gtr

iTrader: (6)

But the question is could our 5-speed be stronger than the subaru 6? How could you say we have the best AWD system? First of all the subaru's DCCD might be pretty good but they also have a front LSD which we do not. Do you mean in terms of durability and strength or rotating mass?

Off topic but how much boost is safe with stock internals? I see your car has 2.2L? Most subaru enthusist are happy to see it already stroked to 2.5L to save them the trouble.

sblvro

iTrader: (2)

i am not saying i like the 2.4l, the 2.0l is good enough and with a few tweaks get a 300hp too but i do not like to hear people saying that subie trumped the evo when it did not, they basically cannot go toe to toe with the evo, because each time the evo crushes the blue sti silly.

gtr

iTrader: (6)

Yes I did

Thanks for your info and input. With the stock boost at 19psi it is close to your 1.5bars. I wonder if I uncork the exhaust it would provide me with the same power at hopfully a much lower boost.

evo_dan

Turboniam, why do you think a 2.4L 4G64 would be a good idea?

Supah Fly

He must be assuming that extra 400ccs will make up for 30 years of fine tuning...

Ben

Eh, the STI's AWD system is far more advanced than the US EVO's. It will take time to see Subaru's system holds up to power as well, but so far things look good.

Yes, Subaru upped the displacement because they couldn't beat the EVO's power. HOWEVER, they easily could have TIED the EVO's power. Don't kid yourselves, Subaru easily could have gotten 271hp out of the 2.0. Tuners have 370hp packages that run of pump gas and don't do internal mods for the EJ20(vishnu's stage 3 when it comes out should be even higher). So what's the big deal, emissions. Subaru probably would have been limited to about what the EVO's at if they wanted to remain an LEV with the EJ20. So yes they wanted to beat the EVO, but to do so and meet emissions they had to up the displacement. Besides, Americans like their torque. Because of emissions I think Mitsubishi will be forced to up their displacement as well if they want to compete. Understand I'm talking as stock here, we all know the 4G63 can make big power modified, but it can't and remain emissions legal.

As for the STI's crankshaft, I am willing to bet it will take quite a bit more power than the 4g63's crankshaft. The crank is not the weak link in any Subaru engine. Why is that? Simple, it's only about a foot long. Being an H4, the crank is considerably shorter than an I4's. Also the firing pattern of an H engine going back and forth between the cylinder banks puts less stress on the crank area.

Ben

but apply those thirty years of tuning to a 2.4 and see what happens.

Ben

Strong yes, but not even close to being the strongest production tranny in the world. Shoot, almost any truck or SUV on the road will have a stronger tranny than an EVO.

Turboniam

Well, for one, I'll take any extra advantage I can get with making hp. Ceterus Perabus, the 2.4 will make more hp with the same investment that a 2.0 makes (BPU + etc).

Maybe I am wrong, but from the information I read, it seemed that one of the biggest reasons for having the 2.5 liter motor was to pass emissions while making the hp Subaru wanted out of the STi. If I am not mistaken, Mitsu had a hard enough time passing the EVO through the emissions crap.

The part that still baffles me is why anyone would be against more displacement?? It is a no brainer. In reference to the hollow cams and or any other "advancements" ... what would make anyone think those things would be taken away if the short block was a 2.4 instead of a 2.0??? The head could be kept the same, the turbo could be kept the same, pretty much everything would remain except the motor would have more displacement.

As far as the drivetrain stuff, no one has to worry about it coming, Subaru has forced Mitsu to get it on the US EVO asap. So the only real debate/intetest here is how can we get the 2.4 4g64 block in the EVO?

With that said, is there no one on here that knows who would be the person to "bug" about getting Mitsu to put the 2.4 block in a future EVO?

theaphextwin84

iTrader: (1)

My question goes out to ben, I know you are saying all this stuff pretty much contradicting what Claudius says. But have you driven an Evo before? I'm not trying to be an *** I'm really just wondering, since Cladius actually owns an Evo and it doesn't say what you own. Oh and another thing, the whole "There's no replacement for displacement" quote people are spewing in all these boards ... that was somewhat clever .. when it was in gran turismo 2, now it's just a hack phrase. Yeah I say stick with the 2.0l personally since it's proven, but then again I've never driven an evo and don't really know all that much about the internals

Mark F

Sorry folks but it ain't gonna happen. The 2.4 is at the end of its run. It won't be available on any U.S. product within 2 years.

Turboniam

Where did you get this information?

As for there is no replacement for discplacement... Ceterus Perabus, it is true. It is not a "hack" phrase and the saying has been around probably longer than you've been alive... Gran Turismo??? LOL

I have several friends with turbo charged vehicles... the ones with the larger motors are the quickest/fastest. (They also are able to run larger turbos because of their larger motors.)