Troll bait set...



-Acree

 

not a mitsu story but i swapped my k20a3 (2.0) for a k24a2 (2.4) and it turned my dc5 into a monster.

 

Mitsu-heavy already manufactured the ideal crank scattered across the world in propane powered forklifts. Hell, even use the same stroke to rod length ratio as the current 2.0. But some corporate ***** has them underengineer the powerplant for their performance car icon.

Has to be another reason other than to satisfy wrc rules established in events they usually loose.

 

Uh thats how/why the first Evo was created. They wanted to compete in WRC but the rules stated they needed to build a certain amount of road going versions for it to be based off of.

 

WRC rules really dont even enter into it. WRX is a 2.0L, STi is a 2.0L everywhere else in the world, but here we got a 2.5L. Mitsu could have done the same thing very easily for a more street friendly version.

Mitsu didnt because they wanted to keep it "pure" but that only appeased them, we dont care obviously or there wouldnt be so many 2.4 swaps. 2.4 swaps in and of themselves arent new, the first DSM I knew about was '98 as I recall. Mitsu had plenty of time to see what was being done they just dont care about the people that buy the cars. Every other manufacturer offers larger motors now coupled with small turbos. Look at the RDX (2.3L), MS3 (2.3L), STi and WRX (2.5L), R35 (3.8L V6). The ones that still sell 2.0L turbo motors also use VERY TINY turbos. We are all looking at you VW

Its typical automotive philosophy- dont give them what they want, give them what they need.

 

It's also a fact that the manufacturers water down the first few years of a product to simply offer it later in a model "refresh." Why would you include the best things the very first year you release the car when you can say "Hey look! We improved upon the original!"

-Acree

 

Thanks, my friend. I appreciate it.

 

Well, japan and Europe have the ej257(2.5L wrx and STi motor). They have for a couple years at least now.

Evo 8 was still under wrc homologation or it had just ended so they didn't know if everyone was sticking with the 2.0 for racing and they already had the design(dsm and evo vii years obviously) they probably didn't know if subi was sticking with the 2.0 as well in racing.

Evo 9 I would guess was cheaper to just keep as a 2.0 and add the mivec(as Subaru had avcs from the get go) and wasn't "laggy" enough using a twin scroll turbo(subies use a single scroll turbo and utilize a "up-pipe" which is great for transient response and not top end...the uppipe kills the heat which the turbo loves.

Idk why the evo x is a 2.0, that's the only thing that doesn't add up for me....

They should have just made a larger bore 4g63. The 4g64's weren't turbo and had a higher deckheight and you have to use longer rods and thats why they used the dsm turbo rods stock iirc. that's the funniest part of seeing these long rod threads as that's kind of a no brainer to take advantage of that higher deck height with a longer rod. They were never overly engineered for power potential like the turbo 4g63. It's probably a pretty cool NA motor( the 4g64).

 

That's the thing that Subaru did though, there are homologated versions and they could have very easily done the minimum needed to keep the CT9A WRC legal and done other versions for consumers that dont care about WRC heritage. Keep the RS (which is Rally Sport lest we forget) a 2.0L and make the GSR or MR a 4G64. Comes back to they arent concerned with the buying public as long as the car goes out the door and off the lot.

4G64 is actually cheaper since there are far more "evo style" 4G64s in the world than Evo 2.0Ls.

Aaron

 

That is a poorly tuned 2.0 run. That torque is VERY low and the power is low as well. My stocker and a BB Red get 400 FP's a 460WHP, the spool is faster than the 2.4 but that is to be expected with a smaller frame turbo with Twin scroll.

2.4 rules no doubt but not everyone has the coin or know how to rip apart their motor, that is whay we have these lovely FP turbos that give us spool and topend.

 

My wrx was more fun to drive than my evo with a 6 speed swap and a td04 boosted up. Mustang Dyno numbers obvious at EFI Logics. td04..2.5.. avcs.. 6mt with dccd no mech center diff = brake stands in a wrx.

I would definitely go for a 2.4+ in my evo. Subaru did use twinscroll btw.. ej207 motors had the vf37 twinscroll

 

Yah I was talking about the USDM version, reading comp>you

I wish you were into subies more Aaron, our stock ecu is rather untouched in comparison to the great community work u boys have done, kudos!

P&L motorsports and jr tune went 8.7@15x iirc. Come to the dark side...I'll even call u John B to keep it mysterious lol.

 

You are very right.

I was once upon a time (owned 3). I had one of the first T4 WRX's in the way back year of 2003. You will be pleased to know that we are going to make a big push in the Subaru market starting this year, we'll see how it all works out. The odds of a really fast subaru coming out of our shop is actually pretty good.

Aaron

 

Agreed that it didnt make the power or torque it should have. Believe it or not that was the 2.0L at max effort with whatever turbo we have exactly (3076 but the housing is kind of an unknown). I think the torque was low because it had S3s in it at the time on a small motor. More boost only incited knock sooner, I ran it out to 28psi and it picked up down low but knocked up top.

On 92 octane I havent ever gotten to 460whp though, Red normally taps out around 435-440whp but of course comes on boatloads faster.

 

I got 460WHP 93 on an average Dyno Jet. This was a 29PSI peak falling to 26PSI I believe.