either way, keep up the great work!

We're just testing things for right now. When we get to the point of selling turbo upgrades to customers we'll have something slick all ironed out. I would never recommend a normal guy take his turbo apart. But we're a turbo shop and this was the quick/easy and logical thing to do.

Ah, gotcha. BTW, what do you think the power holding capabilties of the new x will be (if it's even possible to guess)? See, SiC lives in japan, and he said that one of the tuning shops there already bent the crank on the car with an undisclosed amount of power. Everyone has talked about the aluminum block as being the only potential weak point in the motor, and the crank is forged in the car. Why in the world would the crank have bent? I mean it rotates in 4 bolt main bearing caps, it's forged, WTF? That just seems to be a strange part of th motor to fail. Usually the rods will snap, or the pistons crack, or the block... have you ever heard of anything like this before? In your professional opinion, why would this happen? I know this is a difficult question without knowing how much power was thrown at the car, but any ideas would be greatly appreciated. SiC go ahead and jump in if you have more info, or if you were ever able to find out how much power caused this unusual failure.

z1500 do you know the turbo wheel dimensions from a 9 tubby?
just to compare with the x ones

You sure it's not crabs?

:idhitit: :peepwall:

Could be.. I'll be able to tell after really starting the mods. ;)..

thanks for the information all, this is an excellent thread.

Dude I remember this its in the thread he was talking about it bending...and the answer came up with how the Crank was manufactured not so much the forging but the treatment and shape...something along those lines dang now you got me curious I'm going to go look.

Bending a crankshaft usually has nothing to do with the bearing caps. Bending a crank is basically twisting the crank, it usually happens when engaging the clutch with too much torque.

our friend wickedchimp also found that the crank is cross-drilled

The IX turbo is 1.94" inducer vs. 1.85" on the X.
The 20g comp wheel is 2.07".

Bending a crank? We'll see but that sounds fishy to me. If it was a knock issue I think the pistons or rods would go first. If the cranks are really just that weak (doubtful) then we'll have to do something about it. Why would mitsu make the crank suck that bad after putting so much effort into beefing up the trans?

Bending a crank? We'll see but that sounds fishy to me. If it was a knock issue I think the pistons or rods would go first. If the cranks are really just that weak (doubtful) then we'll have to do something about it. Why would mitsu make the crank suck that bad after putting so much effort into beefing up the trans?

If they cross drilled the crank they probably did it for cooling....it probably had to be done...unusually high temperatures is something apparently frequented by the X as Cooling featuers and designs were an adament point in the Repairman Training Videos...

They do have a new after-run feature which under my assumption elimenates the need for a turbo timer... It uses feedback on intake temp and coolant temp. and if the A/C button is on....If the computer sense intake is over 118 degrees and coolant is between 197 and 212 degrees the system will leave the car on for 3 minutes.

The shop that told me this was Monster Motor Sports in Japan. He told me that a pretty famous tuner or shop bent/twisted (same word in Japanese) the crank. He wouldn't tell me the name of the shop (I'm kinda thinking it's HKS) that bent it. He also told me that the crank in the Outlander has factory Tuftride treatment but the Evo didn't. He was recommending Tuftriding the crank for high output.

Other things that he mentioned was the exhaust outlet of the factory has a really bad bend in it that is creating alot of restriction, injectors and fuel pump has a pretty high capacity, and the electronic throttle closes the throttle under certain conditions. He also said that the ECU is a pain in the ass, he was saying something about it overwriting their new fuel & timing MAP and that nobody has really figured it out yet. He said that his should be available in April but so far, nobody here in Japan has a reflash ECU for it yet.
Oh and he said the cams where really small, something like 224 IN and 193 EX.

If the ECU's reseting there fuel and timing maps then what they need to do is get deeper into the program....Usually this is indicating there is a memory map in the ECU that either after a certain period of time or condition it resets itself automatically..

2 option change the memory specs and live with what you tuned...or just delete it so it has no way of reverting back to the stock specs....

the latter option is a bit riskier because your not going to know if the program will be able to run at all without something in the memory

Or you could reset the memory and flash the tune map as the base/memory map. That way when it wants to reset itself, it'll just reset to the reflashed map. Problem solved, if that is in fact the issue. But back to the crank, I have a hard time believing that mitsu would tuftride the crank in the outlander and not in the evo. Sounds fishy to me. And uh, if the cams are that small, and the little mods being done are producing such huge gains, then imagine what some big lobe cams would do for the car. 272's on the intake and exhaust would be nasty. The idle might be a bit rough, but dayyyamn. It would appear to me that the 4b11 in the evo is WAYYYYY undertuned.

what is tuftride?

I have a hard time believing that mitsu would tuftride the crank in the outlander and not in the evo. Sounds fishy to me.
Believe in what you want, I really can't find any reason why he would lie to me about it. Also, the reason why I think it's HKS that screwed up the crank is because they already have a stroker kit in their 4B11 line up. They usually produce a turbo kit, cams, or intake system, before they make a stroker kit. But in this case, they're already advertising the stroker kit in this month's issue of Lancer Evo Magazine.

And uh, if the cams are that small, and the little mods being done are producing such huge gains, then imagine what some big lobe cams would do for the car. 272's on the intake and exhaust would be nasty. The idle might be a bit rough, but dayyyamn. It would appear to me that the 4b11 in the evo is WAYYYYY undertuned.
I was told that the cams were made smaller for better low end torque & cleaner emissions. The MIVEC adjusts the valve timing to accomodate for the mid to high end range.
The Evo X is the first of it's kind to have a 3 star (max is 4 star like hybrid & smart cars) environmentally friendly rating in Japan. Previous Evos had no stars, same with the STI. I'm pretty sure that the cams contribute to this rating since it probably has little or no overlaping.

what is tuftride?
In simple words it's a chemical treatment to harden metal. Similar to carbon nitride treatment, but the process is different.

In simple words it's a chemical treatment to harden metal. Similar to carbon nitride treatment, but the process is different.

thanks man

so its kind of heat threating the metal.same thing different process.^^^^^

I was told that the cams were made smaller for better low end torque & cleaner emissions. The MIVEC adjusts the valve timing to accomodate for the mid to high end range.
The Evo X is the first of it's kind to have a 3 star (max is 4 star like hybrid & smart cars) environmentally friendly rating in Japan. Previous Evos had no stars, same with the STI. I'm pretty sure that the cams contribute to this rating since it probably has little or no overlaping.

Great info.
Makes me feel better about driving hard all over NZ's green country side.

I'll likely be stroking my X someday. The car needs more displacement to spool the turbo that I'll end up putting on it. :)

And, as stated above, you only need mild cams if you have variable cam timing.

I'll likely be stroking my X someday. The car needs more displacement to spool the turbo that I'll end up putting on it. :)

And, as stated above, you only need mild cams if you have variable cam timing.

A 2.4ltr displacement would be nice :)

Correct about the cams comment...

This thread has sparked new enthusiasm for me with the Evo 10, as I was initially dissapointed with the cars power output and performance numbers.

It looks like to me that Mitsubishi have built this 4B11 to cover the first few models of the Evo in terms of power output, by only introducing ecu and intake and probably exhaust changes to up power for subsequent future models, probably up to Evo 12...

It's what alot of manufacturers do, ie: retard power output and then gradually re-introduce more with each new model, using exactly the same hardware, at minimal expense to themselves.

Look forward to see more results on the upcoming mods and eventual available upgrade parts bin for the Evo 10 :)

:thumbup:

Any word on Cams?

Has anyone heard anymore updates from AGP? Kinda quiet recently.

I noticed alot of the vendors are being quiet, but hey maybe there working there a$$'s off getting parts out. :)

haha we can only hope. everything takes time, thats the worst part about wanting to modify a brand new car

Has anyone heard anymore updates from AGP? Kinda quiet recently.

They have been busy prototyping parts, etc... I know they are planning to go to the dragstrip this weekend though.


Tony

bump

Curious to see what their x would do at the strip with that power

:tumbleweed:

12.1@117?

Sean

12.1@117?

Sean

Yeah....I know...at 110 you have to grab 5th, and Kevin's a weenie with a 1.8 60. Now once we can up the rev limit or change the final drive...:shades:

Tony