evo ix extreme 20psi 1014awhp 12000rpms (only tech questions and posts)
Aug 14, 2014, 09:57 AM
#46
I dont use corrected dyno numbers, just the number the car made on the particular day it was on the dyno. Correction is for comparison only from one dyno to another, if the car went out on the street in 96* heat it doesnt make a corrected number it makes the uncorrected number. Its not to discredit the power as its 20whp difference. On a colder day it would be 1014, yes.
Aug 14, 2014, 10:02 PM
#47
Those pictures are the real definition of car ****.
That intake manifold is another brand though they just use as a starting point. Not everything they make is from scratch.
Definitely interested to see how much it makes with more boost.
Also I do understand this cars only intent is to make record breaking dyno HP numbers and thats perfectly fine. Every car has its own reasons to exist.
That intake manifold is another brand though they just use as a starting point. Not everything they make is from scratch.
Definitely interested to see how much it makes with more boost.
Also I do understand this cars only intent is to make record breaking dyno HP numbers and thats perfectly fine. Every car has its own reasons to exist.
Aug 15, 2014, 07:42 AM
#49
what would this setup make with a front mount air to air intercooler? 1000 hp with only 2 more psi then a factory evo is pretty sick
needs wrong offset wheels, negative camber, ac kit but otherwise good job.
oh and more loooooww
needs wrong offset wheels, negative camber, ac kit but otherwise good job.
oh and more loooooww
Last edited by 05VIII; Aug 15, 2014 at 07:45 AM.
Aug 18, 2014, 06:23 PM
#50
I wish these ET cars would just put the runs down to prove their claims.
On the plus side, they posted actual Evo parts this time. Is that crank with removable counter weights meant only for developmental testing?
On the plus side, they posted actual Evo parts this time. Is that crank with removable counter weights meant only for developmental testing?
Last edited by 03whitegsr; Aug 18, 2014 at 06:27 PM.
Aug 19, 2014, 03:34 AM
#51
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Athens
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
we dont have tracks here to support these cars. No glue and good track. they test this evo ix at 19-20psi and had 9.2sec @ 162 with 1.68 60ft. and all wheel spin.
the crank is in this kit right now, they made lot of tests about this
Aug 19, 2014, 05:04 PM
#52
I think it's stuff like that though that just hurts more. There are cars here making 700hp that run better times, some on less than great tracks and others are "street cars."
ET aside... 19-20 psi and 162mph traps is a huge claim. FWIW though, US cars claiming similar power are trapping high 160 range. I have no idea on weight of this car though...
Interesting on the crank though. That's the last place I'd want hardware holding on weights. Thought maybe it was just an effort to use one crank to test multiple rods/piston setups by using replaceable weights. For something permanent, I'd think they'd do tungsten slugs parallel with the crank axis.
ET aside... 19-20 psi and 162mph traps is a huge claim. FWIW though, US cars claiming similar power are trapping high 160 range. I have no idea on weight of this car though...
Interesting on the crank though. That's the last place I'd want hardware holding on weights. Thought maybe it was just an effort to use one crank to test multiple rods/piston setups by using replaceable weights. For something permanent, I'd think they'd do tungsten slugs parallel with the crank axis.
Last edited by 03whitegsr; Aug 19, 2014 at 05:08 PM.
Aug 19, 2014, 06:00 PM
#54
Evolved Member
From nearly a decade ago, an early EVO (albeit tube framed, but making the exact same power level and putting down 8.2-8.4 range at nearly 180mph on a dusty airstrip with a dirty old rebuilt stock gearbox (no 8 speed sequential here) - sure its going to be a fair bit lighter, but not 1 second and 20mph worth of lighter:
Last edited by MrLith; Aug 19, 2014 at 06:03 PM.
Aug 20, 2014, 01:59 AM
#55
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Athens
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's stuff like that though that just hurts more. There are cars here making 700hp that run better times, some on less than great tracks and others are "street cars."
ET aside... 19-20 psi and 162mph traps is a huge claim. FWIW though, US cars claiming similar power are trapping high 160 range. I have no idea on weight of this car though...
Interesting on the crank though. That's the last place I'd want hardware holding on weights. Thought maybe it was just an effort to use one crank to test multiple rods/piston setups by using replaceable weights. For something permanent, I'd think they'd do tungsten slugs parallel with the crank axis.
ET aside... 19-20 psi and 162mph traps is a huge claim. FWIW though, US cars claiming similar power are trapping high 160 range. I have no idea on weight of this car though...
Interesting on the crank though. That's the last place I'd want hardware holding on weights. Thought maybe it was just an effort to use one crank to test multiple rods/piston setups by using replaceable weights. For something permanent, I'd think they'd do tungsten slugs parallel with the crank axis.
5'' exhaust pipe to tail, 152lbs IC kit with water and ice included full + 20ltr tank, 79lbs turbo, dry sump kit extra oil tank and exhaust manifold, 10pot 380mm discs frond and 6pot 356mm disc rear.
Last edited by stamatis evo6; Aug 20, 2014 at 02:09 AM.
Aug 20, 2014, 02:09 AM
#56
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Athens
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
We don't either, here in NZ - and we have some of the quickest 4WDs in the world!
From nearly a decade ago, an early EVO (albeit tube framed, but making the exact same power level and putting down 8.2-8.4 range at nearly 180mph on a dusty airstrip with a dirty old rebuilt stock gearbox (no 8 speed sequential here) - sure its going to be a fair bit lighter, but not 1 second and 20mph worth of lighter: Docile - YouTube
From nearly a decade ago, an early EVO (albeit tube framed, but making the exact same power level and putting down 8.2-8.4 range at nearly 180mph on a dusty airstrip with a dirty old rebuilt stock gearbox (no 8 speed sequential here) - sure its going to be a fair bit lighter, but not 1 second and 20mph worth of lighter: Docile - YouTube
Tokoroa Dragway
Amisfield Airfield Moffat Rd Tokoroa
Taupo Thunder Dragway
Taupo Motorsport Park Off Rd Hwy
Masterton Motorplex
South Road Masterton
Nelson Rock FM Dragway
Marchwood Park Rd Motueka Nelson
Southern Dragways
Alexandra airport
the pass show us from this car (i dont know what car is it) at this pass dont even make below 10sec. have you seen this pass? Must be 1900<lbs and its drag car. ET evo ix as you see at the above post its street car full interior. But please stop compare aples to oranges. At this topic i show you engine setup-technology only.
Aug 20, 2014, 09:29 PM
#58
Aaron...I know HOW somebody could do it...although, seriously, do the math on it and you'll see that it's still like 120% VE to make their claims...correcting for typical power gains of methanol and thermal efficiency of 17:1 compression...
I'm sure you've calculated/measured out VE before on some cars that roll through your shop...how many make 120% VE ANYWHERE in the RPM range? Much less 12k RPM...
I've personally seen ~112%VE at peak torque on a EJ25 GT42R setup with long tube divided exhaust manifold and an intake manifold tuned for peak torque around 6500 RPM. That car had heads that were WELL over 300CFM on the intake side with an intake cam that was over 300* advertised duration...
I'm sure you've calculated/measured out VE before on some cars that roll through your shop...how many make 120% VE ANYWHERE in the RPM range? Much less 12k RPM...
I've personally seen ~112%VE at peak torque on a EJ25 GT42R setup with long tube divided exhaust manifold and an intake manifold tuned for peak torque around 6500 RPM. That car had heads that were WELL over 300CFM on the intake side with an intake cam that was over 300* advertised duration...
Last edited by 03whitegsr; Aug 20, 2014 at 09:32 PM.
Aug 21, 2014, 08:06 AM
#59
Aaron...I know HOW somebody could do it...although, seriously, do the math on it and you'll see that it's still like 120% VE to make their claims...correcting for typical power gains of methanol and thermal efficiency of 17:1 compression...
I'm sure you've calculated/measured out VE before on some cars that roll through your shop...how many make 120% VE ANYWHERE in the RPM range? Much less 12k RPM...
I've personally seen ~112%VE at peak torque on a EJ25 GT42R setup with long tube divided exhaust manifold and an intake manifold tuned for peak torque around 6500 RPM. That car had heads that were WELL over 300CFM on the intake side with an intake cam that was over 300* advertised duration...
I'm sure you've calculated/measured out VE before on some cars that roll through your shop...how many make 120% VE ANYWHERE in the RPM range? Much less 12k RPM...
I've personally seen ~112%VE at peak torque on a EJ25 GT42R setup with long tube divided exhaust manifold and an intake manifold tuned for peak torque around 6500 RPM. That car had heads that were WELL over 300CFM on the intake side with an intake cam that was over 300* advertised duration...
Aug 27, 2014, 05:09 AM
#60
Newbie
Thread Starter
Join Date: Jun 2013
Location: Athens
Posts: 80
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I ask for you also
here are the details of the engine they gave me
4g64 block
87mm piston bore
79mm stroke crank
1878cc
168mm rod length
27.5mm piston compression height
titanium pins
-25.2cm3 piston dome
16.92:1 compression ratio with flat titanium valves no relief