Shiv,

Does the octane difference of 91 versus 93 make that much of a difference to account for 30 wheel hp?

Also, do other all-wheel drive cars have this much of a drivetrain loss?

I am used to manual tranny rear wheel drive cars that only have approx. 15% drivetrain loss. It seems to me that this car will be great off the line (i.e. all-wheel drive) but not so good from a rolling start. Am I correct?

Thanks

 

If you lose upto 30% through the drivetrain in an awd car then you'll see in the 180's for hp@the 4 tires. Which kinda makes sense, because if it's 15% for two tires turning then the 230 to 250hp that was posted on here would be right.

For those interested the Co. that I work for is starting the book on the EVO. It will be interesting to see where things are in it.

Anyone with ?'s feel free to ask.

 

Umm, How did you come to that?
He said 91 came to 180 and 93 came to 190
Differance of 10 whp

 

Hurry up Mark!

 

Ok, I uploaded the files to the server for Shiv to display where he likes. They gave a ton of graphs of the Evo 8, JDM Evo 7, stock GSX, etc so I'm not sure which ones they'd like to post where or how, but they should be up and showing pretty soon

Mark

 

Thought he wanted you to post it Mark?

 

**stands up and claps**

 

<----- Wait's patiently. LoL

 

Ok, I posted the dyno charts in the first post:

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...700#post203700

Mark

 

Shiv, what would you think a proper A/F ratio for an Evolution would be? I know that most people tune WRX's to around 10.5:1, does the EVO need to run that rich?

 

I'm wondering the same thing...

They all seem to be running VERY rich... 10:1??? What was thinking??? It appears as if the Evos are running rich practically from idle to redline! I know the factory has to worry about proper fueling, but that seems excessive. It must be quite irritating to see A/F data like that. Nothing that can't be fixed eventually with some adept chip tuning.

This is probably a dumb question, but answer this:

Woud running that rich all the time reduce the life span of the catalytic converter? I would think it's not all that great for emissions, either.

 

They don't want you to melt their hard work to the ground that's what they were thinking.

Think about it for awhile.

 

So an A/F ratio of 10:1 is acceptable? I really don't know either way, but I always assume you wanted to shoot for the stoichiometric 14:1, or whatever it is... Is that correct, or is there more to it?

I realize you need proper fueling to prevent detonation, etc... maybe I'm missing something here?

 

No, not if you want your engine to run..


Although 10:1 is a bit rich.. most people go for ~11:1.. Alot of DSM people do 12:1..

I would say 11:1 is pretty safe on the street.


-Zach

 

one thing you have to remember is this is at WOT, they want it to run rich for safety reasons.

I'm just not sure what is too rich or a proper A/F ratio for this engine.

another question. these are the 91 octane pulls correct? could you maybe take a good base dyno and add a good base 93 octane dyno to compare the 2? pretty please......