In that same issue of Import Tuner, they were adding mods to a '95
GSR as well. And BTW the Lancer is 120 at the crank, the IT crew
predicted a 15% drivetrain loss and the Lancer did not disapoint
with 103.6 hp, proving Mitsu doesn't overate their engines. Any way
by the time the mods were done - The Lancer's torque figure was
121.6 versus 124 for the 'Teg. By giving up the DOHC head
the Acura has and taking displacement, you get just as much power
at lower rpms, making the Lancer a prime candidate for nitrous
or turbo charging. Sure, you can go all motor and try to source
a MIVEC head, but I think by making the motor clean, simple and with a strong bottom end, Mitsubishi has made the choices wide open for tuners, like the D16 is for Honda, maybe even more so, only time will
tell.

 

Everybody knows we cant match an EVO, but how many other cars can.I dont really care either, I dont think I will see to many beside me at a redlight.

 

Well, my two cents is that there is no car coming to America in that price range to compete with the Evo. In Automobile Magazine they ran the Impreza WRX STi and the Lancer Evo VII J-spec up against each other, and declared it a no-contest, which is if and when they ever release the STi in America. The only car that I can think of that has a chance against the Evo before you start getting into Ferraris and sh*t is the Skyline, and by the time that goes GTR in America under the Infiniti label, it will be probably 80k (okay, maybe not that high, but at least twice as much as the Evo). But, here's the thing: the Lancer Devo has one thing over the Evo. The Evo gets (and I know this will tick people off) gas mileage in the low teens. Sorry, but, if I spend that kind of green on a car, I'm gonna drive it everyday, everywhere. And the gas expense... well, that's a little too much for me. That makes the Devo look even more appealing. So, I think the money factor really does make the difference. I've driven alot of cars, and the Lancer is my personal favorite to drive. The only thing that comes close is the 1.8T GTI, and that's simply because it's low center of gravity, something that can be done to the Lancer quite easily. But this is all off topic.

And I agree with GPTourer 100%. I think the SOHC is a better platform for tuning than the DOHC, but, that's just my own opinion. 'Nuff said.

 

My only question is why Mitsubishi didn't put a turbocharged SOHC in the Evolution if it is such a superior tuning engine. Cars with FWD don't lose as much power due to drivetrain. If I had a DOHC turbo that could match the EVO in my FWD Lancer I would pull away from it if we were doing the same speed and I floored the throttle. Am I wrong?

 

To answer your question, I gotta say this. I am just speculating, but, it makes sense in my head.

The Lancer needs to be tuned. It has more power than most of the other cars in it's class (the Focus, Civic, Aerio), but, this was Mitsu's answer to the Civic, which is notoriously tuner friendly. So, I think Mitsu was trying to make an even easier tuner with more low end torque, and engine potential. As for the Evo, you really don't have to mess with the majority of the stuff that you do on most cars. In essence, there is less to do to it. My opinion is that the Evo isn't meant to be a tuner. The Devo is. On the Evo, you can upgrade the turbo, replace components, get a larger intercooler... but, really, there is SOOO much more work to do on the Lancer's 2.0 4G94, lots of room for improvement. But, I think that to replace the SOHC would be to go too far away from the original engine. If I were you, and you're so desperate for a DOHC, it would be better for you to simply do an engine swap.

However, I don't think you will ever be able to keep up with an Evo. The active slip is quite simply a work of engineering art. I'm not gonna mention the all wheel drive, because I've seen a GS-T vs. GS-X. The GS-X beat it in the 1/8, but the GS-T ended up smoking it in the 1/4. Not sure why, but, gotta realize all wheel drive has greatly improved in the last few years, so, can't say the same thing would happen anymore. But, I think you should just buy a damn Evo VII engine, or, better yet, an Evo VII. Sorry, but, even with alot of work our Lancer won't be the king of the ring. But, it will beat most everything you happen to come up against in a normal day.

 

I see your point about the drivetrain making up for the loss of power. I just won't be able to take it if I drop 10k or more in this car only to still get smoked by the Evos. I doubt I will end up seeing too many though, I am still the only Lancer owner in Jacksonville who shows their car. I would like to buy an Evo as soon as they come out, but I think the first edition(Evo VII) will be a novelty compared to the Evos we could have in the years to follow.

 

The advantage of the DOHC is to allow more air to flow into the combustion chamber at high rates of speed. This is why to get the most out of a turbo a DOHC is needed.

The basic idea is that you want more air in the chamber, however if you just increase the valve size the rate of flow will simply decrease, and you will not get much more air. A DOHC will allow you to have increased air flow while keeping the rate of flow up, by giving more small paths for the air to flow through.

And as for the GS-T vs GS-X and the GS-X winning the 1/8, having all 4 wheels turning will drastically reduce wheel slip. for a good example watch some GT races, and see how the audi's catapult off the line. More drive wheels just means more traction, you can have all the power at the wheels you want, but if it's just smoking the tires it's useless.

 

Expense was another issue, as well as reliability. I think A DOHC
head is a better choice for ultimate performance, whether it
is NA or turbo,but so goes the expense. Most of the time
if a manufacturer is going to build a DOHC car, they are going
to hard tune it in one direction NA or turbo. You almost have
to undo some of the engineering to make it work if you want
to go hardcore in any direction on a NA car. Or, you wimp out
and pay 3000-5000 for 6 pounds of boost. Or you pay to play, and
risk blowing a $6000 engine. On the extreme side it'd be like turbocharging a Spoon engine, for the Honda people. I say, why not make the car affordable and simple, keep the costs low and leave the door wide open for the tuners? And for those that
don't want to fool with anything, you've got a car that gets 30-33
mpg on the highway.

 

DOHC has nothing to do with air flow. Increasing flow is done by larger valves, port/polishing, port matching etc. You still have the same amount of valves with one cam for intake the other for exhaust. This allows for better engine control.

 

I don't know how exactly the DOHC is better stock than the SOHC (not looking for an explanation right now, either), but, I do know that it is a great platform for tuning.

The reason I brought up the GS-T vs. the GS-X is not to say that the GS-X is quicker off the line, but to say in the short-long run, the FWD beats out the AWD in the 1/4. Sometimes the distribution isn't all it should be, but, as I said, the AWD technology has gotten better by leaps and bounds, and I'm not saying that if you were to drop the Evo VII engine into the Lancer that the Devo would win in the quarter. Just trying to say that it is possible, if not likely.

Main thing I'm trying to relate here is that if you want a tuner's dream, run with the SOHC. You want a turbo beast without the wrench time, just do an engine swap (as if it's that simple).

 

For some reason mitsubishi decided to tune it "sloppily" and it is easy to pick up power on the 4G9X series of engines (except the MIVEC 4G92).

going back in time a bit to page one of this thread:
the only time I have EVER seen any type of ignition system upgrade make any improvement on a car in the power department was when upgrading an old points type distributor ignition system to an electronic distributor and high power coil.

ffwd to current topics:
$8000 to get 320hp at the crank on your engine? You have to be nuts! I could easily get that much power with $5000...maybe less even. Besides the US EVO will not have that much power. I could create a Lancer that would tear up an evo on the highway. Handling? Well the lighter Lancer with proper suspension could win on the autox as well....it [the lancer] wouldn't survive on a road course but the tight turns of an autox always favors the lighter car.

 

I never really found out the advantage of having DOHC over a SOHC...Although in Initial D Iketani and friends laughed their *** off at Takumi's friend that bought that Hachi-Go with the SOHC...

Oh well, answers please?

- Trying to bring glory to the US Lancer,
- - Through unleashing the power within,
- - - Kei

 

In addition to what Dude has stated before, SOHC has an advantage on the low end of the rpm while DOHC gains its on the top end.

Then, how come all GSR or Type R motors not SOHC? How about the the famed 4g63T? The logic is there from deductive reasoning (also gear ratio has a part in the equation too).

 

i dont iunderstaand the sohc aspect of it
they are both 16 valve
in the sohc one cam pushes down 4 valves per cylender
in the dohc 2 cams push down 2 valves per culender isnt this the same thing
i knwo the timing can be ajusted well yea i guess that woul'd make alot of sence how it would be better but wouldnt a new cam ajust this problem i dont get it someone exsplain it o me

 

Timing issue is pretty important squeezing out every last oz of HP/TQ from the motor.


SOHC has one camshaft to control both the intake/exhaust duration of certain valves.

DOHC has 2 camshafts. One set controls the intake, and the other controls the exhaust part. Lighter mass of the camshaft will grant the motor the ability to operate in higher rpms over the SOHC.


As for adjustment/fine tuning, SOHC has a limited range, because it can effect both duration.

On the otherhand, you can tune each set intake or exhaust to overlap each other or not (I may be wrong on how the theory to gain big HP).