yes and as they do their TQ vs. HP numbers begin to look like that of a honda...this is because hp is a function of tq and RPM, and the acceleration of the car is dependant on this, gearing and weight.

 

Right. This is allready known, you keep repeating yourself.

 

then what point are you trying to make? All I'm saying is you don't need huge gobs of tq. and that if you have the gearing & r/s IMO it's better to get there with revs than raw tq.

 

The point that was first being dicussed about the 4g63 and it's under-development. Which is rediculous.

 

Please tell me what other 4cyl motor out right now produces 289 lb-ft at 3,500, and 286 horsepower at 6,500prm from the factory. And is as reliable every single day without problems.

 

if we're talking about race cars maybe, if we're talking about a car to drive every day you want some usable power before 6k. that is the whole point of variable valve timing and different cam profiles, so you can have both low end power and still make the peak power numbers in a daily driven car and get decent gas mileage still. the mivec on the evo will allow a more aggressive top end because it will have a separate low end instead of having to compromise at both ends to make the car able to be driven daily

and what's wrong with an iron block for a turbo car? i don't understand the problem

 

I agree that there seems to be a high turnover among Evo owners (especially those who jumped on the '03's). However, I totally disagree with your assessment of why.

Many Evo buyers thought they were getting a great deal on an affordable performance car. They came from owning Hondas and Toyotas and the like. They were totally unprepared (mentally and financially) to deal with this VERY high maintenance car. Let's face it, an Evo is an expensive car to run.

A lot of early buyers really stretched themselves financially and later found they couldn't afford to keep the car running. Plus, many (most?) dealers were putting generic Mitsu GL-4 gear lube in the transfer cases and killed a lot of cars. It took a while before people caught on that they needed to use GL-5 DiaQueen LSD Gear Lube.

And it also takes some skill to drive an Evo properly. How come so many '03 owners were complaining of clutch, tranny, and t-case failures? It turns out that most of that was due to improper use or improper service. Those of us who have experience with high performance cars have not had any of these issues.

In the end, many '03 buyers couldn't afford to keep their cars running and had to unload them fast. Current buyers seem to have a better idea of what a high maintenance, fussy machine the Evo is. So, they go into the dealership prepared for that. Since they know what they're getting into, they're less likely to be forced to sell.

Emre

 

Well at least I see one mention of Best Motoring's latest volume (Vol. 16). Now that this is out, I think most of this debate is resolved. The 4G63 with MIVEC seems to be great. The new Magnesium turbine and variable timing seem to make a big difference (within the context of an already fast car and the test car being a 5-speed). Things are clearly a little more complicated, as "our" version of the Evo (8) is more like the NEW Evo 9 GT (sans AYC). Setting the AYC aside for the moment, I'm a little confused at Blue Evo 8's comment about the "bigger" turbo. I think it's pretty obvious from the video, the new eVo9's turbo is definitely bigger (and more advanced). As the video indicates, it's awfully nice to have a racing series (Super Taikyu) that regularly puts new developments to the test and feeds the info directly back to Mitsubishi. As for the suspension set up, this seems to be a different matter. In this regard, I'm happy to have an 05 MR. The testing clearly shows the 8 MR has less over steer than the 9, with the same suspension (rear lowered by 5mm, not exactly the same I guess). The claim is that lowering the rear by 5mm avoids unnecessary use of the AYC and gives the car a more natural feeling. Don't get me wrong, I don't have anything against a more natural feel. In fact, dialing in a little more over steer sounds fun from time to time. Since my vehicle also sees daily street use (and an occasional guest driver), I think I prefer the set up on the 8 MR. Having a set up with a slight under steer feeling is certainly safer most of the time. As for the 9’s new look, in this department I’m also happy to have an 8 MR. I’m not a big fan of the new 9’s front end.
As a previous Civic owner, I guess I feel compelled to comment on Blue Evo 8’s B18 vs. K20 comment as well (don’t we all as big time gear heads). The K20 is very nice and a clear step in the right direction over the B16/B18. I think maybe Blue Evo 8’s confusing the suspension tuning with the engine tuning. When a company like Spoon gives up on developing a suspension kit for the new DC5 (Civic, Integra/RSX), it’s a tough day. I think it’s been pretty well proven that lowering the DC5 is a bad idea (unless it’s a track car only). My (Stolen) 99-00 Civic (EM115 chassis, B16A2 converted to B18C with the Spoon kit) was a better chassis for tuning, as was the DC2 (Int. R) & EG chassis cars). That’s OK, I (we) have Evo’s now, so forget about the toys, we’ve got the real deal.
On a quick side note, I think any kind of variable timing rocks. I don’t care if we’re talking I-VTEC, VTEC, MIVEC, Vario-Cam, VVT-i or whatever, it’s a damn bright idea. If you haven’t already seen it, check out the HKS tuned RB26 (Skyline GT-R/R34 chassis, I think) in Hot Version vol. 4. It’s the first I’ve seen of computer tuning (at this level) the variable timing system. Very cool.

 

Only time will tell about the Evo8s being held up there with the supras. I bought my bone stock 94 supra 7 years ago with 50,000 miles on it for 17,000. Today if i were to put it back to stock it would sell for somewhere in the 25,000 range. Most of this is due to the movie FF. Yes us supra owners have Craig Leiberman to thank for our car values. But most people in the know know that these cars were way underated from the factory and have tremendous mod ability. Slap a turbo kit/fuel kit on a stock block/head car and you have 700rwhp easy. The demand for the 93-98 supra here in states is still very high which makes the value high and i dont see it falling until the intro of the new supra.

If in 10years you can sell your evo for more than you paid for it stock then that would be great. The new movie FF3 will have alot of evos in it. So maybe it will hype the car up even more. I think the evo is a great platform and hope to own 1 some day. But its hard to compare the two cars. Most people talk about the Evo8-STI being econo boxes and pocket rockets(makes the brand cheap) where the supra was a GT sports car. And yes you could get a 93-95RX7 or 90-95300ZXtt way cheaper. But none of these cars were as mod friendly as the supra. Just like the Evo is more mod friendly than the STI. Only time will tell!!!

 

I have 4 buddies that have supra's and I love the cars, they def. can deliver some power...

 

I traded in my rsx-s for my evo. I bought my evo for the handling, not the engine. The K20 is a much smoother and refined motor; the k20 sounds awesome. The evo's engine sounds like ****, has an uneven powerband, but the car handles like a dream.

 

Yeah it doesnt have that VTEC sound. Too bad that "uneven" powerband would destroy the K20. VTEC sounds nice (N/A) its too bad Honda forgot to give it any torque.

Oh yeah, and when you start modding, get a flash, there is no uneven powerband anymore. Its smooth and powerful.