This isn't a stupid post how the title might indicate but it is a serious thought that I have been wondering. In comparing the 4G94 and 4G63, there is much more good from the 63. It has: DOHC, MIVEC, better flow, etc. whereas the 4G94 is SOHC and no MIVEC with fairly restricted flow. Both are 2.0L engines. SO, if you compare the two the 4G63 is obviously a better choice. Or is it???

"BM Tranny Stock EVO, 93oct 94f high hum. Dyno Jet

230.6 HP and 246 TQ uncorrected
241.5 HP and 258.30 T@ Corrected SAE" Quoted from an evo owner

"-STAGE 2 RRM TURBO (Boe)-
9 psi, 10-1 AFR, On 91 octane pump gas

242 torque at 4750 rpm
233 WHEEL H.P. at 5250 rpm" Quoted from the dyno'ed lancers list....


The numbers are both on Dynojet. So what is such a big deal about them being so close??? That lancer is running 9 PSI on 91 octane, the evo is running ~19PSI on 93 octane... Just imagine if our lancer's were able to run 19 PSI. What causes such a great difference given the raw facts say that the 4G63 is a superior engine? (Although the 63 DOES have a much stronger engine) But that is fairly irrelevant to my point.

 

You are comparing a two wheel drive car to an all wheel drive!

X amount of powere sent to two wheels versus X amount of power sent to all four.

Technically even though the numbers look similar the EVO engine only pushing powere to two wheels would make much more power!

 

newbie is right on (except the evo pushes 4, but I know what you meant), but there is more to it. You have to buy, modify, and design the car that makes you happy. There will always be someone that is faster, so do what makes you happy..... and what you can afford to do right.

 

I realize a decent amount of power is lost in the drivetrain of an evo. But for 9PSI on 91 octane, Boe's numbers or any lancers numbers are pretty impressive.

 

What I meant was if we took an evo engine and made in ony push all the power to two wheels then you would see the difference in the dyno numbers.

 

Your comparing stock to modded. Resrictions off the showroom floor limit these motors sooooo much. If you throw the regular bolt ons on and a tune the 4g63 will make gobs more power at the same boost level.

 

evo ftw!

 

Easy now, he's not trying to justify the lancer over the evo motor, he's just curious.

 

Thats like comparing a french poodle to a raging pitbull.
No contest!

 

The comparison has to be made at the crank not to the wheels, that is if we are talking about engine effecincy. The 4G63 is far more effecient than the 4G94.

That isn't to say that a Stage 2 RRM turboed Lancer isn't impressive. In fact from a roll a well modifed base Lancer can pull on an Evo... from a dig, it's entirely different story.

Fox

 

I think I understand your question - Why are the EVO and turboed Lancer so close with the EVO running 19 psi and the Lancer running 9?

The answer is in the compression ratio for each car. The Lancer has a higher c/r. This limits the Lancer to how much boost you can run, but also allows it to make more power at lower boost.

The coralary to this is driving an EVO without the turbo. Without the help of the turbo, the EVO is very very slow and the standard Lancer will spank it. I know from experience.

BTW - If I got your question wrong, just ignore my post.

 

............

 

exactly.

 

That and it is properly tuned on the Dyno with MANY mods and probably a free flowing exhaust. The Stock Evo has a **** poor tune which just dumps fuel into the combustion chambor, it's a wonder why it even ignites. A Tune on a stock Evo can get close to 300WHP, just a tune mind you.

 

I'm glad someone said it. Thats why you see alot of Civic turbos running only about 7-10psi also. I hear it all the time -- "I'm only at 8psi, and you're at 20!" It goes farther than just that.