all configurations have their pluses and minuses. my point was that there ISN'T a replacement for displacement, but it doesn't come without a price either.

i'm glad you like you car and enjoy it, but it's plain obvious that mitsu have a much better model coming out next year. some current GTS owners are mad but i as a prospective buyer am very excited.

 

Your missing the essense of what i am trying to say.

I have bought 3 lancers for myself / extended family. And one more purchase to do i nthe new year.

I am not saying the 2.4 is a bad car version. But my point of view is based on strictly performance upgrade point of view. .400 difference might not seem like alot but it throws equations off for those out there who are putting together mods for this car, its something that takes months if not years of development. One thing to expect is a higher cost for the 2.4 L version do to the fact that it "may" and I stress may be more expensive due to its rare numbers vs. the 2.0 version.

IF the car is successful and Mitsu shifts production to that size engine then great. But I think that mods based on the 2.0 version will be cheaper and more expandible due to the 4B11T version in the EVO. all the parts are not going to be completely compatible, but there will be much to work with.

That said, I am only speculating on what i know, Rally Art spects are final and to be honest my head is spinning from all the changes Mitsu is making in real time while they re release the car for the first time again. They should have waited for 2008 to release their real 2008 car and maybe delayed their push but 6 months. Although the numbers look good, there is already a huge line up for the 2008 GTS.

Knowing what i know from all the facts availible. my next purchase will be for the SE version of the car here in canada which is between the GTS and ES models of 08. Vs. Buying a 09 GTS. This next purchase is strictly for project car means.

This is not to knock the 09 GTS at all, but i have certain objectives that may be hampered by choosing the 2.4 model. even if it was the same cost.

Both cars are winners.

 

2008 Lancer GTS is a good car but it's been widely known that Mitsubishi has been planning to release a 2.4l Lancer GTS from the get go, but they couldn't because of budget constraints. Anyway, the increase in displacement will probably cause a slight price increase of a base 2009 GTS compared to 2008 but that being said it will be a better car than the 2008 GTS.

As far as mods go, again, the Evo X engine has been heavily reinforced compared to it's NA 4B11 counterpart, I don't think parts designed for 4B11T will fit just like that in NA 4B11, and 4B12 is essentially the same engine as NA 4B11 with increased bore and stroke so you'll probably find that parts designed for NA 4B11 will fit better in 4B12 than parts designed for 4B11T in NA 4B11.

Anyway, here is the link to original article:
http://www.motortrend.com/roadtests/...s_first_drive/

It seems to be more responsive right off the bat. And gas mileage doesn't seem to suffer all that much either compared to 2.0 motor.

 

ok educated guess is that the 4B12 is nothing more than a bored and stroked 4B11 with an added balance shaft. more evidence is that the SRT-4 is also 2.4 L GEMA engine/block. so... how does this affect a lot of potential mods? like blitzkrieg said, the NA 4B11 and NA 4B12 will be much more similar than any NA iteration and the turbo evo or even the RA for that matter.

another educated guess is that the head will be similar between all models so basically compatible. so how again does this affect a lot of potential mods?

i mean it's all speculative at this point but one thing NO ONE seems to know is the 4B11's damn rod length. i mean the GEMA engines in all likelihood were designed to be about 2.4L. this means that the 4B11 has either a shortened deck height or REALLY long rods. either way, the engine fits under the GTS bonnet just fine with minimal if any mods at all. but in the case of the latter, it'd mean the 4B11 and 4B12 have the SAME exterior dimensions, with the exception of the balance shaft, and so will be almost exactly the same.

i think you're giving too much thought about what exactly may be different and overlooking just how much is the same.

 

IMP I thin that both cars will see equal development from all manufactures that put of performance mods. You can stay stuck on the fact the the next years car will have slightly more than last years, thats the facts of development. Next the 09 owners are going to be pissed that the 2010 GTS might come stock with turbo or something to that effect.

 

That's why you dont order a car the 1st year it comes out.
When I mentioned that waiting untill after the EVO came out would be a better idea people flamed me.
Also, remember that the 2.0 and the 2.4 engines are the same ones, but different bores/sleeves.
HID's are cheap to get and easy to install.
Wipers... to each its own.
Traction control, heck yeah.

 

i was searching around and found out my own answers.

rod length for the 4B11 is 149.25mm. so with a 86mm stroke you get a phenomenal 1.735 rod ratio. i think i also found out a deck height of 230.1mm. pretty tall. corroborates my original theory that the 4B11 GEMA engine or at least this version of it, is built with 2.4 liters in mind.

for reference i'll use numbers i know for the K20/k24:

K20: 86 x 86 with 139mm rod = 1.62 rod ratio. deck height 212mm.
K24: 87 x 99 with 152mm rod = 1.54 rod ratio. deck height 231.7mm

so it seems that the 4B11 is a K20/K24 franken-motor STOCK. honda tuners have loved the k24 block not only for it's increased displacement, but for the added deck height for longer rods. the 4B11 has insanely nice geometery numbers.

 

agree with sheepman on page 1. Xenon bulbs are nothing special. Go to advanced and buy some silverstars. Rain sensing wipers? who cares. Traction control? Blah. screw it. Nothing 08 people should be pissed about. just adds cost to the car.

 

By any chance, do you know how all of this compares to the outgoing 4G63T ?

 

4G63: 85 x 88 with 150mm rod = 1.705 rod ratio. deck height 228.85mm
4G64: 86.5 x 100 with 150 mm rod = 1.5 rod ratio. deck height 235mm
4G69: 87 x 100 with 150 mm rod = 1.5 rod ratio. deck height 228.85mm

as we speak i'm trying to get info on the caliber SRT-4 GEMA engine, not sure what the official engine code is. if you know please chime in.

GEMA SRT-4: 88 x 97

4B12: 88 x 97 with 143.75 rod = 1.48 rod ratio.

 

again, its way to early to know what Mitsu has in store, I welcome new additions to the family. My focus is on the differences between the 4b11 and the 4b11T. The 4b12 which was my point before, is going to be a smaller market potentially, And I say that with a big * next to it. know one knows what Mitsu is doing for sure in terms of the other cars they are bringing to market in 09 and 10. Will the Rally Art be turbo, care a 2.4 engine who knows, might be true. If thats confirmed the case then it will be a parallel situations, if the rally art is based on the 4b12 then technically that engine might be a 4b12T. compression ratios maybe different, stronger internals maybe produced, in that case hand me downs may be created for the 4b12. Or will the rally art be a detuned 4b11T, wow so much guessin going on. If Mitsu is making this 2.4L engine push I hardly think they are going to play with just one variant (GTS) alone.

Again this is all speculation. But I am going on whats fact here and now. I dont even want to get into debating in what will be the better engine. speculation can keep us all up all night. Its better to wait for the actual car to roll off the production line and into the show room. Both Engines are of the same 4B1 plateform family

 

i still don't understand your final viewpoint. you're all over the place. are you basically speculating that the 4B11 is the better tuner engine because it's the base engine used in the evo? if yes then you define "better" as having more parts available, NOT hp potential per se. and especially not streetability where the extra displacement is wanted and high rev capability is not needed.

depends what you want the engine for. for a modestly tuned street car which most of us here want or use our cars for, then the 2.4 wins hands down. if you're scared about parts, remember the Caliber SRT-4 uses the same block with the same bore and stroke. pistons, rods, etc. that are made for that car will potentially be compatible with the 4B12.

so if you had a choice, you'd rather get the 4B11 over the 4B12?

 

i decided to try to move this discussion back to this thread instead of all over the place in other threads not related to that topic.

I would have wanted Mitsu to go with a Stability Control system instead of a traction control system. In theory you would be able to push the car even beyond its limits and it will not restrict you that much. Traction control on the other hand does things like cuts power to the engine and is design to prevent you from venturing beyond or to your cars limits. some stability control systems do both, most just stick with assisting the driver not limit the driver.

Traction control is a little too over reaching, and may spoil the experience, lol which brings us back to this debate, 2.4 vs 2.0

I wouldnt want to drive the car if you cant disable the traction control, you will not be able to let lose, even drop the car cause it will cut the throttle lol

 

Now getting back to your comment madfast, dont get me the wrong way, I am not ripping into our opinion of the 4b12, its of the same family, it is the same engine in most respects, granted with more cc displacement to work with. my issues or reasons for selecting the 4b11 is not just because its the same block as the or any other *I think this is better vs. that just cause. I am simply looking down the road at what my options are, i rather have a 4b11 due to the reason that i am going to carry out a boost operation, and i rather have the well tested and thought out 4b11T as my framwork for my project. the costs will be cheaper because there will be more parts and more varriety by different vendors out there.

Another good thing to think about is the traction control problem, traction control systems at least in its current generation have a limiting effect on the engine that seems to spank you hand and foot if you even think about doing something that tests the limits of the car. If you cant disable it, the car will tap out on you. I remember this from the first year Lexus IS250 I had test driven for a local project. you wanted to let loose with that car and it constantly spoiled the moment. I fear Mitsu is going to make the same mistake. reason why? well I got Bull-S$%# run around with certain features on my car when i tried to have my power locks on my fast key changed so that it would unlock all doors instead of just the drive one, you know what the official line was when i called the dealer and the dealer, that system can not be altered due to safety reasons? and they said thats Mitsu HQ canadas official line? WTF!!!! everytime my door opens first my girlfriend gives me the evil eye.

Anyways kinda off target. Its great if everything is finalized but its not, everything is speculation right now, and no one knows whats going on for 2009 for sure, Rally Art is in the air too.

So you are right I would personally endorse the 4b11 over the 4b12 if the user is seeking advanced performance options, and seeking better fuel economy.

There are many reasons why I think its the better choice but its really point less to hammer them in, because nothing is a fact right now until the press release comes out. But I think Mitsu is making a tactical mistake right now by expanding this line too fast with so many different features and technologies.

 

I think that there will be a button to turn off traction control, just like the Mitsubishi Outlander has. As far as tactical mistakes by Mitsubishi, I don't agree at all, Mitsubishi won't have to develop any new platforms so the developmental cost will be minimal, even if the products overlap, the total cost for Mitsubishi won't be that high due to platform/engine sharing across the board. They want to saturate the market with products that will appeal to as many customers as possible without too much cost for them.