It's basically the transfer case due to the 4WD system being right in the path of the exhaust system. If the flange was a bit farther down or if they just switched to a flex pipe section all would be well. I would imagine the same issue exists for the Lancer AWD models as well. If I replace the exhaust with a 2.25" setup I'll likely swap in a flexible pipe to elminate the flange that had clearance issues.

The FWD setup should not have the transfer case so there should be no clearance issues at all with that model.

Using ECUflash for the tuning, will post the definitions soon and offer up a basline tune for people to use and just ask for donations if it helps you.

Evoscan works fine but nobody has spent the time to get Mode23 fast datalogging up and running. For now I'm using the Mutt setting to get knock sensor counts and OBD2 for fuel trims, temps, airflow, rpm, and speed.

Finally updates!

 

Not sure if I mentioned it but I did swap in just the Evo X Throttlebody which was 60mm instead of the stock 55mm Throttlebody and besides having to shave an alumunum tab off the side the Outlander Sport TB electronics bolted right up. The stock intake pipe took some water and me stretching it in a vice as I was opening it get it over the larger opening.

Overall there wasn't too much difference because there were restrictions before and after it still in place, but the car drove like stock and didn't need any tuning adjustments in the ECU. I also bypassed the coolant flowing through the throttlebody, was just a 3/8" double ended barb and a couple clamps so i can always revert it to the stock setup. This was easiest since the Evo X TB had different angles on the coolant passages.

Fast forward to this weekend and I had time to remove that EGR return tube that extends into the intake manifold inlet. The tube was blocking a good 15-20% of the flow area so I felt it was worth the mod. In hindsight it's probably like that so the airflow disperses the EGR mix deeper but it does so at the sacrifice of adding a flow restriction which would keep me up at night! I used a metal cutting bit on my dremel with flex extension and took about 15 minutes to grind it off. I had stuffed damp blue shop towels in the intake manifold opening to keep any metal bits within reach for cleanup. If you aren't willing to spend 30-45 minutes to make sure every spec of metal is cleaned up you would have to remove the entire intake manifold and which would likely not make it worth the effort. I had a shop vac handy and was able to place the entire Intake manifold into vacuum to really suck out any loose debris, so far so good.

I also replaced the stock intake piping with 2.75" 90* mandrel bend and was able to cut off a piece of an Evo X lower IC pipe coupler to get it aimed in the right direction similar to the stock routing. For the airbox entry I ended up cutting off the stock MAF meter and porting out the opening so that the intake pipe would fit snug. I haven't decided what to seal it with to the stock airbox but for now black duct tape is allowing me to test it all. For the MAF sensor I was able to cut an opening in the aluminum intake pipe and slip the pastic Evo X MAF pipe over the top. It took some shaving with sandpaper to get it to slide together but I didn't have an aluminum MAF adapter handy nor a welder.

So now there is no restriction in the Intake Manifold inlet which is about 60mm inner diameter (ID). The Throttlebody is 60mm ID, and the intake tubing is 2.75" all the way to the airbox which ends up being 68mm ID. The stock intake piping was the accordian style flexible rubber so it was bound to have flow restrictions and the stock MAF pipe was only 58mm ID. I'm still using the K&N drop in panel filter and have that 4" air duct leading from the front grill area which all has greater flow than the rest of the intake piping. I may eventually just add a cone filter on the end of the piping and create a custom airbox but at these power levels I think the stock setup is plenty.

I knew that changing the MAF pipe diameter was going to make the car run leaner so with some quick math I increased the MAF tables +17% and found the LTFTs still hovering around +6%. Next I increases the MAF tables +23% overall and added about .4 AFR fueling to all the AFR tables until I can verify AFR's on the dyno again for safety. We'll see how the LTFT's look over time and adjust accordingly.

I reset the battery this morning to see where the LTFT's end up and got the car to enter limp mode due to "excessive torque". Good thing I can edit the Airflow and Torque tables to avoid outflowing what the expected numbers would be for any particiular throttle position. This definitely tells me that the car is breathing quite bit better now, and after adding 20% to all of those tables I seemed to have dodged that bullet. Car feels a bit faster with more torque on tap but will have to compare acceleration times from 3000-6000 rpm and plot the curves in Virtual Dyno to see what potential gains there are. I really won't know for sure until I hit the dyno and dial in the MIVEC and AFR's back in.

2.75" intake piping seems to be the perfect combo between 2.5" which is similar to stock and 3.0" which probably would slow down velocity and actually hurt power, at least in the lower RPM's. I'll post some pictures and some virtual dyno plots tonight!

 

is there a write up for the evo x tb? I am interested in the swap and I', trying to just see what exactly is needed and what to watch out for.

nice work btw! which tactrix cable are you using to tune with ecuflash? i used to have the cable to tune my evo 8 but not anymore and i dont think it works on the newer cars.

 

I haven't uploaded the pictures yet but will post a TB how to if there is interest.

You need the Tactrix 2.0 cable that is USB on these cars to at least get OBD and basic MUT logging.

 

I dont know about anyone else but i'm def interested in the how to, and I will be picking up my new cable soon.

 

Doesn't The mustang dyno reads about 10-15% lower HP and TQ readings compared to other dyno's such as a dynojet. I also did some simple math but if your Outlander Sport made 148HP at the crank. You said that there was a 44% loss because of the CVT and AWD. A stock outlander sport makes 148Hp at the crank which is about 103whp according to you. Therefore wouldn't there be a 30.4% loss through the drivetrain and CVT?

stock readings are at 148hp at 6000rpm and 145 ft lb at 4200rpm and your dyno sheet RPM only goes up to 5500rpm so your technically not taking data from the same points and comparing them.

 

The 103 whp "baseline" setting was with CVT and 4WD Lock mode being worst case scenario and you would have to add 44% to bring it to 148 crank HP (103 * 1.44 = 148)

The typical losses on the STM Dyno are around 30% so I was surprised to see such a low baseline reading for this car. If it was similar driveline losses to my Evo X MR then baseline would be 114 whp for 30% losses. The dyno graph goes to 6000 but the data is clipped to 5800, I think the graph got strange at 6000 because it autoshifts so I had to clip it slightly. When you setup the dyno run you set what RPM it has to hit before it will give you a full graph, I'll try and set it for 6000 next time and hope the autoshift at 6200 is enough to trigger it. It's possible the numbers could have climbed a few whp and made up some of that perceived loss but it wasn't going to hit 114 whp with 200 more rpm's.

I'm just going to use it as a tuning tool and not worry about the numbers too much as they are never going to be all that impressive. It's about the gains over baseline that I'm going to be concerned with.

 

Mustang dynos read lower due to the fact that they calculate road and give you a more realistic idea of your cars power.

CBRD has one of the lowest reading ones and has been 18% on average lower then a dynojet that does not calculate load.

If its HP and TQ numbers you want then a dynojet will be your friend. if you want a solid tuning tool, then a mustang dyno with a good tuner is what you need.

 

I didn't know that any dynos were more heart breaking than STM or Buschur's! Mustang Dynos!

I've never tuned a car on a dyno other than a Mustang and prefer them since indeed the load is more realistic to what you encounter on the street or road course. It's still not quite the same but at least it's similar to a slight downhill instead of driving down a cliff. Using 4th gear on the Evo's also simulates higher load and road course gear pulls much better than 3rd gear.

 

Could you please post pictures of your setup & add some logs for 0-60 run? Did you get them only in OBD2 mode?

Also 148 Crank HP - 103 whp is (148- 103)/148 ~ 30% loss, not 44%.

 

The % loss issue was covered earlier in the thread:

Although technically, 103*1.44 would be 103HP times 1, plus 103HP times .44 (or 44%), which would be adding 44% of the 103HP, not 44% of the 148HP.

If 103 was what the dyno read, then it truly is a 30.4% loss.

 

Yep, if in reality CVT gave almost 50% loss in transmission, jatco would commit hara-kiri for creating such "efficient" transmission...

 

Such an "inefficient" transmission

And it really already is. Average drivetrain loss is usually 10-15% for FWD/RWD, and up to 20% for AWD. Obviously, there are oddities, but 30% loss seems like a really high amount, even in 4WD mode.

 

I think this is related to dyno itself, 'cause AWD in our case is simpler: no center diff, axels are tied by magnetic coupler:



Evo X definitely should have more losses...

 

did you just make that?!