600+ WHP Still going strong

 

So if these cases were in fact caused by insufficient ring end gaps then I take it that an engine that has worn piston rings would have a smaller chance of this happening. So a 4B11 with 50k miles on it would have a lesser chance of this happening than a 4B11 with only 1k on it.

 

Its an interesting thought, however I don't really see the ring gap opening much with wear.

 

As piston rings wear (cylinder wall contact area), the gap will increase.

 

As stated, I don't see them increasing much, but it would be an interesting test to measure at various stages. There are 150,000-200,000 mile 4g63 DSMs with visible crosshatching in the bores and perfectly good piston rings without excessive ring gaps due to wear.

 

True it would be really minimal, but the engines with high mileage that still has visible crosshatching & perfect rings were probably engines that were pampered.

 

This is starting to turn into a thread like the z-chip thread; valid questions are being skipped over and over again.

 

TTP, please start answering the questions that are being asked by the members of this forum.

 

You're not the only one. There are thousands of modified Evo Xs that have not had this type of failure.

We need answers to the questions regarding the cars that have failed. Without information we cant work together to find a pattern as to why the 3 cars noted in this thread have failed in this manner. Maybe there is a pattern and maybe there isn't. But, without information we'll never know.

 

What my 1990 talon's timing belt broke the motor was pulled with 229k on the original motor. Cross hatching was still great and the car was taken care of but it was also ran hard from time to time.


Question for TTP. Of the cars that are experiencing this "Engine Flaw" that you speak of, Do you care to let us know who tuned these cars and are the failures you are posting localized to Florida?

 

From the case studies we have done we have seen the same results from at least 6 different facilities around the country, including AMS in Chicago.

We have multiple 500-600whp Evo X's tuned on stock engines without issues on 93 octane to ethanol here at our facility.

We are still collecting more accounts from other members globally so we can merge them here and further document this commonality.

 

I am just stating that jestr did a great job on the tune can not disclose any of his secrets but you have to run the cars very ritch on afs you can not run the same afrs that you are us to in the older evos they like it on the ritch side its all in the tune. This is just my opinion.

 

These failures have nothing to do with tuning, nor the single Evo X your company built and had another company tune for you.

We have built and tuned over 250, 2008+ Lancer Evo X, 4b11 Ralliart and MR's and have the experience to isolate deficiencies in the engine with the volume of work we do in house with these 4b11 cars everyday since 2007 when they were released.

To add to our experience with the Evo X. Our company actually owns our Evo X and has spent many thousands of miles driving and testing ours on our in house Mustang Dynamometer.

 

Then why have you still not answered most of the questions regarding the cars you have seen this happen in? How many? Stock or modded? Daily drivers or track cars?

 

How many performance shops do you see stock cars being dynoed at? The reality is that I am not sure we have ever had a stock Evo 8 or 9 on our dyno. If we worked at a dealership, then I think we would have more information available for bone stock cars. There is little reason for a stock Evo X with no intention of upgrading to visit a high performance facility.

The best resource we could probably ask for on bone stock failures is from high volume dealer service techs that see a lot of X's come in.