Turbotrix X - 377/370
Remember gearing and weight is just as important as power...electronics only help people that cant drive good in the first place. Also something I find interesting is the new car and driver shows over 3700lbs for fully loaded X as test weight...
Whereas the new STI is 3350 and the IX was 3250. One other factor is the X is shorter gear ratio than previous evos, 4th at redline is only 104mph...thats gonna hurt to shift to 5th...hope the 4b can spin to 8k.
Last edited by dbsears; Feb 24, 2008 at 03:03 AM.
Well my hunch has already been proven on the track not just the dyno....so we shall see Remember gearing and weight is just as important as power...electronics only help people that cant drive good in the first place. It also helps those who can drive, drive faster!!! Ask Chronohunter! Also something I find interesting is the new car and driver shows over 3700lbs for fully loaded X as test weight... This would be the weight including a full tank of gas and the DRIVER! Whereas the new STI is 3350 and the IX was 3250. These are curb weights and NOT including the driver. One other factor is the X is shorter gear ratio than previous evos, 4th at redline is only 104mph...thats gonna hurt to shift to 5th...hope the 4b can spin to 8k. Yet another hint, this car car is made for a REAL track!!!
Remember gearing and weight is just as important as power...electronics only help people that cant drive good in the first place. It also helps those who can drive, drive faster!!! Ask Chronohunter! Also something I find interesting is the new car and driver shows over 3700lbs for fully loaded X as test weight... This would be the weight including a full tank of gas and the DRIVER! Whereas the new STI is 3350 and the IX was 3250. These are curb weights and NOT including the driver. One other factor is the X is shorter gear ratio than previous evos, 4th at redline is only 104mph...thats gonna hurt to shift to 5th...hope the 4b can spin to 8k. Yet another hint, this car car is made for a REAL track!!!
Evolved Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
From: tsukuba turn 4
It's called point of diminishing returns and a little logic. The 15G turbo is only going to supply but so many oxygen molecules no matter what you do to it. The engine is only going to be able to produce but so much power with that turbo. Also with the engine parts itself. The car isn't limitless.. so we can make certain logical assumptions. Yes, the X is more efficient with the given oxygen it receives, but this makes it better in it's efficiency - not it's turbo (bigger is always better concerning this). Less weight is always better than more...more aerodynamic is always better than less...etc.. etc.. So where it excels in one aspect, it may have to make up for in another aspect that isn't so "perfect".
stock vs stock we all can agree the IX is faster
mild vs mild even at this early point in time, i think we can all agree that the X is better
high vs high is a toss up at this point. we know what the IX can do but we can only speculate on what the X can do.
what i have noticed with you is that you interchangeably compare different states of tune to play devils advocate. in one breath you can say the 4B11's semi closed deck will be a problem. yes when you approach like 500-600 whp. this assumes you are comparing the X at high tune vs IX at high tune.
then in the next post you talk about the smaller ports and smaller stock turbo being a restriction for the X. so now you compare them in terms of mild vs mild.
it's like you find a "fault" with the X and dwell on that point without considering the overall picture. yes the X has smaller ports and a small stock turbo but it has already been said that there seems to be abundant space to open up the ports, turbos can always be upgraded, etc. and on that same note the X is doing wonderfully with bolt ons, MBC, and NO tune at this point. IMO, for 90% of us, it is becoming increasingly clear that with the X we may very well have our cake and eat it too!!! optimism? you bet!
what we need to talk about IMO are things that you cannot so easily change like the chassis, the head design, engine geometry, the block (although it's very common to resleeve open deck blocks), etc. in that regard, stick with one story or at least put things in perspective when you make comparos.
Last edited by madfast; Feb 24, 2008 at 12:12 PM.
Edit: I also looked up the test weight of the IX MR for the same megazine and it showed 3460 for the MR iirc. The X was 3770...so thats 310lbs extra weight.
Last edited by dbsears; Feb 24, 2008 at 01:43 PM.
what i don't get is, what is your main point? are we talking stock vs stock? mildly tuned vs mildly tuned? or highly tuned vs highly tuned?
stock vs stock we all can agree the IX is faster
mild vs mild even at this early point in time, i think we can all agree that the X is better
high vs high is a toss up at this point. we know what the IX can do but we can only speculate on what the X can do.
what i have noticed with you is that you interchangeably compare different states of tune to play devils advocate. in one breath you can say the 4B11's semi closed deck will be a problem. yes when you approach like 500-600 whp. this assumes you are comparing the X at high tune vs IX at high tune.
then in the next post you talk about the smaller ports and smaller stock turbo being a restriction for the X. so now you compare them in terms of mild vs mild.
it's like you find a "fault" with the X and dwell on that point without considering the overall picture. yes the X has smaller ports and a small stock turbo but it has already been said that there seems to be abundant space to open up the ports, turbos can always be upgraded, etc. and on that same note the X is doing wonderfully with bolt ons, MBC, and NO tune at this point. IMO, for 90% of us, it is becoming increasingly clear that with the X we may very well have our cake and eat it too!!! optimism? you bet!
what we need to talk about IMO are things that you cannot so easily change like the chassis, the head design, engine geometry, the block (although it's very common to resleeve open deck blocks), etc. in that regard, stick with one story or at least put things in perspective when you make comparos.
stock vs stock we all can agree the IX is faster
mild vs mild even at this early point in time, i think we can all agree that the X is better
high vs high is a toss up at this point. we know what the IX can do but we can only speculate on what the X can do.
what i have noticed with you is that you interchangeably compare different states of tune to play devils advocate. in one breath you can say the 4B11's semi closed deck will be a problem. yes when you approach like 500-600 whp. this assumes you are comparing the X at high tune vs IX at high tune.
then in the next post you talk about the smaller ports and smaller stock turbo being a restriction for the X. so now you compare them in terms of mild vs mild.
it's like you find a "fault" with the X and dwell on that point without considering the overall picture. yes the X has smaller ports and a small stock turbo but it has already been said that there seems to be abundant space to open up the ports, turbos can always be upgraded, etc. and on that same note the X is doing wonderfully with bolt ons, MBC, and NO tune at this point. IMO, for 90% of us, it is becoming increasingly clear that with the X we may very well have our cake and eat it too!!! optimism? you bet!
what we need to talk about IMO are things that you cannot so easily change like the chassis, the head design, engine geometry, the block (although it's very common to resleeve open deck blocks), etc. in that regard, stick with one story or at least put things in perspective when you make comparos.
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...322869&page=19
Last edited by BOOSTEZ; Feb 24, 2008 at 02:38 PM.
Haha...from HKS, the tuners of the FQ-360 in the UK.
http://www.edmunds.com/apps/vdpconta...4/pageNumber=1
The official output for the FQ-360 engine is 354 hp at 6,500 rpm, and the torque production is an even more impressive 363 pound-feet at 3,500 rpm. "An output of 360 hp is about the most that's feasible from this engine," says Brigden. "If you start targeting 380-390 hp, you need to introduce new con rods and pistons, which adds dramatically to the cost."
sweet zombie jesus. did hks ever say anything like that about the 4G?
another interesting note about the FQ360:
"The turbo boost pressure has actually been reduced from 11.8 psi in the standard car to 10.3 psi in the 360." This has a negative impact on fuel consumption and exhaust emissions, but a positive effect on the power output."
another interesting note about the FQ360:
"The turbo boost pressure has actually been reduced from 11.8 psi in the standard car to 10.3 psi in the 360." This has a negative impact on fuel consumption and exhaust emissions, but a positive effect on the power output."
Last edited by 4wheel_motion; Mar 19, 2008 at 08:25 AM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 346
Likes: 0
From: springtuckey, OR
Very interesting to see. If HKS is right most people that have all the boltons and a tune should ( in hks's opinion ) be driving on barrowed time. I know the new block is aluminum, but I dont think the rods and pistons are weaker too. It also depends on how one drives the car hard and how often. I have a feeling in the end we will be seeing 425-475whp evo X's lasting and suprising most critics.
Last edited by mofoSTI; Mar 21, 2008 at 03:07 PM.
