I was wondering if anyone has done any dyno's for there modded lancers?.. ive searched everywhere and there are none so far.. i was also wondering y the one second drop claim.. by rrm hasn't been proven by the company!~or did i jus miss it?

 

You're right, it hasn't been proven. I tried asking the same question when I joined this forum and got flamed by a moderator for asking why a company would make a claim like that without backing it up. I'm absolutely sure that RRM would make many more sales if they could back up their claims some way. But also, people will say that dynos are unreliable and the results will vary. In all reality, there is no good way to test it unless several people dyno'd their cars and everyone came up with an average.

But for now, lets try some simple math.

First off, Motor Trend magazine claims that our cars can go from 0-60 mph in 7.7 seconds.*

Secondly, Mitsubishi claims that the 2008 Lancer has 152 horsepower.

So,

A one second drop would make the 0-60 time 6.7 seconds.

If we divide 152 (hp) by 7.7 (sec), the result is 19.74 (rounded down number)

19.74 would be the number of hp per given unit of acceleration.

If we divide 152 by 6.7, the result is 22.69.

Now, we can take 22.69 and subtract 19.74, which gives us 2.95.

We then multiply 2.95 by 7.7 and get.... 22.715!!!


Now, is it realistic that a aftermarket air intake would give a nearly 23 horsepower gain on a 2.0 liter car????

Hmmmmmmmmm........ no.

Anyone familiar with car performance knows that performance gains for cold air intakes on 4 cyl cars is almost always less than 10 hp unless the car's engine intake is horribly engineered from the manufacturer.



I can't wait for this post to be deleted by someone, because I know it will be.

 

good explanation. Its just not realistic to expect that kind of gain from a SRI. throttle response will surely be better along with increased noise but I think too many people mistake that for hp. Most SRI's produce 1-4whp at most and CAI can be 6-8...unless like you said, the factory intake is garbage.

 

i think you guys should be looking at it from the right perspective,

When you are reviewing intake upgrade options the first factor to take into consideration is how restrictive or inefficent is the stock intake from baseline wide open.

The crude way of finding out your base line is to removing everything and mount a filter and sensor right to the mouth of the engine and see on a dyno what you get. This will let you know how restrictive a stock system really is. There are some fighting over if it should factor in temp. or not but for this base line on dyno, everything will be done with external air temps.

Second would be to dyno a Short Ram intake. Which will include the ram effect of a mid sized pipe vs. the direct intake manifold baseline.

third will be to dyno the CAI options. Again an increased ram effect due to the longer pipe.

So to answer some debates over the topic, it is possible for an intake to do a 20 hp increase but only in situations where a stock intake is completely robbing the engine of air flow. And the intake would have to be aided by additional upgrades in the car such as piggy backs and FULL EXHAUST SySTEM upgrades such as header and back.

RRM has put out a SRI intake which is very general. SRI are just that a SHORT RAM. pipe size and design has something to do with it too, but the general idea is to remove restriction (RECOVER HORSEPOWER) and create additional horsepower thru ram effect.

INJEN has a design that of course hasnt been confirmed with final product status but it seems to take a bend around appraoch to getting around the battery. The bend isnt the best idea in the world but it does the job. Idealy a relocation of the battery and a straight pipe would be best.

I have started some dialog with Mitsu to see if I can get an approved relocation kit. But it takes time, but i have 3 Mitsu techs that have taken the idea straight to Mitsu Headoffice. so we will see what happens in 4 to 6 weeks *the deadline they have given .

Cheers

 

Also, one thing that you must remember, RRM doesn't build their cars for drag purposes or dyno purposes. The 1 second came from a professioinal driver racing in a road course. He finished 1 sec faster with the SRI than he did stock.

 

So you looked everywhere, huh? I guess titling the thread "4B11 dyno list" wasn't obvious enough? Just kidding. It's stickied in this forum, so it's a little above the normal threads.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...d.php?t=273862

Good job being an e-thug. I'll try not to "flame" you by asking you not to bash our vendors. I don't know how much "backing up" you need. Both RRM and show time (an EvoM user) tested and got the 1 sec. faster 0-60. Do you need the folks from Guiness World Records there with a stopwatch?

Your post is still here, jerk.

No, they're referring to RRM's claim that the SRI cuts 1 second off the 0-60 time.

 

Has anyone tried to move the battery to the trunk? It was an idea I heard from a bmw owner that had an eclipse and moved the battery to the trunk.

 

Thats what I'm talking about. RRM had some prof. driver use it and had a 1 sec faster time.

 

This is the first time I actually think about RRM's statement. Isn't a 60 second drop from 0-60 mph too much time?

 

lol don't you mean 1 second? i dont know too many cars that take a minute to get to 60mph.

 

A Geo, maybe...you could measure their 0-60 time with a calender.

 

So I've read that some dyno's can be considered unreliable... how in the world does that work? It seems to me that dyno's should measure results according to standard formulas or calculations or whatever. Is there a particular dyno that's considered the standard/failsafe/go-to for most accurate readings? I wouldn't understand the point of a dyno if it didn't come up with accurate readings. This is a little bit confusing.

 

dynojet's are fairly comparable. But a Dyno is a measurement tool for tuning...not comparisons. Thats why you should always establish a baseline.

 

There is no one correct dyno.

From what I've heard, the Government uses Mustang because they "consider it the best one." Most car enthusiasts hate Mustang because it reads lower than other dynos. This could very easily be a case of "just lie to me so I'm happy!"

As said, a dyno is just a measuring tool. It is in no way exact. Unfortunately, one horsepower isn't as easy to nail down as one inch or one gram (Hell, if you remember, they recently found that the commonly accepted weight of a kilogram was wrong! So maybe none of this is really exact science!).

Now, FWIW, in my experience DynoJet and Mustang are the most commonly used. They give very different results, but generally if one car was measured on a DynoJet, another car will get similar results on a different DynoJet.

 

I see. I guess it just throws me off because I expect tools of all types to be based off some kind of exact mathematical/scientific standard. Thanks for clearing that up though guys.