BOOSTEZ

iTrader: (1)

That doesn't mean the engine is more capable..You are assuming that every mod thereafter will yield a similar power advantage over the IX.

When the IX came out, he made similar comments about the IX having the potential to make more than the VIII (~30whp mod-for-mod). And while that was true, in the end when both cars were compared with full bolt-ons, they were roughly in the same ballpark power-wise.

atombomb33

iTrader: (28)

Hmmm...something isn't adding up about the numbers here...

On Vishnu's very own website, they claim that a IX can hit ~307whp/307wtq with their Stage One V400 package. Click the link below and pull up the dyno chart they post to support their claims for the V400 package. Mods in the package are reflashed ECU, boost solenoid emulator, downpipe, HFC, catback exhaust.

http://www.vishnutuning.com/evoIX_Stage1_v400.htm

The mods on the IX with the V400 packages are essentially the same as the mods on the X mentioned in this thread.

What doesn't add up for me is this part of their post...

So, in this thread they say that even the strongest IX with even more mods than their V400 package can't even top 300whp. But, on their website they advertise the V400 as being able to obtain over 300whp/300wtq.

I'm not bashing the X and the gains have been impressive. I'm just questioning the validity of the numbers we are seeing. Especially when other vendors are not producing numbers like this or claiming to be able to reach 400whp on the stock turbo.

Maybe I'm just looking at the information incorrectly

DirectorSe7en

iTrader: (12)

Fu*k! I can't wait any longer!

So uhhh, Shiv....You doin' test drives?

EVIL_EVO_VIII

iTrader: (5)

Martin from AMS and some other tuner already mentioned that the power is also coming from the timing maps being more aggresive stock than the Evo IX stock timing maps leaving little room to add more timing on pump gas.. This is why the X is seeing more power than a IX.. And i also may mention that no one yet knows how much power this motor can make reliably as opposed to a 4g63 than can handle tons of power on the stock bottom end.. This is a question that still remains to be answered

Guerillah

iTrader: (10)

Shiv is comparing the X to a IX that is tuned as well so that throws the timing arguement out the window.

shiv@vishnu

iTrader: (20)

You are comparing the results of different dynos (FFTEC's Mustang Dyno vs. our Dyno Dynamics dyno). FFTEC's dyno (the one we are using for X development) does read a bit lower.

Shiv

roninsoldier83

The majority of those gains from the RSX type S vs standard RSX come from higher lift/duration camshafts, as well as compression ratio (9.8:1 vs 11:1). The more aggressive cams, allow the car to make peak power at a significantly higher RPM (hence the redline being over 1000rpm higher), raising the overall peak power of the motor. I'm sure there are a few other differences that help contribute, possible differences in intake/exhaust piping diameter, to include intake/exhaust manifold designs. Although, notice, peak torque for both of those motors is VERY close, 141tq vs 143tq IIRC.

I'm not disagreeing with you in the least, there is more to peak power than just turbo sizing, but expounding a bit. If anything, I would compare the following to get a good assessment of the 4B vs 4G:

-Compression ratio
-Lift & duration of both intake & exhaust cams
-Differences in Mivec system
-Size of the valves in the head
-Differences in head design

There are a TON of things to look at, but the displacement of both motors is about the same (2.0L), so I'm assuming the bore & stroke is about the same. Those things above are really going to be the major key factors in getting gains without touching the longblock. For all anyone knows, the reasons why the 4B is seeing such good gains, could have nothing to do with the block itself, it could have larger/more free flowing intake/exhaust piping. More free flowing intake/exhaust manifold(s), larger diameter TB, FMIC (to include piping), ect ect. I guess only time will tell where the EVO X could use improvement. One thing for sure though, it's fairly good looking IMO, and is showing serious gains with minor mods... maybe one day I might be switching over to the Mitsu camp

shiv@vishnu

iTrader: (20)

Unless I'm mistaken, they aren't remapping fuel and timing. So their numbers don't represent an optimal tune.

We are already at 350whp (dynojet est) with free flow cat, cat-back and a PROcede on 91oct. And boost pressure fall to 15psi at 7000rpm. I have no doubt that there is another 40-50whp left in there through running catless and upgrading the dp, FMIC, intake, raising boost, etc,.

The X is proving to be more responsive to modding than the IX ever was. This is fact, not conjecture

Shiv

shiv@vishnu

iTrader: (20)

Waiting on some connectors before we can make a sell-able product. Not sure just how long this will take. So in the meantime I'm just testing various mods since we'd have to do that anyway.

No problem giving test drives. Maybe at the next Norcalevo.net meet? Or just PM me if you are interested in meeting up.

Shiv

spdracerut

iTrader: (2)

The power of a motor is going to depend on the volumetric efficiency of the system and the size of the turbo.

A turbo of a certain size can only flow a certain mass of air, period. From the looks of things, the overall package of the 4b11 (intake, head, cams, exhaust, etc) is more efficient than the 4G63.

So, making up some ballpark numbers and being overly simplistic, the IX turbo can flow 450hp worth, but the 4G63 is only 80% efficient, so you end up with 360hp. The X turbo can only flow 400hp, but the 4B11 package is 90% efficient, so you still end up with 360hp.

You make both motors 100% efficient, the 4G63 will make 450 and the 4B11 will make 400 because that's all their turbos can flow.

How do S2000s make 300whp on 8psi? Because the motors flow extremely well on the top end (sacrifice the low end).

By the way, the 4B11 has a shorter stroke, bigger bore than the 4g63, so it should have more power potential (can rev higher) assuming the block is built so that it doesn't grenade.

Oh yeah, I was wrong about the size of the exhaust elbow outlet; the ID is 2 1/4", not 2 1/8". But still small

Edit: changed the numbers a tad so people don't get all confused and pissy

Guerillah

iTrader: (10)

Good post. Who would have thought, a motor released in 2008 is more efficient than one initially released in 1989!

EVIL_EVO_VIII

iTrader: (5)

Good post! Now we have to see if the block will grenade or not

EvoJutsu

haha i like this quote!

cksdayoff

lol at the dumb haters who were so adamant that the evo x won't be as responsive to mods as the evo 9.

BOOSTEZ

iTrader: (1)

This makes a lot of sense.

So you are saying that they should be equal when all is said and done on the stock turbos. So where would the 50whp+ be coming from? Surely the intake isn't that restrictive, nor the highflo cat. I can see the boost only holding higher psi to redline (maybe 17psi) making more power at the upper rev range. The FMIC could take away some of that knock when trying to hold higher boost at the upper rpms, but I still can't see 50whp more from these changes.