Right, which is why it would be good to compare.

True, but the VIIIs/IXs ran rich as well (at least in the low 10 range). How much richer do you think the X is? 1 pt? 1.5pts?

 

Updated with more comparisons

 

One other interesting observation was that the owner told me the car dynoed better with the hood closed due to the location of the intake.

We tried it with the hood open and the hood closed, and to my surprise it was true!

The car picked up a few ponies and had better top end, hood closed.

 

9.5 AFR almost across the board on our mustang

Stock 9's usually don't go rich until way up in the RPM, mid to high 11's in the mid range. The 10 is pig rich the whole way through.

 

I want to lean my car out post haste. I have no idea why they are so rich.

 

thats kinda good numbers i guess?

 

Personally, I'm withholding judgement until I see a car tuned or otherwise modified locally.

But I think after seeing the boost and afr plots, that it shows alot of potential.

I mean if the car had good boost, and a solid 11.0 AFR the entire way through, and only made 21X whp, then I would be worried.

Sure, the EVO9 is making more power now, but how well would the EVO9 run if it had an AFR chart off the scale rich from full boost on?

 

Probably would be a little lower in power, but then again, if you RAISE the boost up in the IX to 23psi peak and richened it out, I bet it would still make more power. We all know that the turbo on the X isn't going to hold up against the IX turbo so the only thing that will make the X gain more power than the IX would be if the engine itself is designed better than the 4G63.. which has yet to be proven.

 

I don't understand how the argument is made that the new engine (all 27 pounds lighter) is also cleaner - when you are dumping all of those hydrocarbons into the air. Something seems amiss with this strategy. Sure, NOx is reduced, but other pollutants are increased and fuel economy suffers. It seems rather odd to me that Mitsubishi will offer a 330 or 350 package that INCREASES FUEL ECONOMY AND POWER and then leaves both the performance minded and the *ahem* new fan base (read more environmentally active) behind the curve.

I don't profess to be any type of tuning expert, but it would seem to me that reducing peak engine RPM from the factory, as well as changing the timing would be the best ways to "limit" a motor's HP output.

IF MITSU BRINGS A DIESEL OUT AND PUTS IT IN ONE OF THEIR CARS and espouses the benefits if its design even though it weights 500 pounds, and then one breath later espouses the 27 pounds they saved and preprogrammed inefficient combustion with the 4B11, someone needs to hit them over the head with a mallet.

 

From what we have seen so far with the addition of a TBE and intake leaning out the car quite a bit, I wonder if this was intentional. Most NA cars you can add intakes / exhausts without any issues, but I remember I installed an intake and TBE on my VIII and the AFR's got into the low 12's at redline. This is obviously very bad. I had to go back to a stock intake to alleviate this issue. I would say the most popular upgrades for the previous Evo's have been exhausts and intakes. However, we still have the unknown ECU element involved right now. I am still waiting to see what the learning process on this ECU is like, and how it makes its adjustments.

Thanks for sharing the dyno runs guys. Looks like we are seeing some very consistent runs across the board now.

 

We all know?

When did this happen?

Have facts to back this up?

 

It seems that there is still a lot of time and things that need to be explored before claims about the X's turbo being insufficient are made. Timing and fueling have alot to do with boost, and the current inability to modify either of those doesnt point one way or another. Having a bunch of pre-release info that I was not allowed to divulge (apparently rightly so) till the car came out was that the turbo was supposed to be nearly a 20G. It doesnt seem that way, but I dont see why Mitsu would take a step backwards rather than at least maintaining or advancing (as evolution is defined).

I am with Bryan. Not enough data at this point to calculate the downside of the X turbo.

 

Edited- Not needed question

 

Well at least you are actually stating facts now. We all figured that out 13 years ago.

Right now, with the 10, nobody has those facts yet. Time will tell.

Please try and be scientific about it.