Ford didn't laugh when results from dynos showed the 99 Cobra to be underpowered. They listened and fixed it. It included extrude honing the intake runners, better exhaust, and reflashing computer. I really don't think the Evo is putting out less hp than Mitsu claims though. BUT if it did they would be smart to remedy it on such a limited run car like the Evo. Production #'s for the Evo are similar to the Cobras.

 

I did ask you what you are working on in this thread, but got no reply. I'll ask you again, then. What are you working on? You talk of adding timing to the stock ECU's timing maps. That can be done with either a chip, or a piggyback, or perhaps even an in circuit emulator (which is what has been used in the past, but they can be hard to get).

And DSMLink works perfectly. What you see in the slider window for fuel is an adjustment to the enrichment table in the stock ECU. So long as you exceed a certain level of airflow in the ECU, you end up on a single fuel map. The enrichment table is only used once the ECU has entered open loop. Otherwise the global fuel setting is used (great way to dial in larger injectors). It gives you very repeatable fuel settings. And since it builds on the factory ECU, the factory drivability is never impaired.

Same goes for the timing map. Once you exceed a certain airflow, you are guaranteed to only be on the top map inside the ECU. Adjusting the timing values in DSMLink which are added on top of that timing map gives you very repeatable results, and fantastic drivability.

 

Eh.. no. All OEMs listen carefully to the results of properly conducted test. Mazda did when they were shown the dyno results of their new-and-improved '02 Miata to my stock '99 Miata. And Mitsubishi has already gotten wind of these dyno results. But again:

No testing so far has indicated that Mitsubishi over-rated the EVO. So there is no reason to throw a fit.

There are only two arguments that can be made given the data:

1) The EVO makes substantially more power on 93 octane than it does on 91 octane. Not surprising for a car that runs nearly 20psi of boost stock.

2) Two press cars made substantially more power on 91 octane than several production cars, also tested on 91 octane. It's been done before by other manufacturers so it's nothing new.

'nuff said,

shiv

 

Ford isn't Mitsu. It took an enormous campaign by DSM owners to get Mitsubishi to recall a life-threatening part of the DSM's drivetrain. It was the transfer case yoke, which would slowly leak all the fluid out of the transfer case. Once all the fluid was gone, the case could lock up and lock all 4 wheels stationary. Imagine this happening at 65mph. People died because of this. It took YEARS to get Mitsubishi to fold under government pressure, which was brought on by Club DSM complaints.

The difference between a press Evo and an Evo that you can buy isn't going to get Mitsubishi to change anything.

 

Yes, it's still crude. Can you place RPM and load breakpoints anywhere you want (i.e. where they are needed). Can you add 1 degree of timing at 150kpa/3200rpm and -3 degrees at 200kpa/3200rpm. Does it automatically adjust timing offset to account for the changes that MAF attentuation induces? Does it allow you to determine what load reference (external MAP, stock MAF, TPS) you want to use for your igntion, fuel and boost maps? Does it allow internal storing of 10 different calibration files. Does it have a fully mappable built-in water spray control system? If it does, I apologize for ever thinking that something a lot better is just beyond the horizon.

Regards,
shiv

 

Unfortunately you're right. Mitsu doesn't seem to care like some companies. If I didn't like the Evo so much I would never consider buying a Mitsubishi.

 

I find it funny that a supposedly respected "tuner" would bash a product that has worked perfectly as the fuel, timing, and datalogging device on several mid 10 second DSMs while retaining total stock driveability.

Try talking big when your product breaks out of the 12s.

 

It cannot, does not and has not worked perfectly in ANY application. If you cannot see why that is the case, then there is nothing I or anyone can do to help you. You are set in your ways.

BTW, "Perfect" implies that it cannot be improved upon. And furthermore, I don't see how my lack of desire to build a 1/4 mile at a time "race" car has anything to do with my ability to speak my mind about currently available engine control options. If you want to talk about engine management, let's do it. But if you slam me for not being "in the 11s" everytime you start to lose the agrument, I'd rather not be involved. You can play with Hor and Claude.

Shiv

 

That's the equivalent of saying that if tuning shop A gets 240 whp on a DynoJet, then tuning shop B should also get 240 whp. There's way too many variables at play on the strip and because of that you shouldn't really assume so much from it, especially if comparing times to another person's/magazine's.

I'd rather not assume that another car will dyno as high as the press car did, I would rather find out why the press car is faster. If the press car has different cams, or internal work done, I think we should find out so that we learn a little more about our own car. It's not about *****ing, but it's a matter of knowledge on our part.

Mark

 

There's too many variables in a dyno which was my point. There's less variables and easier correction from a 1/4mi result than said dyno. But it's like I said already. I know Shiv isn't trying to get these results I am speaking of. He's looking for an answer for the difference. Reread my post and you will see that what I'm getting at is to shut the people up that are whining about the possibility of the car being under powered. Frankly I'm surprised so many people take the dyno #'s to heart. I personally dynoed 20 rwhp less than a friend in the same car. Yet at the track I put down 4mph more through the traps with no let off on either side. Different dynos and methods were the obvious. But in short it proved the dyno didn't mean **** for end results. That's fine if everyone wants to find out about the SCC ringer. Keep the posts strictly to that is what I am saying. Just quit *****in about the car being underpowered and now you're going to buy an STi or SRT-4. That's my point.

Shiv knows his **** and I'm sure he'll get to the bottom of it. In either case I don't think anyone will have a lawsuit or recall on their hands. The car is quick and it just aint gonna happen.

 

You're right, "perfect" was the wrong choice of words. "Very damn well" is more like it. How many cars are in the 10s using your "ECU tuning?"

 

I understand what your saying about complaining about the low numbers, but, I think for the most part, we know those are valid numbers... lower than expected for those on 91 octane, but that's about it.

I just don't agree that 1/4 times have less variables. I agree that real world testing is important, but when it comes to testing conditions and being able to control your environment, the dyno will prove to be a superior tool. I can't think of a single manufacturer that doesn't use an engine dyno to control all their variables. Although a chassis dyno is different in how it measures, the concept of controlling variables is still present.

It seems like you and your friend dynoed on different dynos in different places, so that's not a great example of a dyno not proving anything. I'm sure that results would be far different on the same dyno... that's what I was trying to get at.

Mark

 

Hmm.. So if I turn up the bass will that get me in the 12's, or do I also need to adjust the treble?

 

Will this get me in the 9's??