Yes, I understand that and I'm over-simplifying for the argument. We all know the stock pistons are crappy, so obviously there's going to be some basic engine work needed to run high boost.

I never said that turbocharging would be cheap. I said it would be more cost-effective.

And you think a simple S-AFC will work if you build the motor?


No need to be rude! I'm just going to quote myself on this one:

"If you go so far as to spend all the money on an engine tear-down and rebuild, you're not going to be expecting long engine life. Let's just throw that idea out the window right now. Power = engine wear."

 

Well that's true, but I'd imagine it would take a LOT of money to get 200 horsepower out of these cars by NA means. Also, what do you consider a "long-lasting" modified engine? How long are you planning on running it?

Personally, my engine's heading towards 100,000 miles. Do I expect another 100,000 miles out of it? Not really. I road race it and am not kind to it on the streets either.

I'm also thinking about the tuner mindset--no one is ever really "done" with their project, there's always just One More Mod to be done. Seems to me that all the guys that do NA have One More Mods that are more expensive than their turbocharged counterparts.

i've also never seen anyone that was satisfied with a mere 200 horsepower. If that were the case, we DSM folk would never bother going past basic bolt-ons!

I agree with a lot of what's been said--if you do it right, NA and FI are both great paths to power. I just don't see why people here think it's worthwhile to do it on such small engines.

Can any of you answer that question for me? What makes you think that building a 1.6 (1.8? I don't know) liter engine is worthwhile? You could squeeze a lot more performance out if you build the car with a turbo in mind. Don't bother enlarging the cylinders and getting fancy coatings and stuff, just increase flow capacity on both ends and strengthen the weak bits.

Of course, if you build the engine AND slap a turbo on it, that'd be quite interesting.

 

"i've also never seen anyone that was satisfied with a mere 200 horsepower. If that were the case, we DSM folk would never bother going past basic bolt-ons!"

A stock DSM makes that much on flywheel. Besides, 1/2 of them (lazy) do free mods w/ I/E and soon stop afterwards. Few more will do injector, turbo, and fuel pump upgrade. It's very rare for them to start replacing their cams.

Also, DSM's have DOHC which can get you more power on the top end. Also, don't forget the rare 1g NA 4g63. They are out there too.


W/ NA application, 200 flywheel HP is pretty much the limit w/o blowing up the budget on all US 4g9x engine (SOHC).

Here are few real examples amongst the 1.8L mirage. This does not include mirages in PR where people do crazy things, unconvential mods!

A 4g with I/H (rpw)/E and 2g MAF swap was able to crank a little over 160 HP flywheel. Manual tranny.

A 5g with I/E, rpw stage 1 cam, and DPR cyl head work at stage 4.5 is cranking close to 160 flywheel. Manual tranny.

A 5g with I/H (rpw)/E with basic cyl head work was able to crank 140-155 flywheel HP. Manual. He tends to baby the tranny.

On my 5g, my mods are paltry, but I believe I'm cranking 140 - 150 flywheel at max.

 

Thats so off man. I was putting down 205 WHP on the ITR, and I was soooo impressed by it! putting down 13's w/ an N/A car. Also, its not all about top HP, its about how linear the power is throughout the powerband. You can notice how an all motor dyno sheet and a forced fed dyno sheet, the power for the N/A starts very much earlier.

 

Maybe, but once again, in these cars, with FWD and all, power down low doesn't get you very far. You were impressed by 205 WHP? My friend, you NEED to get in a faster car. Come over to San Diego some time and I'll give you a ride.

Then again, it says you're driving an Evo 6. Perhaps you should revisit your old ITR and tell me what you think of it now. It's all relative to what you're familiar with I guess.

I have a very nice power band on my car. Big spike at 3500 and then a gradual rise from 3500 on up to 7500.

Bahamut, I don't know what DSM'ers you know, but in the DSM world I come from, just about everyone has done a turbo swap. Maybe you're hanging around on DSMTalk.

So with a practical NA build, 200 flywheel HP is pretty much the limit on these cars then eh? That tells me that building an NA Lancer IS definitely more reliable than building an FI Lancer. Because the NA lancer isn't making much power. 200 horses ain't going to get these cars into the 13's.

That's my point--these lancers don't have to remain slow with the right work. And y'all want to be running with the 'stangs at the very least, don't you? I know I'd love to see that, personally.

 

People should stop comparing ITR. There is nothing close in mitsu lineup that can match it in the NA areana.

If you look at Japan or England. Then, you can get the FTO GPX . . . 6 banger, MIVE, 2.0L, and DOHC. Also, Mitsu killed that car in 00, so it's a moot point.

 

"Bahamut, I don't know what DSM'ers you know, but in the DSM world I come from, just about everyone has done a turbo swap. Maybe you're hanging around on DSMTalk."

I never visted DSMtalk at all. Most DSM'ers that I've seen have a family or on a low budget after tearing up their synchros time and time again.

One guy in AZ has even built one up with a laundry list of mods, but he gave it all up for a classic Datsun. His reason: the car was very fun if it didn't have all those tranny problems.

http://www.geocities.com/awd92gsx/eclipse1.html

http://www.zdriver.com/rides/detailr...x=15&vehId=691


IMO, the lancer's 2.0 has a better chance at cracking the 200 flywheel than the 1.8L . . . then again, the lancer guys have to fight cali spec.

 

Cali spec would be the first thing to go for most of these folks, I'd suspect.

As for DSM off-topic content, well, every car has an achilles heel. I haven't had any problems with sychros, but I did bust 2nd gear once. All in all, I'm pretty amazed at how well my tranny has held up! To tell you the truth, I think we're more famous for blowing up our differentials than our trannies, but the result is the same.

Those of us that frequent Road Race Engineering are a hodge podge group, some with kids, some in high school, but overall, our cars are pretty darned fast. I'm considered "slow", but then I concentrated more on suspension than power.

 

"Those of us that frequent Road Race Engineering are a hodge podge group, some with kids, some in high school, but overall, our cars are pretty darned fast. I'm considered "slow", but then I concentrated more on suspension than power."

Yes, almost all DSM'ers love RRE. Just visit tampabay DSM (know them but not friends) . . . they should have times (don't know if you consider them slow). Again, I'm friends with a small O-town DSM group. All of them have a limited budget.

 

say i did redo the entire motor what kind of fuel management system would i need and what prices? i ask becuase "a simple s-afc wouldn' work"

 

Well depending on how much exactly you do, you can do w/ the S-AFC for now, jsut have to keep track of the duty cycle on your injectors, even then you would have to put more pressure on the regulator and better injectors. It's all on how you want to spend your money, where you want to save some money and where you can hold back for now. Id say wory about the internals for now.

Id say...
pistons 500
rods 500
crank 600
balanced and blueprinted, and installation 500
thin head gasket 125
Fuel regulater 125
S-AFC 225
Injectors 450

.......Thats just the begining too.....

 

I think this discussion has lost its focus - the question was what mods can you do N/A and provide decent horsepower levels. Reality is that not everyone can afford a turbo and whilst it is a fantastic option for power, it is also quite expensive and engine longevity is reduced.

Here is what we have found to be the best pathway to modificaitons

(A) Stage 1 N/A options

K&N pod Filter with cold air induction
Exhaust cat back system
Extractors - RPW 4-1 long primary pipe tuned length design don't skimp on cheaper shorty style headers if you are after torque and top end horsepower.

Stage 2 N/A

Addition of oversize throttle body
Camshaft stage 1 specifications

Stage 3 N/A

Increase camshaft profile to stage 2 +
valve spring upgrade
Apexi SaFC controller or equivelent

Stage 4 N/A

Cylinder head porting and polishing
Increased compression - RPW 10.5 : 1 replacement pistons Cheaper than forged and nearly as strong

Stage 5 N/A

Full programmable computer
Qaud or twin TB system
Modifeid engine with bored and stroked to 2.2 litre

This is of course a general guide but a good one.

There is no reason why you would not be capable of producign in excess of 200hp at the flywheel with these combinations up to stage 6. It as always comes down to money.

Note no mention of conrods as the stock conrods with a set of ARP conrod bolts are more than adequate for any N/A combination motor.

David Thomas
www.rpw.com.au

 

Sounds good David, although I don't see how that is much cheaper than turbocharging. As you say, it comes down to money.

 

The point is that they can do this build up over a long time period enjoying improved performance with no side effects as opposed to trying to do it all at once.

David Thomas
www.rpw.com.au

 

Well, that's a good point.