I cant wait to see vishnu's dyno result .

Alexander

www.ajrperformance.com

 

shiv, you are starting to sound like my statistics and test and measurements class. ehhhhhh. when using a test, the test should be reliable, as well as valid. a test can be reliable in that it will test a variable consistently over time, without the presence of an error score of course, all other things being equal. and a test should be valid, or basically the correctness of the inference that one draws from that measure. this being said, to correctly test this car, all conditions must be eqaul, and they must try to create a parallel test, which i might add is ONLY A THEORY! so basically, no dyno is going to retrieve the exact same results... no matter what the settings are at. too many error score factors to include: altitude, barametric pressure, temp, difference in miles among different car, difference in the cars themselves, etc. however, this new dyno graph of the evo gives me hope that it isnt underrated as much as we thought, if any.

 

Does it also give you hope that peak torque is 20% lower and doesn't occur until 2000rpm later than it should as rated by Mitsubishi and as seen on other dyno tests. Look at the graph.

I've talked to Dyno Comp. The reason the dyno results are higher than ours are two-fold: F

First, a barometer reading of 28.5 was used. Sea level, in AZ and CA, is roughly 29.9. This difference induced an unnecessary 10% positive correction. That's roughly 20 wheel hp right there.

Second, the skewed torque curve is also a result of the way too-fast ramp-up rate. While this kills low end torque and boost response (as seen in the chart, due to the car ramping up faster than the turbo can get up to speed), it augments top end hp by keeping things cooler.

Add these two deviations in testing technique together and you can see why the numbers were higher than ours.

There is always more than one way to do something. And as we've seen, each testing technique can give you very dissimiliar results. One just needs to determine which testing technique induces the most realistic load conditions to the car.

Would I subject a 1000hp Drag car to a super slow ramp up rate? No. Because it never behaves like that on the strip. Would I subject a 100hp Miata to a super-fast ramp up rate? Not likely unless I was trying to maximize performance in 1st gear or when driven over a patch of ice. The role as a tuner is to induce realistic driving condition. Often this does not generate the maximum peak hp numbers, to the dismay of many.

Cheers,
Shiv

 

That could be looked at in more than one way. Now before I go on here, I'll just say that not everyone is gonna agree with me and that's ok.

On the one-hand, I drive like I stole it and hit at least 20 psi at every on ramp. Yield signs mean get the **** out of my way because my DSM is getting on now. That's realistic driving conditions and I don't get tickets or cut people off either. I mean why "tune" if you're gonna drive like it's an econobox, much less pay a "tuner" a ton of $$ for it, lol. Buy a nice Honda for that and be happy.

On the other hand, one could say that you on purposely skewed the numbers low, so that as a tuner you can later extract more hp from it. I'm not in anyway suggesting that's what you're doing, but we are in the real world here and it could happen or be thought. Hell I thought of it. That being said, I think you should redyno her and get whatever HP you can assuming you just stole the car from the showroom floor and gotta make Vegas by midnight. Then post those numbers, you know like everyone else is gonna do. Then tune it like I would for my driving conditions, redyno it and then post those numbers.

This car has a 4G63T in her, drive her like she wants to be driven!

 

We have just installed our Headers and Grounding Kit...

Look for new install tips, pictures, and dyno graphs soon!!!

 

Posting to subscribe...

Admin... the subscribe link is broken!!.

 

Something seems very wrong with Vivid's dyno run.
If that is the real output of the EVO, then I'll pass on it.
That torque curve looks as peaky as the worst 600cc supersport motorcycle engine out there. Audi achieves better torque curves with less output but consistent output. I hope something was wrong with the test. Maybe slipping wheels, banana peels on the tires, etc...

Shiv:
Also, how do you account for your dyno numbers?
If you're showing 180hp, then the Mits AWD system is seriously sucking power as if the differetials were filled with molasses and mud.
Do you really think the EVO's output is truly that pathetic or that Mits has over rated their engine that much?

GR-VIII

 

180 wheel hp on our dyno isn't truly "pathetic". Yes, it's 10-15 wheel hp lower than what we would expect for a car rated at 271hp. But that's another story

I do think that we've finally accounted for the dyno results (ie. run-to-run variance and lower-than-expected numbers). We have reported our findings to the powers-that-be and await their conclusion.

Cheers,
Shiv

 

Shiv,

I still feel 180-190 wheel horsepower is way to low for our cars running 13.2-13.5 at 101.77-104mph on a heavy 3300lbs car. I mean wrx's with similar trap speed 99-102mph with 200+lbs less you claimed 300-310hp at the fly and 217wheel hp on your same dyno.

From the looks of things even with evo's more agressive gearing our cars have more than 271 if you claim 300+ for your stage 1 WRX's. I understand there are alot of variables but these number do not add up. Perhaps the setting your running on either the WRX or the Evo is innacurrate? So many dyno results are messed up including my own, so i just want to know why. From the look of thing 100hp on a wrx does not equal 100hp on the evo since different ramp up rate is used Ok i'm confused

 

Isn’t there a way to calculate HP from 1/4 mile times?

 

Shiv,

Wasn't the reason for lower than expected numbers due to 91 octane gas? If not, then what info did you send to the powers that be? And who are the powers that be? On Angel, the powers that be is sort of a demonic committee that rules the under and overworld. Same peope?

Speedlimit..........

 

gtr-- I've explained the use of proper ramp up rates several times now so I'm not going to do it again. The settings we use have almost no bearing on final hp/torque numbers. Nor am I going to argue with you regarding the 180-180 wheel hp we've logged on all of the production EVOs we tested on our dyno. If you believe that the cars we have tested have more power than that, fine.

With such a huge dyno database of WRXs, earlier EVOs, DSMs, etc. to look at, the new EVO VIII results have suprised and concerned us from Day 1. We believe we have identified the problem. We have reported our findings, in detail, to Mitsubishi. Whether these issues effect all EVO VIIIs or just a select few (all of which happen to be isolated in the Bay Area), I do not know. The ball is no longer in our court.

Cheers,
Shiv

 

Sorry, i didn't mean to sound rude but the results just didn't add up to it performance and it's still bothers me. Perhaps some are much faster than others or did a wonderful job with the engine curve with these cars? Whichever, your results are your result and let's see how much power you are able to add.

Any other finding besides the gas? I'm guessing mitsubishi never passed back the ball. Let us know.

Anyways i look foward to your stage 0 or stage 1 track tested times and an average hp for your stages. A lot of us arent' from california so please post non dyno tuned average hp that we would get at our door steps from your kits Underrating is better than overrating and the results will speak for itself.

.................................................. .....................

Vivid racing. Are you going to redyno base, correct? We look forward in your baseline and the horspower added for your kits.

 

You're not alone gtr. The reason this keeps coming up is because on every car forum and within every thread concerning the EVO someone throws in "the EVO is dog at 180hp". 180hp is now fact, which is not the complete story but the unqualified statement is accepted. The 180hp number was shared with us, so let's hope the "rest of the story" gets equal billing.

The EVO is not the main issue here IHMO. There is a bit of gamesmanship going on; one part is the re-calibrating of our yardstick relative to lower HP numbers which favor one dyno design over another and the other concerns accuracy of one design over another. So I’m a wee bit skeptical ‘bout this dyno posturing and remind everyone that the dyno is a tuning tool, it is still more art than science and many qualified tuners are available that will get you excellent results.


Speedlimit........

 

The above quote almost seems to suggest to me that the Evo is not making the manufacture claimed 271 hp. If this is so, can Mitsu be sued for false advertising ?
The careful wording of Shiv's post seems to suggest to me something is not quite right....

Or do you think they'll fall back on the excuse "271 hp when using 98 RON or higher" ??? Or even "271 hp if you use 93 RON" like is available on the east coast. If they fall back to 93 RON where does that leave all the states that only have 91 RON like California, Arizona Colorado etc. Surely when stating hp figures they have to quote for the lowest common denominator - ie 91 RON is available in all states and that's what they shoudl quote their hp figures for.

I know to some it might sound like splitting hairs, but in my mind if you make a claim you better well be prepared to back it up.

What do others think ??