Mitsiman

I read that article and to be honest was not impressed with the work they have done.

Using stock manifold and not a true set of extractors with decent design is big limiting factor. Our new headers being made for the lancer will themselves produce around a 10hp improvement.

Do the throttle body, K&N Rampod filter using the part number KN57-1500, 2 1/2" exhaust with even the standard cat and a FPR unit and you should be picking up around 15 - 20hp at the wheels.

These modifications have already been proven on the mirage platform to produce similiar improvements on a smaller motor. THe 2.0 motor will be more responsive and with its greater torque should go a hell of a lot faster.

The reaility is also - not everyone can afford to spend $4000.00 + to do a decent turbo kit.

But they can afford to do the slow N/A approach (Not slow as in speed but slow approach to fitting components as they can afford to) and get strong improvements withotu any loss of reliability or power.

That has been my experience with these cars and the reason why RPW has spent more development on N/A forms of power than any other firm because that is where 90% of the people are looking to improve there power on the car.

david Thomas
www.rpw.coma.u

bahamut

. . .

pjal84

Simply posted as a reference point perhaps for those not as familiar with the powerplant.

visualkei72

Hey bahamut, you're a pretty "well-read" guy, and I'm guessing "experienced" too. Good info. But just a little advice man...Stop being so paranoid! Nobody is trying to "retort" or make a joke outta your posts. Heheh, ease up a bit! I mean, I read this, and see nothing but, blonde, brunette, redhead.. Eventually I'll have to learn firsthand when I actually get the $ to put into my car.

Oh well, happy driving.

--- Kei

Karate Man kick, punch, chop -
Eek! Man go -

<--- Smokin too much caffeine --->

CRXAudioSound

it is true that a properly built NA engine will be more reliable than a properly built TC engine...but it is possible to build a very hassle free TC engine -- like everyone says, it all comes down to the install and the tuning...

like u said bahamut, 200 HP at the flywheel is a NA tuning masterpiece for the 1.8Ls. But what does that amount to, really? Although this isn't the perfect comparison, let's compare a 200 HP Lancer to the stock 200 HP Acura RSX Type-S. Both cars weight about the same ~2750lbs, but yes, a 200 HP Lancer would have a lot more torque than the RSX, but the RSX would have a higher VTEC and a higher rev. But the RSX also has the advantage of a transmission geared for a 200 HP engine, while our stock tranny was not designed (gear ratios, etc) for a 200 HP engine. Now the RSX runs ~15.5 1/4 mile MT and 0-60 of 7 flat. Im guessing a 200 HP Lancer would run a lil slower 1/4 MT and a lil faster 0-60. Honestly, I don't find that all that fast. I personally believe HP is nothing unless it translates into real world drivability and overall usability.

And how much would it cost for this 200 HP 4g94? Probably not as much as a 200 HP 4g94 TC and properly tuned. Looking at how everyone has described this engine, its gonna take a HELLA lot of TLC to get this econo engine to push 200. I dont really feel like getting into all the details about each engine upgrade etc, but bahamut said it himself. And I hate arguing about NA vs TC cuz I got much respect for any car tuner that can do a clean effective job, whether he goes NA or TC. But I promise you that TC is the most cost effective way to produce HP. Ask any major car tuner and they will tell you that bang for buck TC is the way to go. To me NA is more of a respect thing, since its a much harder, more expensive route to get the same results. (ie "anyone can slap on a turbo and make a car fast, but it takes a true engineer to do it w/o FI")

I agree with those that say MONEY=(horse)POWER...if you dont got it, save til you do, cuz dont expect much with 1 G.

my .02

Lancer03

There is absolutely nothing wrong with a NA engine, but i believe that you can get the most power out of a turbocharged engine that is tuned properly. Turbo's greatly increase the volumetric efficiency of any engine, resulting in lots more power. A stock engine runs at about 80% volumetric efficiency while with a turbo, dished piston ect... it can be raised to 100% + efficiency. Turbo's don't rob any power from the engine either. It all depends on how much money you want to spend and how much you love cars!

cleofis

iTrader: (1)

is there a chip that you can put in the lancer??

WADADLIG_OZ

iTrader: (9)

I think you guys are missing the point that Bahamut and Mitsiman are making. OPTIONS that's what they are saying. NA is an option for the people who can't afford a turbo right at this moment but can still build a faster car over time. If you don't have all the money for a turbo right now you can buy, piece by piece, components that at the end will create something that one would be satisfied with. To use an old cliche, "the whole is greater than the sum of it's parts!"

WADAD

CRXAudioSound

"I need more HP, and I need it BADLY! I don't have the money for a turbo, but need lots more zoom."

::She wants more HP, lots more zoom
::She doesn't have the money for a turbo


"How much HP can i make staying all motor and how much would it cost?"

Like I mentioned in my earlier post, she could make ~200 HP all motor, but by the time it got there "over time," it would cost way more than a turbo. But, mentioned earlier, she doesn't have the money for a turbo. So she goes all motor with what money she has. FACT - she will not get the more HP, lots more zoom that she wants. So, the most cost effective solution would be either a) save til you have the money for a turbo, or b) pull a loan and get the turbo now, on the assumption that the internal interest rate on the loan is less than the additional cost of an all motor buildup over a turbo setup. The point that I am making is not TC is better than NA or NA is better than TC, I'm jes addressing the original question presented by suyfergirl

BTW, I was reading through my earlier post and I mentioned that the RSX has a "higher VTEC." I jes wanted to correct my error before anyone flamed me on it or started callin me a newb...VTEC is only on H&A, DSM has no VTEC...There! =P

bahamut

For a moderate class mod in NA format, you at most spend 2500 buck at 80-95% completion. For a TC setup, 2500 bucks is just a starting point before tuning and upgrading internal parts to run higher boost, unless being happy staying at 8-10 lbs of boost.

Just look at turbo kits prices, unless salvaging parts from junkyards or ebay.

Let's see:
1) cyl head work by DPR (famed for doing SR20DE or general Nissan work like Steve Millen) can be done under/around 800 bucks for stage 4 . . . stage 5 is the starting point for changing the shape of the combustion chamber (don't want to mess w/ that unless you are very tech or full blown race team).

2) Camshaft work w/ valves upgrade can be done under 550 bucks. This is the biggest thing boosting NA rating.

3) Basic mods: I/H/E - 600 bucks or less, depending on what brand

4) AFC - both TC and NA will need one to tune out rough idle or spots within the powerband (either lean or rich condition) at WOT.

There you go: around 160-170 flywheel (could be more but that's conjecture) w/ insane amount of TQ from camshaft and a fatten powerband (most important).


BTW: I'm not paranoid or thinking anyone is attacking me. Everyone has their POV, and I'm passionate about my engine and mitsu in general.

Yes, it does irks me at times when someone tries to hide snide comments, spew forth high and mighty mentality out of arrogance or plain ignorance, or just lying to save face or gain cool points amongst his/her peer. Besides, I can always bite my tongue and walk away if it's all counterproductive.

And, this is a good debate: how people hash out their POV to eventually find a truth between all the messages. This is how wisdom is gained from sorting through all the knowlege, whether it's good or bad advice. I'm not the judge on that . . . it belongs to the individual reading the info.

Just like "Readimg Rainbow" motto, "Don't take my word for it. just check it out" . . . well, something to that effect. My memory is a bit foggy digging up childhood stuff.

WADADLIG_OZ

iTrader: (9)

OK so that is about 140 to the wheels. I only have one problem with your estimate Bahamut and that is the I/H/E at 600. If you go RPW the header alone is 400 plus a decent intake which is atleast 100. If we talk about custom exhaust that's 150-200 and that adds $50-100 to that estimate. I mean we all want good quality parts right? We have also forgotten the Fuel Pressure Regulator (FPR) which another 200-300 to round it all out. I wonder how much extra HP you would get for adding the FPR. Any ideas?

WADAD

bahamut

I did not count RPW's header, because they are so specialized in their field; for some odd reason, people don't want to spend on such amount (even for quality stuff) . . . they rather go for a very expensive head unit or rims.

As for intake, people can jerry-rig their own intake, doesn't have to be the mandatory CAI.

FPR is not really necessary, IMO.

CRXAudioSound

bahamut, I have a lot of respect for your knowledge and general know how in the area of NA and DSM tuning so I hope that your last rant was not directed at me...

the prices you list are about right, give or take a couple hundred...I guess my whole argument is based on one's perception of "more HP and zoom"...to me 160-170HP and ~16.5@88MPH 1/4 mile is not more HP and zoom...but maybe to suyfergirl it is...to me your earlier explanation of the DSM NA monster indicated that ~200 HP is near the limit of the 4g94's capabilities...w/ FI, the limit is much much higher...of course, it costs more money, but upgradeabilitywise, a $2500 TC setup has more leftover potential than than a $2500 NA setup...not to say that 200 HP is the limit for NA b/c I'm sure something can be done to push it higher, but as the $$$ goes up, the dollar per HP ratio begins to favor TC...that's why in the end many will argue that TC gives you the most bang for buck...

the reason I make this argument is because in my own experience and those around me, after a while, the power never seems enough, and you are eventually gonna want more...but maybe thats jes me

bahamut

I want to make this clear. I'm not a DSM expert (just know enough to gut an engine by myself - putting everything back is another story), nor I'm stating that a mirage or lancer is in the same league/breathe as DSM. DSM'ers will kill me!!!! And no, I'm not knocking you . . . just bringing an example to research.


"the reason I make this argument is because in my own experience and those around me, after a while, the power never seems enough, and you are eventually gonna want more...but maybe thats jes me."

Yes, I agree. Again, by that time, people (human nature) will either sell their car(s) at that point (boredom) or totally get out of the scene . . . getting older and having family. Hint: spouse will kill if the husband finds more attraction/attention to his car than his family.

Mitsiman

I agree with what many people are saying in terms of a turbocharger - it does have an extremely good value for hp value and is very cost effective.

The problem is to

(A) Do the job right involves a fair number of modifications
(B) It requires a rather large sum of money up front
(C) It does reduce the life of the motor considerably and relative to the boost level

When it comes down to it though - 90% of modified cars go the N/A field for several reasons

(A) IT is all the can afford

(B) It can be done piecemeal

(C) There are significant improvements if the CORRECT and Well Researched parts are fitted. Don't fit a set of $100.00 extractors and expect to pick up 10 hp. To give an example, our Race headers on a Mitsubishi 4G93 DOHC engine in a Proton Satria picked up 25hp at the front wheels improvement. That is by no means an insignificant amount of horsepower.

(D) THe fitment of N/A mods do not reduce the life of the motor

The point being that you can pick up some extremely good HP from N/A mods and most people are satisfied with that level of horsepower improvement. Sure we would all like to drive a car with a turbo on it but many of us find (If we be honest about this) that we would never utilise the extent of a turbo mod or could not afford the extra fuel bills and maintenance expenses - expenses that do not really occur with a N/A modification.

But more importantly you can do 90% of N/A mods and still fit a turbo up later.

Everyones got there good viewpoints here but it is easy to get blinded by large horsepower applications and only seeing that as the only alternative. This is something we see everytime and when people start fitting some decent mods to the car they all come back extremely happy.

David Thomas
www.rpw.com.au