track times
0-60 time
remember there's about a 1 second difference (compared to sea level) at my altitude here in denver. these are average scores.
10/9/03, before any engine mods
0-60 in 11.85
quarter mile in 18.45@72.3mph
1/1/04, currently after turbo (6psi) and intercooler
0-60 in 7.88
quarter mile in 15.83@89.5mph
10/9/03, before any engine mods
0-60 in 11.85
quarter mile in 18.45@72.3mph
1/1/04, currently after turbo (6psi) and intercooler
0-60 in 7.88
quarter mile in 15.83@89.5mph
Originally posted by bahamut
Are you cheating by subtracting RT (most people do that to save face of reality)? If not, tell me your 60' times . . . those can't lie.
You're in the same range being stock againt a stock 2g and 3g eclipse. Otherwise, you have to crank somehwere in the 140-150 flywheel, manual, even w/ some elevation adjustment.
Are you cheating by subtracting RT (most people do that to save face of reality)? If not, tell me your 60' times . . . those can't lie.
You're in the same range being stock againt a stock 2g and 3g eclipse. Otherwise, you have to crank somehwere in the 140-150 flywheel, manual, even w/ some elevation adjustment.
RPW doesn't make the pistons though, they get them from JE, Wiseco, or whoever.
I wouldn't say I had problems with VI per se. Matt and Shaun are both awesomely nice guys, but they kept me hanging a while before getting back to me stating they could not complete my order. So be it. I had to spent a couple hundred more, but I'll live. If you're going to get both and don't have the money for both...order rods first. Long wait from what the import tech said. In fact I have to call them up and see what's up with my order.
I wouldn't say I had problems with VI per se. Matt and Shaun are both awesomely nice guys, but they kept me hanging a while before getting back to me stating they could not complete my order. So be it. I had to spent a couple hundred more, but I'll live. If you're going to get both and don't have the money for both...order rods first. Long wait from what the import tech said. In fact I have to call them up and see what's up with my order.
Re: 0-60 time
Originally posted by dalin
remember there's about a 1 second difference (compared to sea level) at my altitude here in denver. these are average scores.
10/9/03, before any engine mods
0-60 in 11.85
quarter mile in 18.45@72.3mph
1/1/04, currently after turbo (6psi) and intercooler
0-60 in 7.88
quarter mile in 15.83@89.5mph
remember there's about a 1 second difference (compared to sea level) at my altitude here in denver. these are average scores.
10/9/03, before any engine mods
0-60 in 11.85
quarter mile in 18.45@72.3mph
1/1/04, currently after turbo (6psi) and intercooler
0-60 in 7.88
quarter mile in 15.83@89.5mph
Even if you times are 1 second better, your 0-60 would be like 6.8
i believe Guru_Del is running 6.5 on an automatic non- ICed turbo kit from RRM and his 0-60 is still faster than yours and you have the IC and manual :-/
i believe Guru_Del is running 6.5 on an automatic non- ICed turbo kit from RRM and his 0-60 is still faster than yours and you have the IC and manual :-/
Guru has an IC now bro...why do people bash on non RRM stuff?
so he spent $2k instead of $4k...good for him damnit! lol
im going custom...wooo much cheaper! and more customizable
so he spent $2k instead of $4k...good for him damnit! lol
im going custom...wooo much cheaper! and more customizable
Re: Re: 0-60 time
Originally posted by Boni
taht is a sad story. should have got the RRM turbo kit and you would have run alot better then 15.83 in the 1/4 mile hahahaha.
taht is a sad story. should have got the RRM turbo kit and you would have run alot better then 15.83 in the 1/4 mile hahahaha.

Not everyone wants a Road Race kit.
Originally posted by Drive02Lancer
Guru has an IC now bro...why do people bash on non RRM stuff?
Guru has an IC now bro...why do people bash on non RRM stuff?
Didnt know he got the IC - but im pretty sure he still ran 6.8 without the IC or right around that.
so he must be like 6 flat around now? or something around that. Lucky bastard lol
Re: Re: 0-60 time
take into consideration that i'm at over 1 mile in altituide and have been using stickshift/clutch for less than 1 year, plus the z28 8cyl cameros do 15.5-16.5 at Bandimere (local racetrack). so at my skill level, compared to cars up here, my 4cyl oz lancer is as fast as a z28 camero. not bad for phase-1. my goal is 400+ HP and 12sec or faster quarter mile, and $5,000-$10,000 less than an EVO and look better, sound (soundsystem) better, and faster. with all my mods (visual and audio too), i'm still under $20,000 now.
Originally posted by Boni
taht is a sad story. should have got the RRM turbo kit and you would have run alot better then 15.83 in the 1/4 mile hahahaha.
taht is a sad story. should have got the RRM turbo kit and you would have run alot better then 15.83 in the 1/4 mile hahahaha.
psi
i'm at 7psi with no boost controller.
so you're estimating 10HP for every 1 PSI.
so the rrm turbo kit puts out 230+ as advertised, which is more than 110 HP increase. (120HP stock at the flywheel). that would mean that it runs at a 11psi. that sounds a little dangerous from all the posts i've seen (without strengthening the internals). i'm thinking about turning it up to 10PSI (from 7).
so you're estimating 10HP for every 1 PSI.
so the rrm turbo kit puts out 230+ as advertised, which is more than 110 HP increase. (120HP stock at the flywheel). that would mean that it runs at a 11psi. that sounds a little dangerous from all the posts i've seen (without strengthening the internals). i'm thinking about turning it up to 10PSI (from 7).
Originally posted by bahamut
At 6 psi, it's about right, a gain of 48-60 HP.
dalin,
my comment wasn't directed at you. It's the two posters claiming faster times stock. I'm well aware of high altitude affecting results.
At 6 psi, it's about right, a gain of 48-60 HP.
dalin,
my comment wasn't directed at you. It's the two posters claiming faster times stock. I'm well aware of high altitude affecting results.
Re: Re: 0-60 time
Originally posted by Boni
taht is a sad story. should have got the RRM turbo kit and you would have run alot better then 15.83 in the 1/4 mile hahahaha.
taht is a sad story. should have got the RRM turbo kit and you would have run alot better then 15.83 in the 1/4 mile hahahaha.
...give me a break....
nice times though. just run that baby at sea level, and it sounds like you just need some minor tuning to do? im not to familiar with your setup, but kudos for getting your custom setup together and working!
The super nick-picky people calculate 6 HP per 1 PSI, but I don't believe anyone want to use such figure to stoke their ego.
I'm using an average from DIY'er to various TC kits in the market for different manufacturers and vehicles. On average, the figure is around 8-10 HP for PSI, including the error of wrongly matching TC for the motor and ill tuning. See you get the means of the bad w/ the good tuning.
At 11 PSI, a G93 has been hitting that mark, and our conrods are just as weak as the lancer. The except is the conrod length. A G93 is much shorter. A G93 will hit major problems hitting 13-14 psi in the long term. From reading past posts of toasted motors, these are the following problems: 1) headgasket failure 2) Even with bigger injectors and upgraded FP, ill tuning will toast pistons and conrods 3) The ultimate variable that I believe the G93 being held back is the stock MAF and ECU.
These flaws should be the same as the lancer. Otherwise, tuning and fueling is the most important when boosting above 10 PSI w/ FMIC (don't not even try w/o IC). Amongst DSM'ers, with SMIC, we don't try to spike over 16-17 PSI w/ a SMIC and pump gas, because the knock count will go crazy and start retarding timing. Otherwise, most are scared, because they don't want to take the slave-like effort and time to tune it. Look at Rhyzin at his progress as a tuner. All lancer guys should admire his trailblazing effort as with HK on his T3 S60 setup (of course w/ his setback).
Which Z28? In the ole IROC-Z days, the Z28 had 5.0's or a bit bigger. Many of them will try to lie that they have a 350 swap. For the modern Z28, I'll believed it has the detuned C5 Vette motor. The 'maro and firebird didn't get real serious until the SLP package from GM, pumping out the 'maro SS, firehawk, and TA WS6's. Believe me, you'll see their badging.
I'm using an average from DIY'er to various TC kits in the market for different manufacturers and vehicles. On average, the figure is around 8-10 HP for PSI, including the error of wrongly matching TC for the motor and ill tuning. See you get the means of the bad w/ the good tuning.
At 11 PSI, a G93 has been hitting that mark, and our conrods are just as weak as the lancer. The except is the conrod length. A G93 is much shorter. A G93 will hit major problems hitting 13-14 psi in the long term. From reading past posts of toasted motors, these are the following problems: 1) headgasket failure 2) Even with bigger injectors and upgraded FP, ill tuning will toast pistons and conrods 3) The ultimate variable that I believe the G93 being held back is the stock MAF and ECU.
These flaws should be the same as the lancer. Otherwise, tuning and fueling is the most important when boosting above 10 PSI w/ FMIC (don't not even try w/o IC). Amongst DSM'ers, with SMIC, we don't try to spike over 16-17 PSI w/ a SMIC and pump gas, because the knock count will go crazy and start retarding timing. Otherwise, most are scared, because they don't want to take the slave-like effort and time to tune it. Look at Rhyzin at his progress as a tuner. All lancer guys should admire his trailblazing effort as with HK on his T3 S60 setup (of course w/ his setback).
Which Z28? In the ole IROC-Z days, the Z28 had 5.0's or a bit bigger. Many of them will try to lie that they have a 350 swap. For the modern Z28, I'll believed it has the detuned C5 Vette motor. The 'maro and firebird didn't get real serious until the SLP package from GM, pumping out the 'maro SS, firehawk, and TA WS6's. Believe me, you'll see their badging.
Last edited by bahamut; Feb 22, 2004 at 06:55 PM.
Thanks for the kind words, Baha. 
I dunno about trailblazing as there are bigger and similar sized turbines out there on Lancers, but no one else has really tackled fuel tuning as far as I can see. Probably a couple of the PR guys have, but I haven't seen them post on it really.
On a side note: The more I dismantle my car the more I find little things that could very well have cause my failure (ex. I found a smaller O ring on the injector in the cylinder that seems to have been the point of failure). I'm still hoping for some warm weather and free time to get my head off, but it should be soon, and I should know exactly what happened once I reach that point.

I dunno about trailblazing as there are bigger and similar sized turbines out there on Lancers, but no one else has really tackled fuel tuning as far as I can see. Probably a couple of the PR guys have, but I haven't seen them post on it really.
On a side note: The more I dismantle my car the more I find little things that could very well have cause my failure (ex. I found a smaller O ring on the injector in the cylinder that seems to have been the point of failure). I'm still hoping for some warm weather and free time to get my head off, but it should be soon, and I should know exactly what happened once I reach that point.
Correct me if I am wrong anyone: If you are getting 240hp out of a t25...you are about at the turbos limit. The turbo supports up to 250. There is no way you are going to be making 300hp off a t25 setup. running the turbo at 14psi you are about at its peak effeciency rate. Turning the boost up to 18 is completely pointless because you are doing nothing but blowing hot air. Thats even with you large FMIC (I would also be careful about how big of an intercooler you would throw on a t25. It doesnt push alot of air as is and thats alot off volume to fill you should find a happy medium). When I had mine turned to 15 the thing could not even pull to redline it puttered out about 5k rpm. What kind of other stuff do you have to support this kind of boost. Im just curious? I would ditch the t too small and go with something bigger if that is your goal. How are you calcultaing your HP? 240 seems to be a really high estimate. My car "supposedly" pushed somewhere in the neigborhood of 180 whp stock at 12psi on the t25 (210hp at the crank). I have a Big t28 on my car now it is somewhere around 250 crank hp at 15psi coupled to a 4g63. Also keep in mingd the two cars are completely different but your numbers seem pretty skewed. Then again your profile and mods may not tell the whole story. With the mods you have listed I dont believe your hp claim to be accurate at all.
Last edited by mobius97; Mar 16, 2004 at 03:19 PM.




