If you ran that lean and got it that hot (based on the most likely speculation by everyone here including myself), you've probably got some head warpage too. Definitely get it checked properly by a capable machine shop since you're spending the money to get everything else done right too. You'd hate to see something else go bad due to oversight or lack of proper attention to detail. Talk to chuysralliart about that one...

 

bummer that such a simple thing can cause such a nasty failure... I have to imagine mitsu has paid out enough warranty claims to figure out they need to secure the section of vacuum line a LOT better.

OP, you should wait until everything is torn down so you can get an accurate assessment of the damage before you decide on your rebuild path. That includes pulling the cams etc and looking for signs of metal in the journals etc etc.

 

Well looks like I'm going to grab some mini zip ties later today.

 

Just a thought but if this can be shown to be a design fault i.e. has caused multiple failures it may be arguable that it is warranty related.

 

Mitsubishi have already worked out with STOCK boost levels this hose will never come off. If you tunred up with this as a warranty issue the 1st thing thing they will be looking for is a tune and higher boost levels.

With spikes of 25psi and above every hose needs extra attention.

 

Yea im holding off to order everything this is just a start but I will figure everyting out next week I hope.

 

With fifteen years in automotive including 5 years as Production System Manager for Asia Pacific and Africa for one of the big three including conducting engineering testing for Mitsubishi in Australia that issue is a clear design fault.

During engineering development most automotive companies prepare what is called a Design Failure Mode and Effect Analysis this identifies potential failure modes of components , likelihood of occurrence and potential impact.

In this particular instance failure of the hose will lead to catastrophic engine failure in this case it should be engineered to protect from that failure.

Engineering testing requires vehicle components to be tested at well above standard operating ranges to provide safety factors for everyday use, in general engineering safety factors are around 50% for items involving safety they are %100 percent or more, some vehicle components are designed to never fail during the life of the vehicle.

All i'm saying is that standard automotive engineering design practice should identify this issue.

 

You definitely melted a piston.

 

any pics with the head off yet?

 

pics will be up middle of next week. hopefully it isnt to much worse than what we could see with the scope but you never know so the wait is back on again

 

By using that analogy, does that mean we can run 38psi (100% over stock peak boost) without any issues?

 

Not an analogy but a fact would you like to illuminate us with your automotive industry experience?

Of course it would not be expected to hold 35 Psi as you would potentially burst the hose. Putting a clamp on it so it doesn't blow off isn't an unreasonable engineering expectation, from an engineering perspective it should have been identified as a potential failure mode and a containment put in place.

The point is that failure of this connection can lead to a total engine failure. From an engineering design and testing perspective that warrants that the hose be suitably clamped.

 

While I do agree with you, I've got two words: Ford Pinto.

Unfortunately, it's easier to cut costs to maximize profits rather than increase safety to minimize warranty claims.

HISTORY LESSON & :

"When an early model of the Pinto was crash-tested, it was found that, when struck from the rear at 20+ mph, the gas tank would sometimes rupture and gas would spray out into the passenger compartment. At the time, government regulations required that a gas tank only remain intact in a rear-end collision of less than 20 mph.

According to an internal cost-benefit study, modifying the gas tank of the 12.5 million autos that would eventually be built would cost about $11/unit for a total of $137 million. However, statistical data showed that the mod would prevent the loss of about 180 burn deaths, 180 serious burn injuries, and 2,100 burned vehicles. At the time (1970), the government officially valued a human life at $200,000, insurance companies valued a serious burn injury at $67,000, and the average residual value on sub-compacts was $700. So in monetary terms, the mods would have the benefit of preventing losses with a total value of only $49.15 million.

Benefits:(180 deaths * $200,000) + (180 injuries * $67,000) + (2,100 vehicles * $700) = $49.15 million

Thus, a mod that would ultimately cost customers $137 million (because the costs of the mod would be added to the price of the car) would result in the prevention of customer losses valued at only $49.15 million" (Velasquez, 2006).

Velasquez, M. (2006). Business Ethics: Concepts and Cases (6th ed.). Upper Saddle River: Pearson Prentice Hall. ISBN: 0-13-193007-9

Back to my point!

As much as I agree with your analogy and hope that Mitsubishi would look at safety over benefits, companies do exist that prefer profits over safety.

 

4g64 swap . To above post . . Bet you won't hit him !

 

ive heard 4g64 a couple times now but i dont wanna do a full swap unless i have to. and aside from that all i can seem to find is that it is a pain in the *** to turbo, and no way in hell am i going back to a slow *** NA engine lol