Shiv, tell SCC to test one of your productions units VS the one gave them to see the difference.

Track testing.

 

Well, Shiv is one of THE most reputable tuners in the Subaru arena, has full support from Dyno Dynamics, and he's the only one that clearly gave out and understands the correction factors. Not only does he post his results, but he explains every little aspect so that we can all understand the "why".

I know there are a few other dynos out there, although I would argue there's only one dyno that you could compare with Shiv's (Dyno Comp's) and even that is skewed because it was not calibrated properly (in the favor of higher hp numbers). Shiv did numerous dyno tests on various Evo 8s, all purchased through random dealerships. None of these cars posted more than 180hp on 91 octane. The other dyno tests were conducted on 1 Evo so it's much harder to try and conclude where the Evo consistently stands on those. They can still be used for further improving as baselines, but don't think they give an accurate representation of what kind of power the Evo is really making.

Also, even at 93 octane the Evo 8 still posted lower than expected whp numbers to try and make the advertised 271hp. There was no 50hp difference or anything like... more like an 8whp gain or so. Still, that shouldn't even happen for a car that was to be tuned to run on 91 octane.

Also, an EI Evo 7 was dyno tested at 91 octane on Shiv's dyno and produced significantly higher hp numbers across the board, while pining severely. They then tested it at 93 octane and the pinging lessened and hp went up even further. This Evo 7 had the factory ECU and 0 emmisions work performed on it, unlike the US Evo.

The charts are all listed here:
https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sh...threadid=16484

You have to wonder, why a press car would make over 20 peak whp more (that doesn't even account for gain across the curve), on an extremely well tuned and consistent dyno, than the production version. To me it sounds like Mitsubishi is playing a dirty trick on the press, since none of them normally dyno their cars.

The hp difference between the press and prodcution car is a huge red flag for me and I plan to say something about it to them.

Mark

 

i personally don't care what the WHP is...this on shiv's dyno puts more to the ground than my current car does to the crank.

i just want an Evo and i found a dealer with one and i can't get it cause of my current car and its driving me insane....i can't sleep cause of it

 

Yea, I was a bit hard on my statement about Shiv downgrading the Evo, but when he says stuff about Mitsu bringing in a ringer:

"This brings back memories of the mid-90s when Mazda, Nissan, Mitsubishi and Toyota were providing ringer cars for magazine testing. The most notorious was the Supra which was secretly shod with R-compound tires that looked stock OE. It was also substantially more powerful than any Supra tested since then. Looks like Mitsubishi might be doing the same thing (at least as far as hp goes)."

to me thats downgrading the car. As Claudius said, if every other Evo is putting 230 down at the wheels, then either this guy is wrong or everyone else is wrong.

I understand Shiv is a well repected tuner in the WRX loop, and once again I do not mean to be a total jackass about this. I just think telling members here the Evo is putting out less power than is advertised, and that Mitsu gave SCC a ringer is not helping anyone. All I have to say is if the Evo performs like some members are telling me theirs do, then it must be damn close to 270 hp at the crank, if not more.

And onece again remember folks, last I checked there was no set methodology to dynoing a turbo car, nevermind an awd turbo car. It all matters on the load that is placed at the wheels, test conditions, vehicle condition, etc. Shiv, thanks for the info, and good luck tuning the Evo in.

 

I'm curious as to the break-in procedures done on the cars. I'll bet that the SCC Evo was broken-in hard. I have seen it before where a car will make more hp when broken-in hard, and typical break-in procedures recommended by the company are ignored. Also, I doubt any of the internals on the SCC Evo is changed.

 

The thing is, the production Evo and SCC's Evo were dynoed on the same dyno with the same settings, so in this case, it wouldn't matter if those settings were completely wrong and the production Evo REALLY puts down 450whp; SCC's Evo still put down 20 additional whp with the same dyno settings, so there is a basis for the complaint of the magazine ringer car.

Edit: not responding to your post Broeli since it wasn't there when I started typing but to the previous post. Though in a semi response, would a hard break in account for 20whp (I honestly don't know)? That seems a bit extreme, but I really don't know for sure.

 

i have learned this from these dyno "discussions"

dynos r good for onr thing and one thing only...determining the power increase from mods...a dyno is not gonna give u bragging rights of any kind. Turning a fast lap at a race track or a fast 1/4 will give u bragging rights

ok...i don't drink but i think a is needed

for me personally i think the Evo is fast enough and that it makes what the rating is and thats 270ish...and its damn fast enough for me

 

Claudius, you were at talking about the euro evo 7 getting higher numbers and pinging at 91 octane. Could this be because they use much higher octanes in europe and mitsu just upped the power more to utilize that gas rating?

 

I think a few people are still missing the point. The issue at hand is that, on 91 octane, the production EVOs we are buying at the dealership are making substantially less horsepower than the EVOs that we read about in the magazine. It doesn't matter if one prefers to believe dynojet numbers over dyno dynamics numbers. All one has to believe is that testing procedures were the same for all cars (they were) and that the dyno wasn't recalibrated between tests (it wasn't). Those are the only two assumptions that need to be accepted in order to conclude that Mitsu is providing ringer cars to magazines tests. Even if I adding a "Dynojet correction" to our dyno results, bumping all the numbers up by 15-20% in order to satisfy those who just can't see beyond the raw numbers, the issue will still be there. Nor does it matter if these stock production EVOs are found to run low 13s in the 1/4 mile. Drag strip numbers do NOT provice accurate hp numbers. That's the role of a dyno.

SCC is talking to Mitsu next week to see either why their car is making so much power or why production cars are making considerably less. This is not unusual in the world of automotobile journalism. What is unusual is that this is the first time, as far as I know, that such possible antics have been disclosed to the public. Usually, they are implied subtlely in print in such a way that only insiders will catch on.

The comment that bringing these findings to light "isn't helping anyone" suggests that not knowing the truth is better than knowing it. Needless to say, this is flawed.

I am fully aware that bringing these issues to light will induce some lost popularity points. And it's certainly not helping my relationship with Mitsubishi. But what we are looking for is some answers. And sometimes the pot needs to be stirred up in order to get them. I hope we are wrong. I hope all the other EVOs we dynod are outliners. I hope all the cars sold at the dealership are like the SCC car. But based on the evidence we've gathered so far (and we've now have well over 500 EVO dyno runs on several different cars), I'm not optimistic.

Cheers,
shiv

 

As most of you, I have also been keeping close attention to this type of post. We are all wanting to know just how much power the Evo is putting out. I am in no position to judge who is rigth or wrong, as I don't know squat about how dynos are set up.

One thing has bothered me! I have a little problem with the low numbers, not because they are lower than most other dynos. However, I remember in the first post, shiv made a comment that he had gained extra 30 horse to the wheel with some minor changes. As far as I know, he has not told us what is was done to the car ( please correct me if I am wrong). I don't blame him for not telling, as I feel he is here to eventually sell his work (only fair).

I can't help but say that I am not happy with this type of post. I am unhappy with the numbers. I think we need a get some times from real drivers around here to try to figure out what kind of power the car is putting in real life.

Thanks,

 

broeli, I'd like to know that too, but I just can't imagine that simply breaking in a car in a special way could allow for an additional 20 peak whp over numerous production Evo dynos. We're seeing pretty clear dyno numbers that point at a huge performance difference. I agree with Shiv on this one and I hope SCC decides to open the engine up and investigate.

That said, I dont' think out Evo is slow, but if Mitsubishi is advertising 271hp, a production Evo makes 180whp, and the press Evo makes 200whp, then I'd like to know why.

Mark

 

Shiv, if you uncover the truth and Mitsu is indeed trying to trick us, strike up a deal to sell evo's to evolutionm.net members for invoice!! Now that's a settlement! YEAH!

Are there any other magazines in your area that might have an evo on loan? I'm thinking now we know why they were all flown to thailand and forced to test the car in a closed track. It wasnt because the car was super special and secret, maybe they were trying to hide something? (If it's true it will break my heart as a mitsu fan.....i've wanted this car more than anything!)

Keep up the good work, Shiv!

 

Exhaust disconnected just before the cat (big back pressure reduction), air filter removed and replaced with a make-shift "airfoil" (which diverts some air around the MAF sensor, making the car run considerably leaner, albeit a bit erratic). 93 octane. That's on way to make 20-30 wheel hp if the only thing that matters is the peak hp number.

Another way to make it was to install an MBC, turn up boost a few psi, run 93 octane and disconnect the exhaust just before the cat. 30 wheel hp easy. But a little loud and not exactly streetable.

Another way was to install a simple fuel computer, lean the heck out of fueling above 5000rpm, raise boost with an MBC and run 93 octane. Easy 30 wheel hp.

Fortunately, there are other ways to get the job done as well. But these were our first crude attempts to find what the car responded to.

Cheers,
shiv

 

What I know is that Fireball said in the chatroom that he is pretty sure the US cam's are different from JDM cams. How much HP could this account for?

 

Thanks!!!


It would be sad if is doing that to us.