Originally Posted by lazypiss04

Personally, I think there is something wrong with his car or it needs a tune. No offense, Amby. I only say this because I've felt changes in my car after every single install, mid-range, top end and a loss of low end torque (results from my A$$ dyno). In addition after driving a perfectly good running stock Lancer, my girlfriends, or even a friends Lancer with high comp pistons, I can tell a difference in my car and thiers.

Originally Posted by ambystom01

It's not bored to within an inch of it's life.

Originally Posted by CamShaft

When is the last time you changed your fuel filter. Maybe go for a high flow filter??? More gas, less draggin your a*s

Originally Posted by Green_Bandit

So lets say for instance the 4G94s were some what "ported" from the factory, would they be on the same level as the 4G93 (more potent wise) and not just a 4G93 with a little more displacement? Or is there something I'm missing?

Originally Posted by rhyzin

the throttlebody sizes are different. 4g93 = 51-52mm, 4g94 = 54-55mm. a 4g93 IM can be bored to 60mm, a 4g94 IM, about 57-58mm, making the upgrade to a 60mm throttlebody kinda retarded on a 4g94 IM. what supporting evidence that a 4g93 IM is better, using the same size throttle body between the two, is the fact that the 4G94 IM reads more vacuum at WOT than the 4G93. you can make a hypothesis that the 4G93 IM provides more airflow. a bit more supporting evidence is that i had road dyno'd before and after the 4g93 IM install and had recorded a gain in hp. i wouldn't say the numbers were too important but that there actually is a gain and that it were in spots in the rpm band that needed it. as for a before and after on a rolling road dynamometer(dynojet, mustang), no dice as far as i've seen.

the next difference is the block assembly. due mostly to the longer stroke, the 4G94 packs an extra .2 liters of displacement and a natural increase in torque(inherent in a longer stroke). the diameter of the pistons only increased by .5mm, i think. what happened is the rev limit was traded in for more torque. the 4g93 has a higher rev limit. i don't know what it is off the top of my head, but the lancer revs to 6250 before fuel cut.

a minor difference is the valve tappets. the 4g94 has hydraulic ones, and the 4g93 has mechanical ones that need to be adjusted. that's just a matter of convenience. otherwise, you can swap heads.

everything else is mostly the same concerning the block. minor differences here and there but nothing performance minded.

the trannys are in the same family. that includes the RA and the 4G64. nobody i've heard here has frankensteined different gears like the honda guys. i'd love for a RA final drive.

the 02-03 clutch slave cylinder/bearing single assembly was reverted back to the mirage multi-part assembly in 04+. i don't know if you can run the multi-part assembly on the 02-03. if you plan to have the car a long time or go through trannies cuz of retarded driving, i'd look into it cuz it'll save a few buck on changing them out. no performance difference.

like Rock said, there's a difference in the fuel rails with the 04+. its returnless fuel system had mitsu redesign the IM for that year.

the MAS are different. there is a difference in plug connectors, but the actual opening isn't much different. not swappable, but they do have their respective swaps from other mitsus.

i haven't been here in awhile so i thought i'd post

Originally Posted by mtags24

Blacksheepdj had similar results, and they are both extremely respectable members of this board who know their stuff.

Originally Posted by ambystom01

Hahaha I wanted to stay Mitsubishi but they have nothing that compares to a WRX. Some people suggested I wait for the evo X or the new ralliart but the evo would be way out of my price range and there's too much speculation about the ralliart for me to consider waiting.

Originally Posted by Boeturbolancer

Remember guys a mustang dyno works under a load of up to 40% and is mainly used for tuning purposes since it simulates road conditions better.

On a dynojet you'll see a much better number as it reads under a no load condition. My mustang... when it was running... pulled 305whp on the dynojet but on the mustang dyno where it was tuned it pulled 242whp. Big difference and it sure felt a lot better than that.

I encourage you to hit up a dynojet to be sure of your numbers instead of the mustang dyno. I've actually seen stock evo's pull around 190-200whp on mustang style dyno's... we all know that they put down more than that stock!

It's a dyno thing... come on guys don't bash him for that... he's in canada and only has the mustang close buy. He should be right on the money for that kit. Also consider that my stock lancer pulled 63whp on the mustang dyno... then they told me to dyno on a dynojet since my car didn't really make enough power for the mustang dyno to read accurately.