the turbo is a bolt on. some even direct swap without ANY extra bolt on changes. the TBE and the intake fuelpump etc are bolt ons .... not INTERNAL modifications. Which is requires the STI engine close to 400 whp./and im very generous/

"The fact is a turbo swap is a major modification and requires a lot of support mods as well (fuel system upgrades, cams, head work, engine internals for longevity, etc). "

Just simply not true.
Looks like you skipp those thing what you dont wanna hear
quote AMS again since you are the one who bealive's them as you stated.
"So far the results are GREAT! At only just over 25psi with a bone stock long block (stock head studs, cams…everything) the car is making almost 500whp on 100oct. 100 octane was used to create a nice safety margin since the 4B11 is relatively uncharted at these levels."
post #55

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...=359810&page=4


after this post you are really making me wonder ....

we wont see many x running with that power... Why? what makes you think that?
all of the sudden you are the expert and we have to believe you? Based on what?

 

dude ...
for the snow when its snowing /very slippery
gravel when you are on gravel / loose surface
tarmac when you are on tarmac./ sticky condition

why ? who cares ? how many people wanna know why they using LSD or ACD and they want to understand it?
We talking about avarage guys not picky individuals.
those who care they know.
even then you have 3 option, equal or more FWD biased or much more FWD biased... Still not % with mixed with engine sensitivity etc.

 

A turbo is not a bolt-on modification as it requires many other mods to work correctly. It's not cheap and it's not an easy install. Does it bolt-on? Sure, but that's really only the first part of being a true "bolt-on" part.
You can run 400 whp on an STI without internals. Look at the dyno being used to obtain that 500 whp number. A stock evo puts down 260 whp on that dyno. It's a very generous dyno.
Here's AMS' 500 whp STI. http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1520197 Here is another AMS STI running 500 wtq without internal modifications http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/show....php?t=1434544.
How long will the stock block last making 500 whp? You are making the false assumption that because something is possible, it is a good idea. Also, look at the octane level being used. That's not pump gas, that's racing gas. How many cars can run racing gas all the time?
I never said you won't see some Evo Xs running a lot of power, it's a great motor with a lot of potential, but the fact is 500 whp is more than most owners will want for a variety of reasons. The transmission in the MR is also a big unknown, there are some reports that it will be maxed out at 360 whp.

 

What do those settings actually mean though? What does the S-AWC do differently? Is it more sensitive? Less sensitive? Does it allow for more slippage? Less slippage? More yaw moment? Less yaw moment?
If you're into racing, you want to know. Hell even if you're just curious you want to know. It's nice relying on technology but sometimes it's not perfect. It's a preset diff map, it won't work in all conditions. On some tracks, the gravel map might be best, on others the snow map. It depends on the conditions and the driver. If it changes the front to rear power bias, it's exactly like the DCCD in the STI.

 

I don't see how any of this is relevant anyways. We're not talking about the Evo vs. STI battle here, this is about the Ralliart and the WRX. You won't see any 500 whp Ralliarts for a while because the transmission is a serious limitation. Similarly you won't see any 500 whp WRXs because the transmission is a limitation (3rd gear likes to break).

 

there is a such thing as a bad test. i've already given you examples that you keep ignoring. please tell me how you think a test where an EVO IX MR, and 06 STi both make 14 second 1/4 mile runs, and 5.5-6.0 second 0-60 runs is legit. that's not a test of the cars capability. that's a test of the driver's inability to drive the cars. the tester can't conduct the test properly due to lack of skills to do so, so it is a flawed test.

 

those sti 's have a stage 1 short blocks so it is a build and at least opened up engines vs the 4b11T engine, if you like it this way. And again we talking about the engine. not the trany limitations. ETC.
I stop arguing with you since , you just dont listen . Never mind your proof is actually make my points even clearer.

I will leave it like this . For me it is weird when a Mitsu forum moderator ,/who dont even have a Mitsubishi, but that is beside the point/
Try to give me a lecture about what i'm driving and what my ride capable of. /after i spend a good amount of time with racing and owning mitsu/
Meanwhile there is lots of mis understanding as far as i see about his knowledge about Mitsu . Never mind what is called bolt ons.
So for me this thread is like when you try to explain to the blind people , what is the difference between the green and red.

Sorry if it harsh a little, but it is what I'm thinking and my last word in this thread for you.
Thanks for reading Rob

"about the 500 whp stock internals STI real possibility's..
"THat is exactly right. GT30R will make around 400 whp. That should be fine on stock STi block although I always recommend forged pistons and a deburring and shot peening of the stock rods. For more power than that resleeving is absolutely necessary."

"It is easy to get over 400 whp out of the STi. THe SR50 gets maxed out easily which is why only 375 whp. Still it is quite good. The stock turbo is maxed out at around 310-315 whp. See my results below. Be careful Truckerspeed. The GT37 is NOT a ball bearing design and has no water cooling. Only the GT25R, GT30R, GT35R, GT42R and the upcoming GT40R are ball bearing units and water cooled. THe E-Manage is actually super easy to tune. It is almost as easy to tune as the UTEC. I love it for it's user friendliness. Our GT35R kit stage 4 package will be capable of over 500 whp but the block will not sustain that so we are working on the Spec R bolt on turbo which will sustain 400 whp while being bolt on plug and play. IT is based on the GT30R."
_________
http://www.clubwrx.net/forums/sti-te...whp-371tq.html


2008 STI power pack for 450 TQ / stage 5 /
http://www.xcceleration.com/sti.stage5.2008.htm

or here is the 500 hp race kit for sti with only bolt ons. But these are not WHP. And check out the prices
http://www.xcceleration.com/sti.gt35.race.kit.htm

 

Conditions play a huge part. As an obvious example, stage 2 STIs typically have times in the mid 13s where I live. The altitude seriously hampers power output.

 

Only one has a stage 1 block. The second one is using 100 octane gas just like the evo and *gasp* it shows exactly the same power output. Perhaps you should actually read the link since the second one has no mention of internal modifications.
I had a Mitsubishi for 4 years, god forbid I decide to move on and get a different car. Moderators are not chosen based on what cars they drive or what cars they like, they are chosen based on things like post history. I also find it funny how you are offended by someone telling you about the car you drive when you are doing exactly the same thing. The hypocrisy is truly outstanding.
How can you consider a turbo a bolt-on modification? It requires a lot of other mods to work right (like fuel upgrades) thus it is not a true bolt-on (ie. a bolt it and forget it type of mod).
You're using different sources now. According to AMS, the very people making the 500 whp turbo kit for the Evo X, the STI can and does make 500 whp and 500 wtq with their turbo kit, on the stock block. I'm sure you can find articles discussing the inability of the evo block to handle those powers, hell, most people begin modding the internals and the head at far lower power levels.

 

exactly, that would be an example of a bad test

 

If we open up the discussion to "bad" tests, we essentially have to draw an arbitrary line. I agree that a 5.X second 0-60 time isn't great for an evo (best I've seen was 4.4 for an Evo 9 RS) but what about for an STI? Are STIs capable of better 1/4 mile times than published? Who's to decide. This is why I feel this is a useless debate, the two cars are so similar (most performance tests show around a 0.1 second difference) that declaring a winner is impossible. In some cases the evo wins, in other cases the STI wins, the simple fact that the two can trade back and forth depending on who is driving and the specific conditions indicates that neither is superior.

 

It can simply be that building/part tolerances can be the difference at .1 sec.

 

Or simply the driver. Some people will inherently be faster in the Evo than in the STI if the Evo better complements their personal style.

 

Just for some more fuel. Sports Car International had a recent comparo of the X MR, 135i, R32 and the STI. There was no test data, only seat time comparos in the hills of California.

ORDER.

1) X. "a car so vastly superior to the others when it comes to satisfying demanding driving enthusiasts like us that it might as well have been in a class of its own.

2) 135i "uncooperative in the twisties"

3) R32 "surprised us with its highly competent and easily exploitable chassis which helped offset its power deficit.

4) STI "its steering is lifeless, its rear end feels inert, and understeer is the only language it speaks" "it is just a softer and consequently less capable car" off road it may be the best, "but on paved road the car's handling can't live up to its macho looks." " the STI's chassis is numb and unresponsive"

 

Yeah that's a pretty consistent complaint with the STI, especially the new one. Part of the problem is just the way the car is designed, you have to drive it differently to get the most out of it. The results are pretty inconsistent from magazine to magazine, Fifth Gear complained that the car kicked out the rear too readily mid-corner which is quite different than the people who complain it doesn't kick out enough. Something else to consider, the MR is a substantially more expensive car, in England it's a 6000 pound difference. There's no denying that the Evo is a very quick and nimble car, I just find it ridiculous when people act as if a 0.1 second difference is a sign of a superior vehicle.