wrc evo turbo?
The VI was classified a WRC car. The WRC group was started in 1996/1997. But not every manufacturer in Group A switched to full WRC specs. This was allowed up until 2000 and thus how glorified Group A cars (such as the Ford Escort, Evo IV, V and VI) were allowed to run in the WRC group and were classified as such.
Thats why even though technically the Escort, IV, V and VI can run in FIA Group A (specifically Group A8 or equivalent) their full names have always included the WRC moniker which was only extended to cars who were allowed to run in the WRC group.
Between 1997 and 2000 the only group A car that really evolved into "true" WRC specs was the Impreza. The other manufcaturers at the time, like Toyota and Ford came out with new cars built to the new specs (Corolla WRC and Focus WRC respectively) instead of trying to "evolve" their Group A platforms.
In 2000, Mitsubishi was no longer allowed to run a glorified group A car in WRC and hence why they then started work on the ill-fated Lancer WRC. Caused no end of trouble for Mitsubishi teams world-wide because getting your hands on any of the ex-works Lancer WRC cars for a private team is ridiculously expensive and hard.
So most teams (if they stayed with Mitsubishi) end up having to basically build the VII/VIII/IXs to Group A specs and then go their own way against the ex-works WRC focuses and Imprezas (which are relatively easy to get).
Which is why I'd like to see the WRC group scrapped and lets go back to Group A and homologation. Non of these "one off" spefical version cars that are about 3 ft wider than the stock car. And whose fans can't even get a road version of the car that at least shares the same basic engine/drivetrain.
Thats why even though technically the Escort, IV, V and VI can run in FIA Group A (specifically Group A8 or equivalent) their full names have always included the WRC moniker which was only extended to cars who were allowed to run in the WRC group.
Between 1997 and 2000 the only group A car that really evolved into "true" WRC specs was the Impreza. The other manufcaturers at the time, like Toyota and Ford came out with new cars built to the new specs (Corolla WRC and Focus WRC respectively) instead of trying to "evolve" their Group A platforms.
In 2000, Mitsubishi was no longer allowed to run a glorified group A car in WRC and hence why they then started work on the ill-fated Lancer WRC. Caused no end of trouble for Mitsubishi teams world-wide because getting your hands on any of the ex-works Lancer WRC cars for a private team is ridiculously expensive and hard.
So most teams (if they stayed with Mitsubishi) end up having to basically build the VII/VIII/IXs to Group A specs and then go their own way against the ex-works WRC focuses and Imprezas (which are relatively easy to get).
Which is why I'd like to see the WRC group scrapped and lets go back to Group A and homologation. Non of these "one off" spefical version cars that are about 3 ft wider than the stock car. And whose fans can't even get a road version of the car that at least shares the same basic engine/drivetrain.
Last edited by codgi; Mar 16, 2008 at 05:48 PM.
Even with a pulled WG line you would only see those loads at peak boost but not at redline. Even on the Green with cams I am only at 260 by redline (8K. It does hold 300 or so fairly easily through the 5500-6500 range though.
Damn it would be nice to hold 300 load at 6500. I only hit 300 for about 1 sec...then it goes back down to 235 at redline
I need a 3port...mbc just aint cutting it.
I need a 3port...mbc just aint cutting it.
Last edited by dbsears; Mar 16, 2008 at 11:20 PM.
Here's a guy who will do a ball bearing conversion to Mitsu turbos
http://www.owendevelopments.co.uk/pr...7&t=Mitsubishi
T30R turbo here:
http://www.owendevelopments.co.uk/pr...Id=21&subId=-1
http://www.owendevelopments.co.uk/pr...7&t=Mitsubishi
T30R turbo here:
http://www.owendevelopments.co.uk/pr...Id=21&subId=-1
Last edited by skiracer; Jun 10, 2009 at 08:24 PM.
Its the high $$ internals that will withstand very high EGTs that allows for agressive antilag.I don't have antilag running on my setup yet, but the turbo does make good numbers. 400+ ft/lbs and 300+hp on a 34mm restrictor, and over 500 ft/lbs and 400hp when running with a 48mm inlet (same size as turbo inlet).
Dave
Thread Starter
Former Sponsor
iTrader: (18)
Joined: Jul 2006
Posts: 5,458
Likes: 0
From: Puyallup, wa
I have one of these turbos on my hillclimb car and I can tell you that the turbo itself is not lag-free.
Its the high $$ internals that will withstand very high EGTs that allows for agressive antilag.
I don't have antilag running on my setup yet, but the turbo does make good numbers. 400+ ft/lbs and 300+hp on a 34mm restrictor, and over 500 ft/lbs and 400hp when running with a 48mm inlet (same size as turbo inlet).
Dave
Its the high $$ internals that will withstand very high EGTs that allows for agressive antilag.I don't have antilag running on my setup yet, but the turbo does make good numbers. 400+ ft/lbs and 300+hp on a 34mm restrictor, and over 500 ft/lbs and 400hp when running with a 48mm inlet (same size as turbo inlet).
Dave
Dave have you added Anti-Lag to your set up yet?
Nope, there's a bug in the AEM software that's preventing us from running it right now (won't let us retard the timing enough). I'm leaving our HTA35R on there for our next hillclimb, as it makes more power and has a wider powerband. We'll see how I'm able to do with the increased lag vs the TR30R.
Dave
Dave
Bringing this thread back for some recent tech.
So I am assuming this is Dave's dynosheet-

This is the car we did (drag motor with a 34mm restrictor added for giggles)-

TR30R vs stock IX turbo. The question is what we are not seeing must be better response and the slightly reduced weight? I am going to add an engineered restrictor and use the same turbo on my car (so now a 2.4 MIVEC vs 2.4 VIII) with some of the other improvements I have wanted to try since this initial test.
Wanna talk about turbos some more?

Aaron
So I am assuming this is Dave's dynosheet-

This is the car we did (drag motor with a 34mm restrictor added for giggles)-

TR30R vs stock IX turbo. The question is what we are not seeing must be better response and the slightly reduced weight? I am going to add an engineered restrictor and use the same turbo on my car (so now a 2.4 MIVEC vs 2.4 VIII) with some of the other improvements I have wanted to try since this initial test.
Wanna talk about turbos some more?

Aaron







