Show me proof on regulations limiting the EVO
#16
Newbie
Join Date: Feb 2003
Location: Vancouver, Canada
Posts: 20
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I've heard that same statement, and even read in a certain car mag that said that it was more like a 2.6L, but as someone that knows rotaries I still can not understand how they come up with that....displacement is measure the same way in a rotary as in a piston engine except they have rotors instead of pistons and rotor housings instead of cylinders.
I agree that rotaries and piston engines are totally different and it is not fair to compare them in regards to displacement, however my point is that I didn't believe that they would restict the power per displacement and used what I know as an example. I am in no way putting down a 2.0L turbo that puts out 271hp....I think that rocks and it's still has a lot of potential. (just don't ever say that the RX-7 is a 2.6L on the RX-7 forum...you'll be shot!)
I agree that rotaries and piston engines are totally different and it is not fair to compare them in regards to displacement, however my point is that I didn't believe that they would restict the power per displacement and used what I know as an example. I am in no way putting down a 2.0L turbo that puts out 271hp....I think that rocks and it's still has a lot of potential. (just don't ever say that the RX-7 is a 2.6L on the RX-7 forum...you'll be shot!)
#18
as to the bumper issue i was reporting what i was told by what i thought to be a very good source, if I was wrong i am sorry i am trying to contact him for a mord detailed answer.
#19
Maybe if the lancer evo gets hit from behind in traffic....and it is pushed into the car in front....both bumpers would be working in conjunction...therfore 2.5 + 2.5 = 5mph....hey can we have more than 10,000 evo's please
#20
Evolved Member
Originally posted by 4wdrift
I've heard that same statement, and even read in a certain car mag that said that it was more like a 2.6L, ..... (just don't ever say that the RX-7 is a 2.6L on the RX-7 forum...you'll be shot!)
I've heard that same statement, and even read in a certain car mag that said that it was more like a 2.6L, ..... (just don't ever say that the RX-7 is a 2.6L on the RX-7 forum...you'll be shot!)
#21
Originally posted by GPTourer
I know better then to try to "inform" any hardcore fans of a certain vehicle about certain controversial "facts." You just helped me remember that it was a 2.6L figure that I had heard. Perhaps it is because there are two rotors in the Wankel used in the RX-7. And a wild Cosmo 3 rotor would be 3.9L. Do those two rotors occupy 1.3L worth of displacement, I guess?
I know better then to try to "inform" any hardcore fans of a certain vehicle about certain controversial "facts." You just helped me remember that it was a 2.6L figure that I had heard. Perhaps it is because there are two rotors in the Wankel used in the RX-7. And a wild Cosmo 3 rotor would be 3.9L. Do those two rotors occupy 1.3L worth of displacement, I guess?
#22
Originally posted by GPTourer
I know better then to try to "inform" any hardcore fans of a certain vehicle about certain controversial "facts." You just helped me remember that it was a 2.6L figure that I had heard. Perhaps it is because there are two rotors in the Wankel used in the RX-7. And a wild Cosmo 3 rotor would be 3.9L. Do those two rotors occupy 1.3L worth of displacement, I guess?
I know better then to try to "inform" any hardcore fans of a certain vehicle about certain controversial "facts." You just helped me remember that it was a 2.6L figure that I had heard. Perhaps it is because there are two rotors in the Wankel used in the RX-7. And a wild Cosmo 3 rotor would be 3.9L. Do those two rotors occupy 1.3L worth of displacement, I guess?
#23
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: LA, CA
Posts: 120
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
#24
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dirty Jersey
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
well put it this way, mitsubishi is only allowed to bring in so many cars a year, and they sell more lower cost cars and suv's so thats where their cash comes from, why bring in more evos and mess up their standard buying power
#25
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Seattle
Posts: 368
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Mitsu can bring in ANY number of cars that they want.
If they can produce 10 million cars and sell it all here, no one is stopping them.
I also call BS on that hp/litre limit.
There is however, a MPG limit that manufacturers must meet. All cars sold by Mitsu must meet an average level of Miles Per Gallon. If they exceed that amount, they pay a fine. So, Mitsu has to sell a lot of economy high MPG cars to offset the low MPG of the Evo and the SUVs.
If they can produce 10 million cars and sell it all here, no one is stopping them.
I also call BS on that hp/litre limit.
There is however, a MPG limit that manufacturers must meet. All cars sold by Mitsu must meet an average level of Miles Per Gallon. If they exceed that amount, they pay a fine. So, Mitsu has to sell a lot of economy high MPG cars to offset the low MPG of the Evo and the SUVs.
#26
I don't believe the manfacturer pays a fine, it's YOU the consumer who pays the "Gas Guzzler" tax.
In order to meet MPG and CA emissions the car is probably tuned down.
In order to meet MPG and CA emissions the car is probably tuned down.
#27
Evolved Member
Join Date: May 2002
Location: Seattle, WA
Posts: 504
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I think it's safe to say that either the hp/liter regulation doesn't exist, or the Evo is within the regulation.
"Sir! Look what I just found out! The US says absolutely no more than 134hp per liter!"
"Good lord! Do you mean to tell me that after all of our preparation for the release of this car, we missed that?! Well, I guess it's time to pull the plug on the whole project, Johnson. Which one of us is gonna alert the media? I call heads."
"Sir! Look what I just found out! The US says absolutely no more than 134hp per liter!"
"Good lord! Do you mean to tell me that after all of our preparation for the release of this car, we missed that?! Well, I guess it's time to pull the plug on the whole project, Johnson. Which one of us is gonna alert the media? I call heads."
#28
El Jefe
iTrader: (1)
Originally posted by drmosh
I don't believe the manfacturer pays a fine, it's YOU the consumer who pays the "Gas Guzzler" tax.
I don't believe the manfacturer pays a fine, it's YOU the consumer who pays the "Gas Guzzler" tax.
http://www.nhtsa.dot.gov/cars/proble...EconFY2001.pdf
Page 23.
#29
Evolving Member
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Dirty Jersey
Posts: 491
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally posted by RA29
Mitsu can bring in ANY number of cars that they want.
If they can produce 10 million cars and sell it all here, no one is stopping them.
Mitsu can bring in ANY number of cars that they want.
If they can produce 10 million cars and sell it all here, no one is stopping them.
#30
Evolved Member
That may be true, but there is an easy way around that. All the Japanese companies are building many of their cars here. Camry's, Accords, Altimas, Maximas, Galants, Eclipses, all the pickups are built here. Hell, I think some Maximas are even built to be exported back to Japan! So the engines and trannys come from Japan, to be assembled here and then the whole cars sent back. So even though there may be limits, if Mitsu ever reaches the need to produce 10 million vehicles, they'll just build more factories here.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post