Josh NA sounds like the way you'll want to go. Just don't expect any one NA mod to net you a lot of HP. With NA it seems its the sum of the parts that gets you goin'.

From your mod list above you should be able to get some of this done. Go 1.5 or higher cam and make sure you open the intake and exhaust ends or you won't feel much difference. If you have any money left over I'd suggest a Fuel Pressure Reg.

 

n/a is coo but on this car it will cost much more than a FI kit to get the same horespower numbers.

 

Under 200 crank HP, NA is more cost effective. No one here is ever thinking of building 300 crank HP via NA. This is the premise that FI guys are trying to harp home.

Margin for error is small for TC while NA has a lot bigger window for tuning error.

Example:
1) put 87 octane in SC/TC setup . . . see how long the knocking will kill your motor. See how bad the car will retard/pull timing.

2) put 87 octane in NA setup . . . drive off and save money. Whooppee do.

 

i'm not sayin anythin bad about building up a n/a motor. i am one of the FI guys that love n/a motors as well but even to get it to 200 "crank hp" it will still cost more than a turbo or supercharger kit. u need to get 80hp to the crank to acheive 200. 80hp is hard to acheive on a n.a motor that starts out with 120 to the crank. heck 80hp is hard to attian from n/a mods in most n.a cars. i say you will be spending more than 4k to acgheive that number . why do you think on 4cyl the most effiencent and cost effective way to create power is forced induction?

 

Crank HP is much different than wheel HP.

In my setup for the G93, at crank, my best was about 138-142 HP and floated 125-130 TQ. I did this w/o any exhaust work, and the G93 shares the same small exhaust as the G15, unlike the bigger exhaust flow in the G94. Of course, my auto tranny would have murdered those crank horsie on the dyno. I did this all self tuning.

I had no problems againgst any G64 to Auto, foxbody, 'stang GT with a drop top. I only had problems against manual owners holding rev a tad over 4K rpm at the line.

IMO, once you go FI, you better have enough horsies to start knocking down mildly mod-ed GSX floating 13's all over the place. A previous gen SI's can do that . . .

BTW: When my mirage tuned properly before electrical gremlins and suffered from a bad O2 sensor, two of my friends compared it to my S13 w/ intake and cheap exhaust. They said my mirage was faster. Now, how's that when a 240SX has more HP and TQ to start out?

My mirage would had cleaned the clock on the 240 from 0-72 mph, but it would lose out in the battle to 100mph and beyond. This also happened against a mid-80 Iroc-Z (don't believe the hype that all of them had 350 swap . . . most of them had the stock 5.0's) with auto tranny.

 

the last gen SI's have potential, with a turbo kit they can run 300+whp. we recently just saw the first US lancer to acheive such power. also who cares about crank numbers, people go by whp when lookin into gains cause those numbers are what you are actually using.. alos somone can say i have 500crank hp but only will have 425. people go by whp so you are misleading them. and isn't the gsx all wheel drive? compared to our front wheel with 1 wheel spinning? haha sure they can run 13's but alot of the turbo guys are running in the 13's and gettin into the 12s. i think the guy who acheived 308 whp (sry i forgot ur user name) if he had lsd hes lookin into mid 12's possubly low 12's.. thats crazy fast for a lancer comin from 103whp. damn now i think of that wow but i do love n/a motor don't get me wrong. just not well performed with a small block with such lil displacement

 

I hear what your saying but to put the amount of money into this carand only get 308whp is not worth it. You get an old 87 supra, drop the same amount of money into it and can double that whp easy. Plus what you would pay for a 87 supra you could put the rest of the 14g's you had left over from buying the lancer into the motor and body. Youd have one sick car. Plus, for the lancer, you still need motormounts, suspension, bolt-ons, internals....etc.... your looking to spend 10g's in the end for 300whp. Yes it would be a sleeper but when you decide to sell it, your never going to get what you put in for it. I say if you put a wide band in, emanage, seats and other "carryover" mods, and a couple of bolt-ons you will have half of the things you put into the car and not lost any money on. Plus FI on a stock n/a car will deteriorate the engine quickly.....basically the motor wont be able to handle that amount of power very long. You need to start off with a block made for power, not a point a to point b car. I do love the lancer but in reality its not made (in my opinion) for what I want it to do. Just another opinion, no hate. My mods are going to consist of:

RPW header done
2.5 buschar exhaust
Ported throttlebody done
Ported Intake mani done
CAI done
stage 1.5 RPW cam
Wideband o2
greddy emanage done
Tien basic coilovers
front and rear strut brace
Ported head done
magnacore wires and iridium plugs done
motor mounts
seats and harness

All porting was done by me. I saved alot of money this way...Pays to read

 

Looks like a great list of mods.

Welcome to the NA title chase

WADAD

 

ah didnt know you had a ported head, how much did you do on teh intake and exhaust side, and how were the gains?

 

If I wanted to make the same choice, I would go turbo. There has been alot of people running that setup for awhile and it sounds safe. Plus many paths for upgrading too!
But honestly, I dont think the u.s. lancer is ever going to be fast enough. It is a great car with alot of potential, but with out some big bucks it is always going to be slow. Just drive it, save money, and buy yourself that dreamcar oneday!

 

an 87 supra shouldn't be in this topic nor should any other car since were talking about our motors. i was just setting an example with the 300whp. if you wanna talk about other cars to build a n/a motor heck i'll pick up a 5.0 mustang cheaper than you can pick up a turbo 87 supra and put 5k worth of work and have 400+whp all motor. but thats not the case were talkin about our lil 4g94 motor. either way FI or n/a if u try sellin the car u will get jack **** since the resale value of our cars suck. but lets say we both had 4k to spend. the smartest way is FI for power. but yes n/a is more reliable. but idk wut bahamut is talkin about with crank numbers. whats da deal with that. ha but anyways i'm not hating on u or bahamut or the thread i just wanna let ya know.

 

I'm guessing in his case he is talking about crank since he owned an auto. The drivetrain loss as we all know is greater in an auto so it's easier to compare engine hp figures or crank hp for mods.

WADAD

 

nextgenerationx,
Again, no one here is trying to make 300 crank HP via NA using the 4g9x block. You keep on hammering that point. Crank HP is much easier to achieve than at wheel because the difference between the tranny. I'm just not pulling numbers out of the air or from inspiration from God or something, it's experience from driving a buttload of cars from beaters like a chevette to Iroc to the last deathnail for GM's V6 pony cars.

There has been a mindset amongst lancer tuners to not think outside the box. If a lancer can compete NA vs a GSR or ITR, this should be the goal. If you're turbo and running times slower than the ITR with or w/o mods, it looks bad amongst the lancer guys. Then, HP in whatever form (crank or at wheel) is nothing if you can't effectively put it to the ground.


Point 2
Amongst the Supra guys, they have 1000 crank HP (few knocks on the door of 1200 HP) but have +850 whp, are they misleadingly slow then? I would like to see you tell them that in their face.

Point 3
You also mistaken that there are slew of people hitting 12's. It takes a lot of effort getting below 13's.

Point 4
Potential? Almost any car has it, unless running 2-3 valves per cyclinder setup in a 4 banger or inline-3 motor . . . not sure anyone still make inline 2 motors in the modern time.

Look at people in PR, they have sped mirages far beyond in America or the Pacific rim countries. I'm sure there are a bunch of 13's mirages in PR via turbo, and they consider it SLOW!

 

Pro and cons
==========

1) NA can almost use any octane w/o real fear of knocking. Use lower octane in a SC/TC setup, you'll be knocking to next new tank load.

2) NA doesn't take 4 grand to tune and make or come close to 200 crank HP while the same 4 grand is basically the starting point in SC/TC setup. If you're TC/SC and making under 200 crank HP, it's a terrible way to spend money, and you still haven't tune it.

example: ask any stock DSM'er are they willing to run their car lower than factory PSI to a paltry 5 PSI. They'll jeer you out of the state.

3) NA can be built up slowly. For TC/SC, you'll take a big hit to your wallet.

4) The margin for error in tuning via NA is much larger than TC/SC. Is it easier to blow up NA or FI? I have seen a chevette fire up with 3 cylinders . . . another person claimed to have seen a car fired up on 2 cylinders out of 4.

5) What about factory cars w/ FI making under 200 crank HP? Simple, manufacturers are trying to glide under the radar of insurance companies.

6) Again, no one is asking any G9x block to tune beyond 200 crank HP via NA. If it's 200 at wheel, you're asking to about 230 crank HP . . . see how big that #.

Finally, yes, Omar's achievement is a great leap (lancer-wise) for the T3/T4 setup at 18 psi, but he hasn't yet tapped the full potential of his turbo which is capable of making 450-500 whp. 308 whp is very far away from the turbo's true potential.

 

You would REALLY have to build up this engine to hit 200hp. Stage 2 cams, Valves, ported everything, dual or quad TB's, High Comp pistons etc... If someone hits 200hp of NA stuff on this car I will be suprised.
Josh, if you are gonna get harnesses, check for the harness bar that sparco makes for the evo. Its a simple horizontal bar that goes across the back of the seats and welds to the frame. Any other way of doing harnesses is a bit dangerous.