Pure Tuning Evo IX Parts Dyno Testing
Dec 2, 2006, 09:12 AM
#1
Pure Tuning Evo IX Parts Dyno Testing
Mitsubishi Evolution IX MR with 1500miles on Odometer.
Parts testing will be progressive with parts being bolted on taking convenience in mind. Parts are bolted on without tuning unless specified. When we conducted these tests we tried to take it from the consumers view which was to bolt on the parts and eventually get them all tuned in.
Test are performed on a Mustang Dynamometer MD-1100-AWD-SE
Fuel: 93 octane
Atmospheric Temp: 69Deg
Relative Humidity: 55%
Stock Intercooler was retained of the duration of these tests
Stock Vs Drop In K&N Filter
Stock Vs ARC Intake Box
Stock Vs ARC Intake Box & Greddy Titanium Catback Exhaust
Stock Vs ARC Intake Box, Greddy Titanium Catback Exhaust & DC Sports Downpipe
Stock Vs ARC Intake Box, Greddy Titanium Catback Exhaust, DC Sports Downpipe, Custom Aluminum Upper Intercooler Pipe by Pure Tuning w/HKS BOV & Hallman Manual Boost Controller. The boost controller was still set at stock boost level. The primary purpose for the BC was to smooth out the boost curve which it did.
Stock Vs ARC Intake Box w/Custom Aluminum Intake Pipe, Greddy Titanium Catback Exhaust, DC Sports Downpipe, Custom Aluminum Upper & Lower Intercooler Piping by Pure Tuning w/HKS BOV, Hallman Manual Boost Controller, DN O2 Housing and Exhaust Manifold, Turbo porting, Cusco Oil Catch Can , & ECU Tuning.
Tuning was required at this point since the air fuel was starting to lean out at the bottom end. We wanted to bolt on each part listed on this last test and dyno them one at a time, but time caught up with us and with the customer deadline approching we bolted on the remaining parts.
Final Boost Level was 22psi on 93 Octane
We performed these tests to show that bolting on parts can still result in very good horsepower numbers without tuning. I still feel tuning is still one of the best modifications for any car on any setup, but most people like to purchase a number of parts before they get their car tuned since if they change or upgrade parts after the tune it will need to be tuned again. After performing these tests on this Evo IX I was shocked to see how flat and stable the A/F was on the stock computer up till the last test. I personally feel people don't give the stock computer on the Evo IX enough credit. In the future we plan to do other tests on this IX and will update everyone when the time comes.
Thanks for reading ,
Keith
PURE TUNING
Parts testing will be progressive with parts being bolted on taking convenience in mind. Parts are bolted on without tuning unless specified. When we conducted these tests we tried to take it from the consumers view which was to bolt on the parts and eventually get them all tuned in.
Test are performed on a Mustang Dynamometer MD-1100-AWD-SE
Fuel: 93 octane
Atmospheric Temp: 69Deg
Relative Humidity: 55%
Stock Intercooler was retained of the duration of these tests
Stock Vs Drop In K&N Filter
Stock Vs ARC Intake Box
Stock Vs ARC Intake Box & Greddy Titanium Catback Exhaust
Stock Vs ARC Intake Box, Greddy Titanium Catback Exhaust & DC Sports Downpipe
Stock Vs ARC Intake Box, Greddy Titanium Catback Exhaust, DC Sports Downpipe, Custom Aluminum Upper Intercooler Pipe by Pure Tuning w/HKS BOV & Hallman Manual Boost Controller. The boost controller was still set at stock boost level. The primary purpose for the BC was to smooth out the boost curve which it did.
Stock Vs ARC Intake Box w/Custom Aluminum Intake Pipe, Greddy Titanium Catback Exhaust, DC Sports Downpipe, Custom Aluminum Upper & Lower Intercooler Piping by Pure Tuning w/HKS BOV, Hallman Manual Boost Controller, DN O2 Housing and Exhaust Manifold, Turbo porting, Cusco Oil Catch Can , & ECU Tuning.
Tuning was required at this point since the air fuel was starting to lean out at the bottom end. We wanted to bolt on each part listed on this last test and dyno them one at a time, but time caught up with us and with the customer deadline approching we bolted on the remaining parts.
Final Boost Level was 22psi on 93 Octane
We performed these tests to show that bolting on parts can still result in very good horsepower numbers without tuning. I still feel tuning is still one of the best modifications for any car on any setup, but most people like to purchase a number of parts before they get their car tuned since if they change or upgrade parts after the tune it will need to be tuned again. After performing these tests on this Evo IX I was shocked to see how flat and stable the A/F was on the stock computer up till the last test. I personally feel people don't give the stock computer on the Evo IX enough credit. In the future we plan to do other tests on this IX and will update everyone when the time comes.
Thanks for reading ,
Keith
PURE TUNING
Last edited by Keith-PURE Tuning; Dec 4, 2006 at 02:21 PM. Reason: more to post
Dec 2, 2006, 08:45 PM
#3
Evolving Member
iTrader: (18)
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: MI
Posts: 188
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Nice detail on each step. I pulled the GReddy Ti off my VIII and will be puting that on the IX in the Spring. I would be interested in seeing a sheet with a test pipe added to your bolt ons list, if you are going that route.
Trending Topics
Dec 3, 2006, 10:12 AM
#8
Evolved Member
iTrader: (42)
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: St. Charles, IL
Posts: 2,502
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by Evo IX MR
Very nice. I can't believe there is such a big difference between the K&N drop in and the ARC box. Crazy. Is it well known that the ARC makes pretty big power?
Bump for a great vendor
Dec 3, 2006, 11:37 AM
#10
Keith,
Have you ever done a similar series of bolt-ons and dyno testing with an EVO VIII?
If so, please point me there. If not, do you have enough experience with the VIII to think that the results would be similar?
I'm asking because it is my understanding that the VIII is much richer AFR, and does not have the flat AFR that you mentioned the IX has - VIII is enriched as rpms increase.
Thanks,
Jim
Have you ever done a similar series of bolt-ons and dyno testing with an EVO VIII?
If so, please point me there. If not, do you have enough experience with the VIII to think that the results would be similar?
I'm asking because it is my understanding that the VIII is much richer AFR, and does not have the flat AFR that you mentioned the IX has - VIII is enriched as rpms increase.
Thanks,
Jim
Dec 3, 2006, 11:50 AM
#11
Evolved Member
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Istanbul
Posts: 619
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just playing the devils advocate - the increase in power might partially be from higher AFR numbers due to the change in flow pattern. Stock car has very low AFRs, so anything that makes it leaner would make considerable power.
Originally Posted by Evo IX MR
Very nice. I can't believe there is such a big difference between the K&N drop in and the ARC box. Crazy. Is it well known that the ARC makes pretty big power?
Dec 4, 2006, 04:34 AM
#12
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Panama City, FL
Posts: 820
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
+1 I'd like to see the same test on an VIII!
I still cant believe the increase with just a catback.... the stock muffler must be terrible!
I read a post about the flapper in the muffler and how it was suppose to help low end... clearly not the case in the dyno sheet above.
Good job!
I still cant believe the increase with just a catback.... the stock muffler must be terrible!
I read a post about the flapper in the muffler and how it was suppose to help low end... clearly not the case in the dyno sheet above.
Good job!
Dec 4, 2006, 10:13 AM
#14
I unfortunately don't have an exact comparison like this for the Evo VIII. I do however have a few graphs of end results from a few different setups including our road racing Evo VIII.
As for the test including the DC Sports downpipe, I did forget to mention it deleted the cat for the test.
As for the increase in HP from the car leaning itself out from parts being bolted on it......That's the whole point. The Evo IX does have an extremely rich stock A/F curve and since they all come that way, then that becomes the basis from which they are modified.
Cams were not part of this build because the customer didn't want them. I could make more horsepower from more dyno tuning, cams , head work, FMIC, Intake manifold, etc-etc-etc. This was the build we had discussed that best suited our customers desire. I have pulled out a little under 350whp from the IX turbo at 23psi with cams, without head work and on pump gas so obviously there is room for improvement.
All tests are on pump gas unless specified.
This is an 05 Evo 8 with 25,000 miles. The first curve is a stock baseline. The second is with a Blitz NUR Spec Catback Exhaust, DC Sports Downpipe, ARC Intake Box, Custom Aluminum Upper Intercooler Pipe, MBC, and a DN O2 Housing. The third is all the same mods and Custom Aluminum Intake and Lower Intercooler Pipe, FMIC, Magnus Intake Manifold, DN Exhaust Manifold and ECU Tuning.
This shows the first and third runs from the previous graph and the last is our 03 Evo VIII road race car with the IX turbo and a set of 272cams with only A/F tuning at 23psi. Our car does run the AEM EMS and no MAF. The part I like the most is you can see the IX turbo w/cams actually gained bottom end HP and Torque over the VIII turbo w/stock cams.
This is the same base line with our Evo VIII road race car on pump @ 23psi (run2), and race gas @ 26psi (run3). The race gas curve is fully tuned in on the AEM computer. You can see the potential of the IX turbo. We plan on turning up the boost to 30-33psi with our cylinder head work when we get the chance.
This is the Evo IX engine bay.
Pure Tuning Evo VIII engine bay.
I'll post a graph with the Evo VIII vs Evo IX on pump gas to show thw benefits of the MIVEC System when I get back.
Hope this helps a little.
Thanks,
Keith
As for the test including the DC Sports downpipe, I did forget to mention it deleted the cat for the test.
As for the increase in HP from the car leaning itself out from parts being bolted on it......That's the whole point. The Evo IX does have an extremely rich stock A/F curve and since they all come that way, then that becomes the basis from which they are modified.
Cams were not part of this build because the customer didn't want them. I could make more horsepower from more dyno tuning, cams , head work, FMIC, Intake manifold, etc-etc-etc. This was the build we had discussed that best suited our customers desire. I have pulled out a little under 350whp from the IX turbo at 23psi with cams, without head work and on pump gas so obviously there is room for improvement.
All tests are on pump gas unless specified.
This is an 05 Evo 8 with 25,000 miles. The first curve is a stock baseline. The second is with a Blitz NUR Spec Catback Exhaust, DC Sports Downpipe, ARC Intake Box, Custom Aluminum Upper Intercooler Pipe, MBC, and a DN O2 Housing. The third is all the same mods and Custom Aluminum Intake and Lower Intercooler Pipe, FMIC, Magnus Intake Manifold, DN Exhaust Manifold and ECU Tuning.
This shows the first and third runs from the previous graph and the last is our 03 Evo VIII road race car with the IX turbo and a set of 272cams with only A/F tuning at 23psi. Our car does run the AEM EMS and no MAF. The part I like the most is you can see the IX turbo w/cams actually gained bottom end HP and Torque over the VIII turbo w/stock cams.
This is the same base line with our Evo VIII road race car on pump @ 23psi (run2), and race gas @ 26psi (run3). The race gas curve is fully tuned in on the AEM computer. You can see the potential of the IX turbo. We plan on turning up the boost to 30-33psi with our cylinder head work when we get the chance.
This is the Evo IX engine bay.
Pure Tuning Evo VIII engine bay.
I'll post a graph with the Evo VIII vs Evo IX on pump gas to show thw benefits of the MIVEC System when I get back.
Hope this helps a little.
Thanks,
Keith
Last edited by Keith-PURE Tuning; Dec 4, 2006 at 10:18 AM. Reason: mistake
