TTP-Engineering Tunes the 2009 Ralliart 4b11
Oh give me a break. You're using the worst numbers possibly obtained. Is this the same MR putting down 201whp (see i can use the worst numbers too haha). And even mitsu themselves has the RA weighing in at 34xx not 3500. It's already known the Evo has the crappiest tune ever. Hell people are picking up 20whp with just the dealer reflash, it's THAT bad. Quit getting so bent out of shape over the RA. 237 claimed crank horsepower does NOT equal 220whp. Therefore it is UNDERRATED.
http://www.importtuner.com/powerpage...nce/index.html
So then the question is even more interesting ? The RA is way less then 16 whp down to the MR?
so are you saying they have almost a same hp?
Put your numbers up. Or if you have a same magazine numbers from both car , we can compere them, Until you dont post them , just feed on those ...
Yes, I know that AWD significantly helps to launch a car (I also owned a 1st gen Talon TSi), but you can still gets VERY good launches from 2wd with the proper tires, and setup. Also, in the cast of the R/A, it doesn't have a "launch control", something the cobalt SS does. Oh, and remember how I mentioned tires? The SS has better tires than the R/A. While I can't say with absolute certainty, but experience leaves me to believe that between the two cars, the AWD in it's 0-60 times only offers perhaps a marginal benefit.
My answer is it is more than siginifigant! I agree with ambystom01 on this one, it makes a huge difference and he gave you a prime example with the Evo versus the 400-hp Corvette that run similar numbers. Traction makes or breaks a run. That is exactly why the Mazdaspeed3 doesn't produce better numbers. It is torque-limited in first and second gears and to get the good number out of it you have to short shift it and it still blows the tires off during acceleration runs. Would better gripping tires help? Maybe, but they also may just cause failures on axles or transmissions...who knows. Mazda did what they did for a reason.
Earth to Amby.. I already mentioned the diffs. And if you know anything about diffs, they're only important for traction in straight line, and in turns. THEY MAKE NO DIFFERENCE ON A DYNO! the S-AWC is purely electronics - and instead of offering a hardware LSD, it modulates the brakes at all 4 corner individually, in a sense making them dynamic virtual LSDs.
Active Yaw Control (AYC) is an automobile feature that uses an active differential to transfer torque to the wheels that have the best grip on the road. Unlike traditional mechanical limited slip differentials, an AYC is electronically controlled.[1][2]
AYC was designed by Mitsubishi Motors, first introduced in the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IV. It has been included in certain models of every subsequent generation, and was also used in the VR-4 variant of the eighth generation Mitsubishi Galant sedan and Legnum wagon. Later developments led to S-AYC (Super-Active Yaw Control), first introduced on the Evolution VIII, utilizing a planetary gearset which could support an even greater torque bias than the previous system.[3][4] AYC and S-AYC have also been seen in several Mitsubishi concept cars based on the underpinnings of the Lancer Evo, such as the CZ3 Tarmac and Tarmac Spyder, the Montero Evolution, the RPM 7000, and the Concept-X.[5]
Active yaw control is based on a computer-controlled rear differential which can actively split torque based on input from various accelerometers in the vehicle measuring longitudinal and lateral g forces, steering, brakes and throttle position.[2] Where ABS brakes are fitted they too are included in the input parameters. It accomplishes this via two hydraulic clutches which can limit torque on individual axles. This system should not be confused with stability control systems which utilize the braking system of a vehicle by individually braking certain wheels to rotate and slow the car (such as Electronic Brakeforce Distribution). AYC is a performance-oriented system which aims to increase cornering speeds.
Last but not least here. Manufacturers now submit test engines for dyno tested under standard J1349 - they all use the same testing standard/method and get a certified hp number. Now as you well know there are slight manfucturing tolerance differences and this translates to varitions from engine to engine in horsepower. Manufacturers will take a sample of engines to make sure they are not underrating the numbers because they all learned a thing or two from the Mazda incident a few years ago. Most of the Evo engines rolling off of the assembly line were seeing about 295 hp, but the lower producing engines were only at 291, hence the official number of 291. Are they hugely underrated, NO! That's like a tolerance of 1.36%.
The bottom line is the numbers are what the numbers are, whether it is J1349 or acceleration numbers. The engines produce what they produce and the cars run the best number they can on that given day under those conditions. As long as it was the same driver, same day and same conditions, that's the best you can do to control variables.
Oh, and to the conspiracy theory people out there, advertising has nothing to do with magazine comparison results, period. It is what it is! The best vehicle wins...get over it.
Last edited by EVO Neil; Dec 11, 2008 at 09:15 AM.
how about this for rookies?
about the S-AWC and the Evo.
from page 17th. as a starter. Class 1 or basics:
http://www.hegnar.no/pdf/lancer_evolution_teknisk.pdf
so at least they will know what they talking about
about the S-AWC and the Evo.
from page 17th. as a starter. Class 1 or basics:
http://www.hegnar.no/pdf/lancer_evolution_teknisk.pdf
so at least they will know what they talking about
http://www.lancerevoclub.com/evoclub-ayc-e.htm
More on Active Yaw and a cut-away drawing to see the clutches inside the rear diff that control the transfer of power.
More on Active Yaw and a cut-away drawing to see the clutches inside the rear diff that control the transfer of power.
Evolved Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
From: michigan
My comments regarding the benefits of AWD over 2WD was speaking in generalities (meaning it doesn't hold true 100% of the time). Look at top fuel drag cars as an example. Later on, when I mentioned the marginal benefits of AWD over 2WD, I was STRICTLY speaking about the ralliart and the SS. In that particular instance, it appeared that the AWD of the R/A only provided marginal benefits. I also didn't mention the MS3 in that post at all. That would be a different story. The SS and the Speed3 are different. So, if you read my post correctly, you would have realized I was not being hypocritical.
Ok. I made a mistake regarding the s-awc diffs. I thought it utilized the same scheme as the WRX (applying brakes to limit torque to the wheels). Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings with my error
It still doesn't significantly alter the dyno results. Like I said before, the diffs are practically passive on a dyno. Prove me wrong, and I'll send you a cookie in the mail.
I also wasn't implying that advertising skews the facts in magazine articles. I'm confident that performance numbers are very accurate. What the advertising revenues may influence is how results are used to determine final conclusions. The SS certainly beats the WRX on a track. But these are conditions that suit the SS. It wouldn't fare so well against the same car in slippery conditions, or poor road quality. It appears to me that many times when a particular car is endorsed, it's determined by a narrow set of results, and doesn't always looks at the big picture. The overall end result should always be by the reader - that is, if you're looking to purchase one of the said cars.
All the cars we've mentioned in the thread does certain things better than other car. None of them trump every other car in every way.
Ok. I made a mistake regarding the s-awc diffs. I thought it utilized the same scheme as the WRX (applying brakes to limit torque to the wheels). Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings with my error
It still doesn't significantly alter the dyno results. Like I said before, the diffs are practically passive on a dyno. Prove me wrong, and I'll send you a cookie in the mail.
I also wasn't implying that advertising skews the facts in magazine articles. I'm confident that performance numbers are very accurate. What the advertising revenues may influence is how results are used to determine final conclusions. The SS certainly beats the WRX on a track. But these are conditions that suit the SS. It wouldn't fare so well against the same car in slippery conditions, or poor road quality. It appears to me that many times when a particular car is endorsed, it's determined by a narrow set of results, and doesn't always looks at the big picture. The overall end result should always be by the reader - that is, if you're looking to purchase one of the said cars.
All the cars we've mentioned in the thread does certain things better than other car. None of them trump every other car in every way.
Hence the reasons that Car and Driver lists the numbered rating system so the conspiracy theorists can see the numbers on paper. I wasn't referring to you with that comment, but to others that always claim if their vehicle didn't win it was the advertising influence...
At the top level magazines there is zero of this going on. I was at one of them for 5 years and the advertising geeks never went on one comparison test with us, ever. They were never there during our, driving, testing, rating and/or winning voting. And where I worked they weren't even on the same floor in our building...like 4 floors different. It's just no happening like so many think.
As far as your theory, I think you haven't really thought it through since the Cobalt a) makes more power than the Ralliart and b) is lighter. So for the heavy under-powered (in this comparison) vehicle to run nearly equal numbers does prove that AWD is a huge benefit and great equalizer.
At the top level magazines there is zero of this going on. I was at one of them for 5 years and the advertising geeks never went on one comparison test with us, ever. They were never there during our, driving, testing, rating and/or winning voting. And where I worked they weren't even on the same floor in our building...like 4 floors different. It's just no happening like so many think.
As far as your theory, I think you haven't really thought it through since the Cobalt a) makes more power than the Ralliart and b) is lighter. So for the heavy under-powered (in this comparison) vehicle to run nearly equal numbers does prove that AWD is a huge benefit and great equalizer.
Evolved Member
Joined: Dec 2008
Posts: 662
Likes: 0
From: michigan
>>As far as your theory, I think you haven't really thought it through since the Cobalt a) makes more power than the Ralliart and b) is lighter. So for the heavy under-powered (in this comparison) vehicle to run nearly equal numbers does prove that AWD is a huge benefit and great equalizer.
We would have to further evaluate other factors such as gearing. But, you could be totally right. I was using to support my theory that the R/A is possibly(not certainly) underrated. How evil of me
But really, I don't care so much about the power. I thought this thread was significant for the discussion of the TC-SST's power handling capabilities.
We would have to further evaluate other factors such as gearing. But, you could be totally right. I was using to support my theory that the R/A is possibly(not certainly) underrated. How evil of me
But really, I don't care so much about the power. I thought this thread was significant for the discussion of the TC-SST's power handling capabilities.
I've answered the J1349 rating standard for modern engines for those conspiracy theorists about hp ratings. But for those that would like to educate themselves further...
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm
or more here:
http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tec...horsepower.htm
This thread was about, TTP-Engineering Tunes the 2009 Ralliart 4b11 , but went far away from that a long time ago.
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm
or more here:
http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tec...horsepower.htm
This thread was about, TTP-Engineering Tunes the 2009 Ralliart 4b11 , but went far away from that a long time ago.
I've answered the J1349 rating standard for modern engines for those conspiracy theorists about hp ratings. But for those that would like to educate themselves further...
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm
or more here:
http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tec...horsepower.htm
This thread was about, TTP-Engineering Tunes the 2009 Ralliart 4b11 , but went far away from that a long time ago.
http://www.sae.org/certifiedpower/details.htm
or more here:
http://www.land-and-sea.com/dyno-tec...horsepower.htm
This thread was about, TTP-Engineering Tunes the 2009 Ralliart 4b11 , but went far away from that a long time ago.
Oh give me a break. You're using the worst numbers possibly obtained. Is this the same MR putting down 201whp (see i can use the worst numbers too haha). And even mitsu themselves has the RA weighing in at 34xx not 3500. It's already known the Evo has the crappiest tune ever. Hell people are picking up 20whp with just the dealer reflash, it's THAT bad. Quit getting so bent out of shape over the RA. 237 claimed crank horsepower does NOT equal 220whp. Therefore it is UNDERRATED.
Again, what does 220 WHP on that dyno mean? You have managed to avoid the question time and time again. If the Ralliart is underrated, what power do you think it is making?
I've bolded the quotes above because you've completely contradicted yourself here, which is it? It significantly helps or it only has a marginal benefit?
My answer is it is more than siginifigant! I agree with ambystom01 on this one, it makes a huge difference and he gave you a prime example with the Evo versus the 400-hp Corvette that run similar numbers. Traction makes or breaks a run. That is exactly why the Mazdaspeed3 doesn't produce better numbers. It is torque-limited in first and second gears and to get the good number out of it you have to short shift it and it still blows the tires off during acceleration runs. Would better gripping tires help? Maybe, but they also may just cause failures on axles or transmissions...who knows. Mazda did what they did for a reason.
The S-AWC on the Evo is not the same as what is used on the Ralliart. the Ralliart uses the Evo IX drivetrain with no AYC - Active Yaw Control. Active yaw doesn't work its magic by using the brakes. Borrowed from Wikipedia -
Active Yaw Control (AYC) is an automobile feature that uses an active differential to transfer torque to the wheels that have the best grip on the road. Unlike traditional mechanical limited slip differentials, an AYC is electronically controlled.[1][2]
AYC was designed by Mitsubishi Motors, first introduced in the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IV. It has been included in certain models of every subsequent generation, and was also used in the VR-4 variant of the eighth generation Mitsubishi Galant sedan and Legnum wagon. Later developments led to S-AYC (Super-Active Yaw Control), first introduced on the Evolution VIII, utilizing a planetary gearset which could support an even greater torque bias than the previous system.[3][4] AYC and S-AYC have also been seen in several Mitsubishi concept cars based on the underpinnings of the Lancer Evo, such as the CZ3 Tarmac and Tarmac Spyder, the Montero Evolution, the RPM 7000, and the Concept-X.[5]
Active yaw control is based on a computer-controlled rear differential which can actively split torque based on input from various accelerometers in the vehicle measuring longitudinal and lateral g forces, steering, brakes and throttle position.[2] Where ABS brakes are fitted they too are included in the input parameters. It accomplishes this via two hydraulic clutches which can limit torque on individual axles. This system should not be confused with stability control systems which utilize the braking system of a vehicle by individually braking certain wheels to rotate and slow the car (such as Electronic Brakeforce Distribution). AYC is a performance-oriented system which aims to increase cornering speeds.
Last but not least here. Manufacturers now submit test engines for dyno tested under standard J1349 - they all use the same testing standard/method and get a certified hp number. Now as you well know there are slight manfucturing tolerance differences and this translates to varitions from engine to engine in horsepower. Manufacturers will take a sample of engines to make sure they are not underrating the numbers because they all learned a thing or two from the Mazda incident a few years ago. Most of the Evo engines rolling off of the assembly line were seeing about 295 hp, but the lower producing engines were only at 291, hence the official number of 291. Are they hugely underrated, NO! That's like a tolerance of 1.36%.
The bottom line is the numbers are what the numbers are, whether it is J1349 or acceleration numbers. The engines produce what they produce and the cars run the best number they can on that given day under those conditions. As long as it was the same driver, same day and same conditions, that's the best you can do to control variables.
Oh, and to the conspiracy theory people out there, advertising has nothing to do with magazine comparison results, period. It is what it is! The best vehicle wins...get over it.
My answer is it is more than siginifigant! I agree with ambystom01 on this one, it makes a huge difference and he gave you a prime example with the Evo versus the 400-hp Corvette that run similar numbers. Traction makes or breaks a run. That is exactly why the Mazdaspeed3 doesn't produce better numbers. It is torque-limited in first and second gears and to get the good number out of it you have to short shift it and it still blows the tires off during acceleration runs. Would better gripping tires help? Maybe, but they also may just cause failures on axles or transmissions...who knows. Mazda did what they did for a reason.
The S-AWC on the Evo is not the same as what is used on the Ralliart. the Ralliart uses the Evo IX drivetrain with no AYC - Active Yaw Control. Active yaw doesn't work its magic by using the brakes. Borrowed from Wikipedia -
Active Yaw Control (AYC) is an automobile feature that uses an active differential to transfer torque to the wheels that have the best grip on the road. Unlike traditional mechanical limited slip differentials, an AYC is electronically controlled.[1][2]
AYC was designed by Mitsubishi Motors, first introduced in the Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution IV. It has been included in certain models of every subsequent generation, and was also used in the VR-4 variant of the eighth generation Mitsubishi Galant sedan and Legnum wagon. Later developments led to S-AYC (Super-Active Yaw Control), first introduced on the Evolution VIII, utilizing a planetary gearset which could support an even greater torque bias than the previous system.[3][4] AYC and S-AYC have also been seen in several Mitsubishi concept cars based on the underpinnings of the Lancer Evo, such as the CZ3 Tarmac and Tarmac Spyder, the Montero Evolution, the RPM 7000, and the Concept-X.[5]
Active yaw control is based on a computer-controlled rear differential which can actively split torque based on input from various accelerometers in the vehicle measuring longitudinal and lateral g forces, steering, brakes and throttle position.[2] Where ABS brakes are fitted they too are included in the input parameters. It accomplishes this via two hydraulic clutches which can limit torque on individual axles. This system should not be confused with stability control systems which utilize the braking system of a vehicle by individually braking certain wheels to rotate and slow the car (such as Electronic Brakeforce Distribution). AYC is a performance-oriented system which aims to increase cornering speeds.
Last but not least here. Manufacturers now submit test engines for dyno tested under standard J1349 - they all use the same testing standard/method and get a certified hp number. Now as you well know there are slight manfucturing tolerance differences and this translates to varitions from engine to engine in horsepower. Manufacturers will take a sample of engines to make sure they are not underrating the numbers because they all learned a thing or two from the Mazda incident a few years ago. Most of the Evo engines rolling off of the assembly line were seeing about 295 hp, but the lower producing engines were only at 291, hence the official number of 291. Are they hugely underrated, NO! That's like a tolerance of 1.36%.
The bottom line is the numbers are what the numbers are, whether it is J1349 or acceleration numbers. The engines produce what they produce and the cars run the best number they can on that given day under those conditions. As long as it was the same driver, same day and same conditions, that's the best you can do to control variables.
Oh, and to the conspiracy theory people out there, advertising has nothing to do with magazine comparison results, period. It is what it is! The best vehicle wins...get over it.
My comments regarding the benefits of AWD over 2WD was speaking in generalities (meaning it doesn't hold true 100% of the time). Look at top fuel drag cars as an example. Later on, when I mentioned the marginal benefits of AWD over 2WD, I was STRICTLY speaking about the ralliart and the SS. In that particular instance, it appeared that the AWD of the R/A only provided marginal benefits. I also didn't mention the MS3 in that post at all. That would be a different story. The SS and the Speed3 are different. So, if you read my post correctly, you would have realized I was not being hypocritical.
Ok. I made a mistake regarding the s-awc diffs. I thought it utilized the same scheme as the WRX (applying brakes to limit torque to the wheels). Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings with my error
It still doesn't significantly alter the dyno results. Like I said before, the diffs are practically passive on a dyno. Prove me wrong, and I'll send you a cookie in the mail.
I also wasn't implying that advertising skews the facts in magazine articles. I'm confident that performance numbers are very accurate. What the advertising revenues may influence is how results are used to determine final conclusions. The SS certainly beats the WRX on a track. But these are conditions that suit the SS. It wouldn't fare so well against the same car in slippery conditions, or poor road quality. It appears to me that many times when a particular car is endorsed, it's determined by a narrow set of results, and doesn't always looks at the big picture. The overall end result should always be by the reader - that is, if you're looking to purchase one of the said cars.
All the cars we've mentioned in the thread does certain things better than other car. None of them trump every other car in every way.
Ok. I made a mistake regarding the s-awc diffs. I thought it utilized the same scheme as the WRX (applying brakes to limit torque to the wheels). Sorry if I hurt anyone's feelings with my error
It still doesn't significantly alter the dyno results. Like I said before, the diffs are practically passive on a dyno. Prove me wrong, and I'll send you a cookie in the mail.
I also wasn't implying that advertising skews the facts in magazine articles. I'm confident that performance numbers are very accurate. What the advertising revenues may influence is how results are used to determine final conclusions. The SS certainly beats the WRX on a track. But these are conditions that suit the SS. It wouldn't fare so well against the same car in slippery conditions, or poor road quality. It appears to me that many times when a particular car is endorsed, it's determined by a narrow set of results, and doesn't always looks at the big picture. The overall end result should always be by the reader - that is, if you're looking to purchase one of the said cars.
All the cars we've mentioned in the thread does certain things better than other car. None of them trump every other car in every way.
Look at the other performance numbers for the RA, namely the rolling numbers and the higher speed numbers, they're not stellar. Clearly it's not the car's top end that is accounting for the 1/4 times, it's strictly the AWD launch.
Diffs are not passive on a dyno, the power still has to go through them. You might as well argue that the transmission itself is passive.
I agree with what you wrote about the track and certain conditions favoring certain cars but at the same time, that applies to virtually every car in the world. At the end of the day, you have to pick a line to compare the cars along. You can't use subjective things like looks or features because they're subjective, you need objective numbers. The easiest numbers to obtain are performance numbers, you can do it in an afternoon.
Any more news from the testing, TTP?