Halleys

iTrader: (2)

this is an offical artical on the EVO 9 sorry it's in jappanese

Halleys

iTrader: (2)

sorry about the last post

veritech137

That has been on here like 200 times.

Secret Chimp

iTrader: (2)

1. The existing 2.4l engine spins in the opposite direction of the US Evo VIII 4G63's.

2. The current drivetrain (read: clutch) can barely handle the 271hp of the current car. If Mitsu upped the hp from the factory, a good number of drivetrain parts would need upgrading to meet warranty-able durability levels.

3. This type of development is very expensive and time consuming.

ie.....Reasons why I don't think we'll be seeing a 2.4L engine in the Evo anytime soon......but in no way am I saying that the 2.4L engine will never be fit into the Evo's engine bay. It's just that there is a lot of deveolopent and time that goes into upgrading a whole engine and drivetrain....esp considering the work that would need to be done to get the current 2.4L performing up to Evo levels. I don't think it's reasonable to expect this type of an upgrade in such a short timeframe.

SC~

GPTourer

If you think think around 33% of the people on NASIOC reporting pinging is "doing fairly well" then so be it. However, with all the flack Mitsubishi gets over build quality from the Subaru guys (and pretty much everybody else in the auto industry) I would suspect people wouldn't be so liberal if the situation was reversed. ECU mechanicals whatever, Subaru shouldn't have released the car if it can't run on 91 properly (which is basically what they're telling people who call in). All Mitsubishis are 50 state cars. And failing emissions was exaclt my point about those Nissan motors going away. Mitsubishi has heavy imput from DCX in calling their shots, so what does it matter if Renault is running Nissan? The Evolution isn't going to be a cash car for Mitsu, it is also a luxury image car.

ShapeGSX

I don't believe that this is true. The 4G64 in the current Eclipse GS should spin in the same direction as the Evo's 4G63.

A 4G64 block is really just a 4G63 block with a taller deck and slightly larger bores. The only thing that the 4G63T has over the 4G64 is the addition of the piston oil squirters. But those can be installed on the 4G64 if you really want them.

GPTourer

Correctamundo. If you are looking at the engines from the passenger side, they all spin clockwise. Orientation is the same too.

I think the weak stock clutch is done on purpose, perhaps things will start breaking once we start seeing 9-10 second Evos, but that's just part of the game. The same goes for any car, what's that they say, if you aren't breaking parts you aren't making enough power? If they were to come out with 305/305 Evo with the same motor, I don't think anything drastic would have to be done to the drivetrain.

As far as expensive development for an all new engine, when you've got someone with as deep of pockets as DCX backing you up, it sure isn't out of the question. Rumor has it they are working on a Formula 1 or CART engine together.

Kazoo's1st Evo8

Hey EVOSPECIALIST , i am paying for my own car at 17 years of age and no its not fun working fulltime to pay for it. and i dont appreciate you telling people in a diferent thread that i totally trashed my car. (remember now?), yea, Also saying that i lied about my break in period and raced a camaro. hey i waited to take my car to the track where i raced the camaro at 1,600 miles. Go ahead and post pictures of my messed up intercooler (if your that lame and that bored) . i have spoke to several other Evo owners who are experiencing the same problems with the serious boost leak so yes there is an issue with that, that other people have to. Remember what i said before.. YOUR NOT AN EVO SPECIALIST.......DONT TRY TO ACT LIKE ONE
thanks

JNasty4G63

Yes, I agree with that. I wasn't in anyway trying to say that the old motors were bad. I was just saying how now with newer engines, your getting almost the same, if not more, performance out of them with better emissions and better fuel economy. Sure, right now, you can tune a VG30, SR20, and 13B with ease, and there are tons of tuners to help. But thats because they've all been around for more than 15 years. Just look at the Honda K-series. People weren't too excited about that thing at first. But, just look what Hondata is now able to do with them with just ECU tuning. Some basic bolt-ons and an ECU reflash in a RSX Type-S can easily give you more than 200whp out of it. Thats real good. And, sure its not much of a big tune, but the Greddy turbo kit on the Z is a nice step. Running on relatively low boost, they get big power out of it.

It just takes time. I agree with you, most of those motors just can't make it today in this CARB regulated country we have. And, yes, that is one reason why they were replaced. But, like I said before, with newer engines using newer technology for tuning (like Variable Valve Timing) you get a motor just as good out of it, that can actually pass emissions and doesn't need gas every 4 blocks. New engines just need time to be accepted. It would be nice if they could stay around forever, but eventually, something better comes along. It will take time, but I see this new wave of engines we have being just as good given some time when the tuning is figured out.

I too would love it if the 4G63, the RB26, the 13B, and the 3SGTE would just stay around forever, and just keep getting better, but it just can't happen. They will for sure live on to us new-age enthusiasts like the old Hemi and 454BB and such live on to people who love old school muscle cars. 30 years down the road, people will be building kick *** hotrods with RBs and 4G63s and talking about how kick *** they were back in the day. It will be fun for sure to see what happens.

Hilg

evomk8

I'd say the 4G63T is the least of 's concerns, given its proven performance and longevity. I know this is a little off-topic. Sorry :P
The company seriously needs to overhaul their V6's. They are way too heavy, underpowered, fuel inefficient and... just so low tech.
The 4G64 with MIVEC is a good start, but it's only a two-stage system in a world of continuously variable valvetrains. All-aluminum engines, except for the 4G63T, would really be welcome.
Most of this should come to pass as the Global Engine Alliance goes on-line. I just hope that gets its way in block design.

jfh

iTrader: (38)

What makes you think that 350hp is too much for the driveline? A 14% driveline loss would equate to 301whp. A more reasonable 20% loss factor would yield 280whp. Dyno Dynamics dyno measurements indicate up to a 26% driveline loss factor which would mean only 259whp from 350 at the crank. There are plenty of moderately modified EVOs running in that range right now showing no signs of driveline failure. More radically modified cars have passed the 400whp barrier and are still running stock drivelines. Clutches may be wearing out from holeshots but they are not failing.

Bring on the 2.4l 350/350 motor!

GPTourer

We seem to be on the exact same page, but I want to reiterate one point. My main point was that Nissan, Mazda and Toyota had to dump their turbos, all the old GT cars are coming back as N/A. No matter how strong this new generation is, there's still nothing like the strength of a Japanese factory turbo motor and I just don't think you'll ever see 4-500 whp 350Z's running around with stock bottom ends, or 6-800 moderately built ones. I could be wrong, but I think the same old rule of thumb will apply, that it is much easier to extract power from a turbo motor then it is from a N/A one. Just like IS300 guys don't quite reach Supra turbo potential.

At any rate, I don't subscribe to the Honda camp, so if they are ballin' out of control with the K-series stuff, I could care less. I think any form auto modification is cool, but their new cars don't really appeal to me, I do think their old stuff like DA Integras and EG Civics are acceptable, but the fact that the K series has replaced the B's and H's didn't hurt my feelings at all.

N/A

I wish Mazda would bring back the old turbo 4 cylinder 1.6 or 1.8L motors to use them in the Miata. A friend and I had a beater Familia that we converted to AWD and swapped in a turbo motor so we could race it for fun. The shocked look on the ITR owners faces when the POS that they thought was FWD spins all four wheels launching or when they hear the BOV. I miss that old car.

GPTourer

But they are reliable. Every article I've read about the Galant V6 gives it praise for its smoothness and even delivery of power. Its just that they get overshadowed by Nissan's flashier motors. Now I admit the Montero Sport variants of the 6G72 need to go, but those vehicles are being slowly phased out anyway. We don't know what will be under the hood next year, but hopefully the 3.5L will be standard.

The 3.8L in the Endeavor is a great engine. SOHC is fine for it. The truck, according to MT does 7.6 0-60, which is IMO awesome for a 4000lb vehicle. It will be have 230/250 rating for the Galant, maybe they'll squeeze ten more horses out of it in exchange for a little torque for the '05 Eclipse. But there will be no DOHC head for it. It keeps the cars cheaper and simpler and easier to maintain. And less claims on that 7year 100,000 powertrain warranty we're running right now.

All the talk about quarter of million mile Hondas and Toyotas usually refer to old school Tercels, Civics, Corrllas, and early Accords and Camrys. I'd like to see how these 3.5TL motors, I-Force V8's, DOHC VVTil stuff holds up after that time.

The old DOHC 3000GT SL motor some of you guys keep ranting and raving about only made 218/205 in 1999. Why would you want in place of a 3.8L 230/250 motor? For higher revs? Okay, but we aren't in the GT business anymore, not enough people bought them when they were available. Sorry.

N/A

Whats wrong with the 6A13 motor from the Mitsubishi Legnum VR4? Isn't it a 2.4L or something like that and they get good power out of them. Not to mention the stock turbos from the 3000GT VR4 can be swapped over for those on a budget that want an upgrade. A friend of mine in NZ has a modified Legnum VR4 that he loves.