12.00 in the AMS EVO8
Jun 6, 2003, 12:27 AM
#17
Originally posted by Alfriedesq
Nice run - looks like those cams work well on the part of the power band that we use while drag racing - 5,000 - 7,000 - and they make at least 30 hp on top - - - I'm curious to see a dyno sheet to see how the 3,000 - 5,000 rpm range is effected - if at all by the cams
Nice run - looks like those cams work well on the part of the power band that we use while drag racing - 5,000 - 7,000 - and they make at least 30 hp on top - - - I'm curious to see a dyno sheet to see how the 3,000 - 5,000 rpm range is effected - if at all by the cams
Were you guys running pump gas or race gas at the track and on the dyno?
Jun 6, 2003, 10:02 AM
#19
The cams were installed with stock cam gears at 0 degrees, we have actually found that HKS cams do not require much if any timing out depending on setup. We were using race gas so that we could keep the boost up.
Thanks for all of the positive responses,
-kris
Automotosports, Inc
Thanks for all of the positive responses,
-kris
Automotosports, Inc
Jun 6, 2003, 02:40 PM
#22
Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 21
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: 12.00 in the AMS EVO8
Originally posted by AMS
Mods to the car:
AMS stage II mods- consisting of: (a clutch will become part of our stage II kit)
AMS EVO8 downpipe-& cat-back
K&N air filter
AMS manual boost controller
AMS MAF pipe
Apexi-S-AFC
HKS 272/272 cams
Lightweight battery (10.5lbs compared to stock 35lbs battery)
Mods to the car:
AMS stage II mods- consisting of: (a clutch will become part of our stage II kit)
AMS EVO8 downpipe-& cat-back
K&N air filter
AMS manual boost controller
AMS MAF pipe
Apexi-S-AFC
HKS 272/272 cams
Lightweight battery (10.5lbs compared to stock 35lbs battery)
Jun 6, 2003, 03:04 PM
#23
Evolved Member
iTrader: (11)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: chicago
Posts: 685
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
big?evo6 turbo (btw, i thought it was an evo5, but i could be wrong)? um.. either way, it's exactly the same as an evo8 turbo..
i believe the reason for this was that they were experimenting (hush hush) with the stock evo8 turbo at the time (and it wasn't ready yet), so they had to drop this one in for the cam testing...
i'm pretty much 100% sure that there'd be no difference if they dropped in a stock evo8 turbo and ran with that instead of the evo5 one...
correct me if i'm wrong, kris...
i believe the reason for this was that they were experimenting (hush hush) with the stock evo8 turbo at the time (and it wasn't ready yet), so they had to drop this one in for the cam testing...
i'm pretty much 100% sure that there'd be no difference if they dropped in a stock evo8 turbo and ran with that instead of the evo5 one...
correct me if i'm wrong, kris...
Jun 6, 2003, 04:08 PM
#24
Evolved Member
iTrader: (20)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Danville/Blackhawk, California
Posts: 4,941
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
From the EVO 8 press release, Shuusake Inagaki "reduced the twin scroll turbine nozzle cross section" in order to improve boost response and low to mid-range torque. The downside, of course, was reduced ultimate flow capability.
No coincidence that Mitsubishi Motorsports runs EVO 6 turbos and engines on their current rally cars. At least that's what they told me and a whole bunch of other folks at an SAE meeting at Mitsu headquarters a couple of months ago. I attended the meeting with a few close friends from Garret Honeywell (Boosting Systems Group), FWIW. I'm not sure about the other EVO turbos but I am fairly confident that the EVO 8 turbo is the most flow limited. I have been led to believe that any earlier generation turbo is going to offer more hp potential. I believe the differences go beyond just exhaust side a/r.
Just my 2c,
shiv
No coincidence that Mitsubishi Motorsports runs EVO 6 turbos and engines on their current rally cars. At least that's what they told me and a whole bunch of other folks at an SAE meeting at Mitsu headquarters a couple of months ago. I attended the meeting with a few close friends from Garret Honeywell (Boosting Systems Group), FWIW. I'm not sure about the other EVO turbos but I am fairly confident that the EVO 8 turbo is the most flow limited. I have been led to believe that any earlier generation turbo is going to offer more hp potential. I believe the differences go beyond just exhaust side a/r.
Just my 2c,
shiv
Last edited by shiv@vishnu; Jun 6, 2003 at 06:21 PM.
Jun 6, 2003, 05:14 PM
#25
Former Sponsor
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Arlington Heights, IL
Posts: 793
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Why should I mention a turbo that is not on the car? FYI the turbo is an EVO5 turbo because our original turbo has been worked on by another company and they where experimenting with different configurations. I'll take pics of the turbo on the car and off the car so there are no rumors going around. I ran that turbo on the dyno and it made the exact same power/trq/ and spool up as the EVO8 turbo. It is not an EVO 6 turbo. Anyways it would not matter since the EVO8 turbine housing is still on the car, we took the v-band clamp off and just swapped the front half. I will take pics of the EVO5 hsg that is off the car right now and of the turbo that is on the car. The EVO5 turbo came off a car that was in a fire so you can see the fire marks on it. If anyone in the area wants to stop by the shop and I'll show you the turbo on the car and the EVO5 exh. hsg that is sitting on our bench still.
-Martin
-Martin
