I know that quad throttle bodies have been covered many times here. Searching for it will provide best results so we don't get too far off topic.

Bacically quad's are a mess to tune and there aren't many if more than one computer to control the thing. Oh and for running a quad with no filter, just atmosphere....... Not good.

The price for a great NA quad is just as much as turbo. RPW Quad Throttle Body

 

look at my dyno I got 171 max with my RRM turbo and my car an automatic

 

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...+THROTTLE+BODY

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...+THROTTLE+BODY

He specifically said without forced induction. Not to mention the dyno is at the wheels. You're probably putting out around 190-200 at the flywheel. All he wants seems to be 170 at the flywheel.

 

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...e&pagenumber=3

I think my input here is pretty good. Bolt ons will no way in hell, reach 170 CHP. You need to do head work at least for that number (camshaft definitely, cam advance, etc.)

 

all this talk about doing quad tb setups do we really need them or is it even worth the tuning trouble? i think we can get to where we want to without going with that. as far as the internals i dunno i agree with maybe getting new rods n of course the cams n camshaft and cam gears then some forged pistons i believe there was talking about making new rods or something of the sort. i think we should just invest in a bored tb and maybe a nice port n polish .. but of course all this is going to come down to 2 things MONEY 'N' TIME .... Ooh well time to head home from work... I'll post more when i get home

 

Only high compression pistons would really help boost HP. Yes, that's a viable option, but if it's a matter of cost vs effectiveness then they're really not being used to their potential without something like quad TB's.

 

I would imagine that you would need to all but rebuild the motor to reach 170 crank horsepower. The basic problem seems to lie in the fact that this motor redlines at 6000 rpm. Using the equasion

Horsepower = torque * RPM / 5252

We can say that a car with 100 foot-pounds of force at 6000 rpm would be producing 114 horsepower. If we take that same motor, and spin it to 7000 rpm, assuming it makes the same torque, now the motor is putting out 133 horsepower. 7500 rpm? 142 hp. Small motors motors need big revs to really make power. Its the reason formula one cars rev to 19,000 rpm, and just about every motorcycle goes to at least 10,000 rpm (not counting cruisers which are just 2 wheeled cages).

Having never built a 4G94 up before, I would assume (perhaps incorrectly) that you may be able to approach the 170 peak hp mark without touching the bottom end by bolting on intake, header, full exhaust, etc. Next up would be a new cam, head work, valve work, porting, etc, followed by lots of tuning on the dyno to get the cam adjusted and the timing right.

Again, this is all conjecture. I am an engineer, not an engine builder!

 

The 4g94 puts out 120hp at the crank at 5,500 RPMs and about 130lbs/ft at 4,250 for reference. The way the engine works though, once you pass peak there's a gradual and then sudden drop off. Just because the engine is revving higher does not mean that it's making more HP/tq.

 

The point I was making was that if you want to make significant HP numbers from a small, normally aspirated motor, you are going to have to turn significant revs.

In order to make significant revs, the engine is going to need lots of motor work, which normally would entail work to allow it to hold a respectable torque output at high rpm. This would include several, if not more, of the engine changes mentioned above.

Look at an S2000 motor, with 240 ponies. Its peak torque is 153, which is comparable to the Lancer, at 130. Both have 2.0L motors. If you were to take your stock lancer motor, bump the compression, drop a hot cam in it, work the heads, free up the intake and exhaust, etc, you could probably see ~150 pounds of torque, but the hp is going to be way down.

Can anyone explain why the freshly modified lancer motor is down on horsepower?

 

dannoh, if that equation is correct then why is the horsepower in the lancer less than the torque. and the torque is greater in some cars and lees the hp in others. i'm not arguing just trying to learn.

 

I'm not sure what you mean by that. The 4g94 is brandy new in the states. The only incarnation it's ever been seen in before is the 1.8l Mirage's 4g93 which has completely different internals and less displacement.

The S2k engine is nothing like the Lancer engine except in displacement. It's DOHC w/ VTEC and has much shorter con rods. It's built almost solely to rev. It's as much a motorcycle engine as it is a car engine You can get fine results without running excessively high rpms, but I don't think there is any inexpensive solution to doing it.

 

well, i take it then that the only way to cost effectively get to 170 CHP would be to turbo it so you dont have to worry about tuning and dyno costs so much. my main goal is to try to get to 150 CHP then since 170 CHP is a little to out of reach in costs for me. i take it that 150 would be much easier to get to?

 

No, I'd say quad tb's and high compression pistons would work just fine and probably yield more than 170HP with about the same amount of tuning for optimal performance. Cost would be comparable and probably a little bit less than a turbo setup.

 

hmm, sounds convincing. would the quad throttle bodies be as hard on a motor as a turbo setup? also, if i got the quad throttle bodies, what kind of computer would be able to control that type of fuel system? i should be able to just buy a piggy back, right?

 

Easier. Read the other threads on dual and quad throttle bodies and especially any information from Mitsiman (RPW's rep/owner David Thomas).

The install and setup itself may be more complicated, however not much moreso than forced induction a la turbo or supercharger.