Evolution fuel rail for 4G94?
The lines being reversed on a honda doesnt change anything(its just -AN fitting on the inlet and return), u would have to switch to an -AN style line anyways, doesnt matter which way the fuel feeds.. and its a small 2 foot -8 -10 or -12 line u would need, and then a -AN to barb fitting for the return..
ANYONE wanting to go with e85 or Q16 will NEED a MUCH larger fuel rail/lines if u want to push more then 18psi! (garenteed) our fuel setup isnt efficent enough, and a bore'd out or magnum rail might not cut it either.. but not many people are pushing there setups beyond the factory fueling capabilities
CUSTOM MADE -12an big bore Rails can be made fairly cheap, 150-200$, but thats including ALL the TOOLS you need to make it. and you can even purchase the hardware for mounting it properly. just get to lookin for the parts to do it yourself
CUSTOM MADE -12an big bore Rails can be made fairly cheap, 150-200$, but thats including ALL the TOOLS you need to make it. and you can even purchase the hardware for mounting it properly. just get to lookin for the parts to do it yourself
this is a pic of a stock evo 8 fuel rail on the top right,left is a perrin. Now given the output of that car compared to even a turbo'd lancer why would a bored fuel rail on a 4g94 even be worth it? our rail already has a larger diameter then the evo 8 rail as proven by the pic on the bottom which is a bored lancer rail vs. stocker ...
I just honestly think its a waste of money, but if you guys feel the need, to each is own
I just honestly think its a waste of money, but if you guys feel the need, to each is own
Last edited by turbolancer02; May 12, 2010 at 04:42 PM.
well i can speak from the design side. there must have been a reason they designed our 9x series rails and the 6x series rails that way for a reason. reason being... i have not a clue, as for im not mitsu, but there must be a reason.
if you line up the 2 and 3 injectors which are the closest you can see the difference.
if you line up the 2 and 3 injectors which are the closest you can see the difference.
the only thing I can come up with is the 4g94 has higher compression therefore the supply of fuel has to be there , with production costs and smaller maps in the lancer ecu along with a smaller pump this was probably the easiest way to cope with higher compression in the 4g94 engines,yet keep up with the market at that time where almost everyone had a 2.0 liter in there line up instead of reusing the 4g93 again.
the evo has a better mass air meter with higher resolution , bigger pump ,and a broader/ more complex set of fuel/spark maps , they had alot of stuff they wanted to do with it and alot of experience from the dsm cars ,
more thought went into the tuning of the evo apparently and mitsu saved the cash on the lancer with an already proven engine design and basic ecu functions....
Nonetheless the fact still remains that unless you have a completely built 4g94 with a turbo and are looking to push the limits on the engine the stock rail is plenty big enough and while more fuel at the rail is on the right path a car that couldnt never fully use it is a waste since fuel gets hot being recirculated over and over passing the hot engine bay etc. instead of used when it hits the rail,
essentially given a basic idea you are pumping more fuel with a bored rail back to the tank, more hot fuel in the tank to send back to the rail over and over cooler fuel is better for obvious reasons
, to top it off I also measured the rail that came stock on my 5.0 mustang and the lancer rail is also the same size....
hope that gives you guys some things to ponder
the evo has a better mass air meter with higher resolution , bigger pump ,and a broader/ more complex set of fuel/spark maps , they had alot of stuff they wanted to do with it and alot of experience from the dsm cars ,
more thought went into the tuning of the evo apparently and mitsu saved the cash on the lancer with an already proven engine design and basic ecu functions....
Nonetheless the fact still remains that unless you have a completely built 4g94 with a turbo and are looking to push the limits on the engine the stock rail is plenty big enough and while more fuel at the rail is on the right path a car that couldnt never fully use it is a waste since fuel gets hot being recirculated over and over passing the hot engine bay etc. instead of used when it hits the rail,
essentially given a basic idea you are pumping more fuel with a bored rail back to the tank, more hot fuel in the tank to send back to the rail over and over cooler fuel is better for obvious reasons
, to top it off I also measured the rail that came stock on my 5.0 mustang and the lancer rail is also the same size....
hope that gives you guys some things to ponder
well i can speak from the design side. there must have been a reason they designed our 9x series rails and the 6x series rails that way for a reason. reason being... i have not a clue, as for im not mitsu, but there must be a reason.
if you line up the 2 and 3 injectors which are the closest you can see the difference.
if you line up the 2 and 3 injectors which are the closest you can see the difference.
if you read my last post I took my best guess at why It makes sense its bigger internally
jrr that design where there spaced different is more onto the cylinder head design and has nothing to do with the performance of the rail as long as the pressure at the rail is what its supposed to be it'll function in the same manner as the evo rail...primarily this is about bore size inside the rail and why its bigger then the evo...
if you read my last post I took my best guess at why It makes sense its bigger internally
if you read my last post I took my best guess at why It makes sense its bigger internally
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
FL_SilverEvo8
Evo Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain
31
Feb 11, 2016 03:45 PM
Migsubishi
For Sale/WTB - Engine / Drivetrain / Power
5
Aug 23, 2015 04:29 PM
