I have three sites/links that have hp calculators based on your vehicle weight, E.T. and, trap speed. Just fill in the blanks and it spits an estimated hp. This is good if your on a tight budget and don't want to spend $ on dyno runs.

www. dsm.org/tools/calchp.htm

www.carmediazone.com/hp.shtml

www.boostcontroller.com/hpcalculator.html

Mike L.

 

i ran the lancer oz numbers and these was the outcome.
Trap Speed Method: approx. 113 HP
ET Method: approx. 110 HP

lancer oz weight-manual=2646
1/4 mile time =16.8
1/4@81.9

lancer oz automatic=2690
1/4 mile time =17.1
1/4@81.9

the manual a has 110whp and the auto has 105whp not bad.

 

So, have you done any mods? If it's stock then, the estimates are pretty close to what the magazines have been publishing on the 115-120hp range. I would be interested to see what your dyno results would be.

Mike L.

 

That's stock i have a 5speed and my bestfrind has a auto.but i wonder how fast we are now with mods i am going to check on thursday. we have is injen cai ,magnaflow catback exhaust,high flow cat,rre tb comeing next week ,and pulleys one to two weeks from this monday.

 

Thanks for the links!
I plugged in my numbers and came up with:
Using the ET method, I come up with 274 Wheel horsepower
Using the Speed method, I come up with 286 wheel horsepower

 

Your results
Your Mitsubishi Lancer weighs about 2646 pounds and can complete a 1/4 mile in about 10 seconds. That means that you've got about 522.97 HP at the wheels, and about 679.86 HP at the flywheel.

Wow thats a lot of horse power that i have to get. Well i think if I get a twin turbo set up and shed about 1000lbs, i will be stoked.

 

Unless you get some sort of sponsorship either you or your Lancer will be dead and buried before you have it running a 10sec 1/4mi. Or you'd have to be "independently wealthy" which would pretty much mean that chances are you wouldn't have bought a Lancer to begin with. I don't mean to...wait, yeah I do mean to crush your dream. Don't waste you time or money aiming for 10 sec. Try little more realistic number like...12. It'll be tough, but it'll be waaaay more doable.

Damn that movie for the whole "10 second car" rubbish.

 

Don't really use the mag times . . . somehow, they don't get realistic times on the 1/4.

On the track, you have to fight for grip (cars w/ a lot of HP/TQ) while on the street it's usually a faster experience.

 

Actually I think it to be just the opposite.
The street would have worse grip because of uneven road surfaces and the fact that streets are not treated for traction.
Tracks on the other hand are made smooth and even and sometimes covered with a traction additive (VHT) to increase grip.
Why would someone make a track that was worse perfoming than a street?
Also mag times are some of the quicker times that you will see for STOCK vehicles. They are professional drivers that have driven way more cars than the average JOE.
Have you taken your car to a track to see if you can best the Mag times?

 

I do see your logic behind your POV. If you are cranking beyond 350 HP, I believe the track is faster. For anything under 300 HP, I have drivers said to me that they feel slower on the track than the street. Maybe, they are self-aware of their R/T and margin for error on the driverside of the equation.

On mag times for my 1.8L mirage: 0-60: 8.6 sec. That's crazy, even for a pro driver w/ crappy grip tires. 10 - 11 sec is norm for stocker.

Mag times for a stock SI is 15.8 . . . on the track other people and I have never witnessed a SI w/ I/E able to crank below 16.1 sec.