I have a 4g64 in my 91 awd DSM with a 60-1 stage 3 wheel .82ar exhaust housing, Haltech all the supporting goodies. Let me tell you this motor ROCKS. I was literally shocked at how much more torque this motor makes over the 63 I had in their. It spools the turbo so much faster now its not even funny. Its like a 16g +150hp. I am getting 30lbs of boost before 4k. How can you argue with that?

As for drivetrain breakage its all about how you drive. My mechanic has the 13th fastest DSM in the country 10.6@136 not nitrous on Kuhmo road race tires. Other than refreshing the bearings, syncros, and clutch disk every season he hasn’t had ANY drivetrain issues. The 64 makes enough power down low that with drag radials or et streets you could break stuff if you didn’t slip the clutch enough. But breakage really only applies to the guys out there every Friday at grudge nights or guys who like to do 4 wheel burnouts out of every traffic light. Most of the people that own EVOs would just enjoy all that extra power on the street. I particularly enjoy how much more power this car makes on pump gas over the 63.

MrBubbler: You mentioned Magnus. That is where I got my motor from. Right now they are in the process of making an even nicer 64 setup with longer rods and even nicer pistons to get the R/S ratio just right.

 

That could be a whole tech article in itself and should be talked about by much smarter people that me. The 1g heads have much bigger ports but this affects port velocity. For MOST DSMs a lightly ported 2g head makes better sense. In a 2.4L with a 1g head like my setup I think port velocity might not be AS important as overall flow as it is on the 2L. But as I said. What do I know.

 

Dunno if anyone's responded to this yet (I haven't read the whole thread), but if you slap a V6 into the Evo's engine bay, I tend to think it would negatively affect the excellent handling characteristics of the car.

Plenty of power can be found with the current engine or with a slightly larger 4-pot motor.

 

Double post... :P

 

2.0 or bust!

 

I still don't think it is necessary to toss out the '63 and go for more displacement. Perhaps if Mitsu offered a twinscroll 18G upgrade, or even a 20G, they need for power would be quenched. Also, now that DCX is has more controlling interest in Mitsu maybe a wholly new designed from the ground up 2.0L could be designed that still meets the classic regulations but gives you guys the torque you think your missing.

I still think going bigger displacement in America just because you can is a cop out. I personally think Subaru should be emabrrassed that they waited on Mitsu, brought out a 2.5L motor all those electro goodies and still produced a car that finsihed second in every magazine comparo I've read to Mitsu's very first offering in this market.

We're not talking drag racing here, we don't want a nose heavy twin turbo V6 in there, or a 2.7L. The light nimble car with the excellent chassis is what won the tests, not 300+hp and DCC/mivec yadda yadda yadda.

 

You provide lots of great info claudius but sometimes I really wonder WTH your talking about. The subaru has NEVER has crankshaft issues are we forgetting that it is half the length of the mitsu?