do you live in LALA land?

 

Yes I live in the LALA land with your mothe*.

Oh, this topic is making some of you very nervous...

My car is 3066lbs not so difficult to reach 3000.
Nissan 350Z has carbon fiber driveshaft, variable valve timming, variable intake manifold, good interior and it is not a lot more expensive than my EVO. A 350Z owner beat an EVO 8 from a roll.
Displacement could increase the final price too much... maybe
New exhaust desing... just get rid of that 90º muffler.
Turbo gauge, why not?
Better clutch Why not?

Today you tell me that I'm in the LALA land tomorrow you will see that I'm in the COMPETITIVE REAL WORLD. Where the comapies fight to get costumers as fast as possible...

I like my EVO and think that today you can't go wrong with 30K, but it can be better.
Tell me that I'm in the LALA land because I will say that with a 22K car you can go under 14 seconds 1/4.... you know this car!
I work in a high technology industry and it is not impossible to improve the product maintaining the same price. All you need is development.

 

not costumers..consumer

 

What do you do in the world of "high technology"....sweep the floor?

 

I've never had a 350z owners beat me from a roll. Thats nuts.

http://www.designnews.com/article/CA336597.html CF shaft could be done, but what's the point having that on evo? what would be the benefit?

You obviously don't understand how much it actually costs to build an engine that could withstand 22psi and last a long time.

350z's engine is very fragile. It's displacement but considering we have a bullet proof engine and a turbo along with 2 more doors and AWD system with LSDs and an intercooler and alumium suspension, you really can't compare 350z or basically any other car than STI with evo on any price range.

Evo is already at a LALA land, far as what its offering for the price.

you could go under 14 sec 1/4 mile with SRT-4 but have you driven that car yet? It's worst than civic inside and it's basically selling you an engine and nothing more.

but keep dreaming, maybe it'll come true.

evo 10's coming out with VVT

 

good one!!!

 

Mitsu should offer a "power kit". It would save time on aftermarket installing

 

yes and with my salary I can have two Evolution per year... good job, don't you think?
You are so funny...


I made a mistake the SRT4 is 19450K, Motor Trend magazine.

 

issues, u need

Mitsu is hiring by the way

 

someone alluded to it previously, but I want to add more info.

thd clutch isn't that bad: there are quite a few threads from people who have serious mileage on their clutches and run (run, not drag race) their cars hard. Complaining that your clucth fails after only a couple of launches is like running your car to redline all the time and then complaining that you're not getting the estimated 26mpg fuel economy...

from my racing background: if you increase the clamping power of the clutch, you will need to keep chasing the new failure point further and further back in the drivetrain (to the really expensive bits). Search for some threads along the lines of "I replaced the crappy stock clutch with a brand XXXX "tranny-breaker" clutch and my transfer case exploded, Mitsu SUX...." The clutch should be the weak link of the system.

The car as it comes from mitsubishi is meant to be a performance car. It is NOT a race car, and definitely not a drag race car. If you want to make it a race car, expect it act like a race car. (requiring constant maintainence, and frequent replacement of wear parts (turbos, clutches, brakes, tires)) and frequent (annual?) engine rebuilds.

I know what I just wrote isn't popular, but that's OK I'm wearing my nomex firesuit.

also as a pre-emptive measure, I am not a mitsubishi employee or a "fanboy". I've been a long time observer of what the evo can do, recent buyer and daily driver of my Evo. I have a lot of experience building and racing "real" race cars. I'm speaking from a technical standpoint and not trying to flame anyone.
YMMV,
Greg

 

Subaru's choice of a 2.5L engine for the USDM STi was a huge disappointment to me. Anyhow, the 4G63 is killer enough, but a flatter torque curve would be awesome. I'd like to see Mitsubishi incorporate their E-Boost system or a supercharger / turbo setup like in the old Lancer Delta S4 rally car. Keeping weight down should be the first priority, though.

 

Don't let most of these fanboys put you down. What they don't understand they try to make up by making fun of you .... now getting on with a more open ended discussion ...
I do agree with you on most points but also don't on others ....
1. I do agree with you, that the EVO would benefit from an increase in displacement but not the way you think. Instead of increasing the bore and stroke and keeping it as a 4 cylinder 2.5L. I think it would be better to make it a 2.5L 5 cylinder closed deck block, kinda like the old RB26DET in the Skyline. That way you get both low end torque, high rpms and the ability to hold high boost.
2. Variable time shaft (like VTEC) is nice but the performance gains seen with these on N/A engines do not equally apply to turbo charged engines. You really don't see as much improvement on turbo charged cars as it currently costs to add to the car. May be in the future it will make sense because it will be cheaper to add this feature, but currently ,cost to benefit wise, I don't think it makes sense. Plus the addition of this feature makes it harder for tuners to work on the car.
3. Again same as above .... may be wrong on this as I am not that familiar with how it helps.
4. Yes I think that would be great with mass production and economies of scale it is possible to make this standard for all EVOs without increasing the price but then again this is not every EVO owners cup of tea, thats why we are all different. Some love stock suspensions some want more and go with coilovers, the way I see it it best to leave things as they are and let only those would are willing to pay get the bilsteins. But it doesn't hurt to offer it standard.
5. Well I wouldn't go for the high tech clutch but definately something like what ACT offers being standard in an EVO would be great. At the same time keeping prices low. Economies of scale ....
6. New exhaust design .... hrm, well here is how I see it. If we do #1 then all the new exhaust design does is add to it by making more HP. So by doing #1 we already get more power than standard, I mean it doesn't hurt to do 6 but is it really necessary. Yes, they could replace all cats with high flow cats that can pass emissions, slightly increase the piping diameter while reducing the weight. GAWD! the stock catback is a heavy ****, replacing that itself with something lighter would hopefully both save on cost (due to less materials) and weight itself. I like more power
7. I do agree that the weight of the EVO needs to come down. 3000lbs is a great limit but we also live within the law of physics. Ideally I would love to see an EVO that weighs a max of 2800lbs. That way it is heavy enough not to get bullied on the highway due to semis passing While it is practical on the track to have a car as light as possible, its not practical in the real world where you can be blown off the road. I think 2800lbs is the perfect balance. But we also have an issue with parts, if you want stronger parts (without going with something expensive as titanium) you usually have to make them bigger and beefier, thus heavier. I think the engineers at Mitsu are already struggling with the weight of the car and keeping the cost affordable. Thus in their attempt to reduce the weight we have aluminium hood, front fenders and roof and 10% thinner glass. I think it would be great to see aluminium rear fenders and trunk. Also make the car slightly smaller to save on weight. On the verge of offending some on evom, I say make it a 2 door coupe.
8. Well kits don't hurt but remember manufactures always play it safe when it comes to power levels and warranty. They usually follow the lowest common denominator, so they know with a 95% probability that the car will last the term they have offered. I always believe that, if you play you pay, asking to pay for warranty after you modded the car to whazoo isn't fair. But here is what they could implement, manufacturers released staged kits that don't void your warranty but get this, reduce the term of your warranty. So, say you get a stage 1, it take a certain period off your warranty, so instead of 10/100 powertrains and 5/60 bumper to bumper, your warranty is reduced to 8/80 and 4/45. Likewise the higher your stages go the lower your warranty is ..... I think its fair.
9. I have to agree on this, it is my belief that every turbo car should at least come with a turbo boost guage.
10. Who knows what standard power will be after all I have suggested is implemented but I think 300+BHP, would be great.

Remember there are several ways to make your car faster. One way is to reduce weight, the other is to make more power. I like reducing weight more because it makes for a more nimble car, improves fuel economy, power increase has a more profound impact. If they reduce the weight of the EVO they may not need to increase the power as much ..... but that is why people mod their cars.

To those of you preaching WRC 2L in the US, stop being ignorant fanboys, please it doesn't mean squat here in the US, WRC rules DO NOT apply. SCCA rules DO and that is why you have cars like 2.4L SRT4s competing amongst many others (that are not 2L) in rally cross events. Mitsu themselves have said that the EVO will evolve differently for the US market as compared to the rest of the world. That is because the geography of the US makes it a unique market. I know most of what I have said is wishful thinking ..... but we can all dream

I also wish they would improve the EVO's curb to cub turning radius from say 37ft to 32ft. As of right now I think it a little to broad and kinda turns like a boat. I like it when a car can take a tighter turn, practical application is when you are trying to turn tightly into a limited space in a parking lot .....

(Quietly puts flame suit on)

 

road and track? and automobile magazine have the concept model for evo 10 with what's to come.

 

www.google.com and at your local media stand.

or here
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...hi+evolution+x
http://motoring.iafrica.com/exclusives/335077.htm
http://motortrend.com/future/spied/1...vf/index9.html
http://www.rsportscars.com/eng/cars/lancer_fq330.asp

 

I would have to respectfully diagree. Where the cam 'switchover' (with specific reference to MIVEC and VTEC) could be 'low' enough to 'be' on the turbo cam profile before the turbo gets into full song.

From my understanding 'low-end' power/torque motors like to have a lot of overlap and low valve lift to attempt to continue to 'fill' the cylinder even when the piston starts travelling up the bore. Whereas a high-rpm power/torque motor likes to have a short duration and a high-lift. The turbo cars like the latter also. Since the intake is pressurized the larger the valve opening, the more air the turbo can ultimately put into the motor.

When a turbo 'spools' and starts producing boost ... you want at least the exhaust cam to close 'sooner' so you don't have that overlap forcing fuel and air out the exhaust under boost.

On the MIVEC type system again, by having a 'larger' charge of 'low-rpm' fuel and air being burnt, when you stomp on the gas at say 2k ... you'll have a larger amount (mass) of exhaust trying to spool the turbo. I suspect this type of system to spool the turbo a bit quicker.

As far as 'tunerz' wanting or not wanting to tune such a system, I'd expect them to ultimately 'enjoying' the challenge, and 'extra' performance. Its really not that hard. A MIVEC system just produces a 'different' VE charastic of the motor when the cams switch, which is something that happens when you change out the cams anyways. They have 'all' the tools to be able to cope with such a tune. Supporting an idea that complexity automatically equals 'non-performance' is not a true statement in this case. Imagine having a set of nice 254 type cams (EVO stock) at low-rpm, and a set of 272s at 3 to 4k rpm. That would be wicked!

On a personal note, I love to look at the dyno chart for the AMOUNT of area under the torque curve to determine the power output of the motor, rather than the peak horsepower a 'dyno-queen' can produce. Any type of variable valve timing system 'should' help a turboed motor. If Mitsu. were to do it all over again, I'd hope they would do something like Suby's AVCS, Nissan, or an old Toyota Continous Valve timing system.

0.02

Cheers,

jcnel.