Remember competition rules only allow homlogated engines, this does tend to make a manufacture stick with the same basic engine for a while.

indeed the engine in the 206 rally car is from the Mi16 406 road car which got the basic block/crank/rods from the 205 T-16 group B rally car (1985).

Ah, group B , the road verisons of the t-16, s4, 6r4, rs200, the only cars I would like more than my EVO.

 

persoanlly im a big fan of the 4g63 motor...i think it should stay in da new evo....

 

I don't understand why you make the assumption that just because Subrau made a 2.5L STi to outdo the Evo, that Mitsu will have to come out with their own bigger engine to raise the level once again. For one thing, this is the first Evo we've seen, it is not necessarily the last. Next years model could have even more power or the current one could have Ralliart emissions legal upgrades to boost it well beyond the 300hp mark. People are driving emissions legal 300+hp DSM's right now, so I don't think it will be much of a stretch for Mitsu to produce a factory 4G63 with 300+hp and still meet today's emissions. Of course, I could very well be wrong, but I think it is still too early to assume that Subaru has written "the book" for clean 300+hp out of a factory 4cyl turbo motor.

 

I doubt there are many or any 300+ hp DSM's emission legal in California. Every part they have on them has to have CARB approval. Any car sold from the manufacturer will meet California rules. Who knows what Ralliart will have for the US EVO. Chances are whatever they have will not be CARB approved, and sold with an offroad use only disclaimer. With a smaller engine, it becomes very hard to meet emissions and make big power. As well as emissions there is our gas.

The EVO has already been detuned for US emissions and gas. They would have brought it at the same JDM power if they could have made it that way to run on our gas and pass our emissions.

As technology gets better, they can squeeze more out of a smaller engine and pass emissions. However unless they have some huge technological breakthough, it's not going to be much. So don't expect much more than 271 out of a USA 2.0 EVO from the factory

 

Lots of assumptions from someone who was neither an engineer working on the Evo project nor a marketing executive at Mitsubishi. Granted as a Mitsu fan (and someone who isn't a Mitsu engineer or exec either), I look on the bright side. As a Subie fan, you assume the worst (or best from your side of the fence), that Mitsu would indeed have to follow Subaru's lead to get more power. That they can't get 300+ cleanly out of 2.0L. There could be many other reasons why there is only a 271hp version available for these intial run of cars. Price and marketing positioning, for one. As in how could you justify an upcoming 38,000 Evo that only has ten more horses then the base model, for instance? Warranty issues, longevity issues who knows? And until someone gets their hands on one and dyno tests it, puts it through its paces, and therefore quantify its capabilites, all we can do is speculate.

But until both cars are in the enthusiasts hands and the Sti is proven to be hands down a better car in every regard, which a lot of people are willing to accept already at this point - I just don't think it is wise to say what Mitsu CAN'T do based only on what Subaru CAN do. Its all about the point of view from where you stand. Mitsubishi has already had a technological breakthrough, its called GDI -granted it may not be ready for the US, but they may have other plans up their sleeves that none of us know about. If I have to eat these words if they come out with a 2.7L Evo, then fine, I'll still be an EVO fan, but I'm not ready to count out there ability just because of what some other car company chose to do. Oh, and if you visit the DSM boards you'll find plenty of clean, legal 300+hp DSM's.

 

I'm argueing they'll have to go to a larger engine. How does that hurt EVO fans? All that means is more peak HP potential and better torque down low. Sure I didn't work on the engineering of the EVO, but there's a lot of principles that apply to all engines.

Also, I said street legal 300+ HP cars in California. Remember, they're the ones who need to deal with CARB, some other states have no emission testing and you could have a 400hp DSM for all they care.

 

Just for the record direct gasoline injection isn't exclusive Mitsubishi technology. I believe a few German auto makers are also playing with it, but Mitsubishi seems to be applying it the most so far as I've noticed. I feel like I should be doing homework on this stuff instead of my college classes. It's a lot more rewarding.

 

it is mitsubishi that started the gdi

 

was the first manufacturer to mass produce a GDI engine, but Mercedes was among the very first to actually have one back in the 50's in the 300SL. The Mercedes system had technical difficulties and was eventually abandoned (we are talking about the 50's here...)
Although other manufacturers are now starting to use GDI, was the pioneer in 1996 for mass production. Unfortunately, their design requires low sulfur gasoline, and so far only California and Japan have good enough gas to take full advantage of the GDI. The GDI's sold in Europe by have been somewhat of a disappointment.

 

It doesn't. But, some of us are truly devoted to the 4G63T engine. By assuming that it would have to pitched aside to produce more then 300hp is hard for some of us to accept. It is also like saying the EJ20 is equal to the 4g63, so to get more power there would have to be a 4G65 or somthing, just because there is now an eJ25. We of course know that the 4g63 is better.

True. I'll have to look into it.

True. I didn't mean to imply that they did. But they certainly brought it to the mainstream. Maybe they can use it to gain the extra adge, or maybe MIVEC, I dunno, the point is it is too soon to assume we've seen the last, final and ultimate incarnation of the 2.0L 4G63T.

 

Very well said GPTourer.....

 

Wow, I didn't know they made Magnesium camshafts these days!! Do they spntaneously ignite after 1000 miles or so? Oh, never mind, I think you meant magnesium valve cover which is not a performance enhancement just a weight saver.

I do think the 4G63 is outdated. If came out with a good turbo GDI motor with Variable Valve timing, they could actually make more power while passing emissions. Now if only could devote the money and resources to develop these tech nologies... Oh wait! I for got they DO have GDI & MIVEC, now all they have to do is get off their lazy @$$es and make a 2000cc perfomance version with a turbo. It used to be that the only engine blocks that could stand up to boost were made of Iron. New manufacturing techniqes like a new high-pressure casting system invented by Yamaha to completely eliminate air pockets in aluminum castings allow for much stonger aluminum blocks. Let's face it, with cars getting as heavy as they are, we could use as many weight savings as possible.

Remember, making power is rarely the issue with most production turbo motors these days, its passing emisisons while making the power that poses the challenge.

 

Its all about balance, there are some designs that are more inherintly more balanced than others and will run smoother. The most balanced commonly used designs are the Inline-6, flat-6 (or H-6 as Subie calls it), properly counterbalanced 90º V-8 (with cross-plane crank; american V-8) (the Ferrari 360 uses a "flat" crank), and the 60º V-12. Also quite balanced are the Inline 5 and 72º V-10. Look at how the cranks are configured and you'll understand.

Great Engine Info:
http://www.e31.net/engines_e.html

BTW, as a side note on interesting engine designs anyone here seen the Honda 980cc V-5 motor in the new GP bikes? If you really like learning about engines it is definitely worth looking up info on. Seems like it would be really unbalanced, but the 5'th cylinder (or middle one up front) actually acts as a counterbalancer for the motor. So it has a counterbalancer that actually produces more power. Pretty trick if you ask me. They have been very successful with it already even though its a new design.

a little info (if you look hard enough, you might find a diagram):
http://www.amasuperbike.com/hondagp2001.htm

Can't wait to see this bike on the roads:
http://www.motorcycledaily.com/03november01hondav5.html

 

HELL YEAH!!!!! If it was an ultracompact, modern hi perf V-8 I most certainly would want one in my EVO. Be insane if boosted. You got something against more cylinders? According to Subaru, the next Sti is going to a 3.0L motor putting out 350 hp. Most likely it'll be an H-6 maybe even based off the current H-6 which is only 20mm longer than the EJ20 (2.0 Flat 4) currently used. Now you're telling me that you wouldn't want more cylinders even if there wasn't hardly any additional weight penalty?

BTW, guys in the WRC class manufacturers are only required to have 50 examples of the cars they are racing, all of which are used for racing and not sold to the public. This means that they are no longer "bound" to the Group A or N rules so they don't need to make the street versions adhere to the 2.0L limit.

 

Uhhh, you can't just make a blanket statement like that. It depends on the number of cylinders, V angle, counterbalancers and crank design among other things.

Good learning:
http://www.e31.net/engines_e.html