shiv@vishnu

iTrader: (20)

Hi Guys,

Dave Coleman, senior tech editor for SCC mag, drove up to our testing facility today to dyno their long-term project EVO that the just took delivery of (directly from Mitsubishi) a few days ago. Yesterday, on HKS's all-wheel drive Dynojet, it put down 230 wheel hp. This is approx. 10 wheel hp lower than the pre-production EVO VIII they tested a few months back (but reviewed recently in SCC). Peak hp numbers aside, the power differential at 7200rpm was a whopping 35 wheel hp.

Today, it dyno'd on our Dyno Dynamics dyno at 200 wheel hp. Or about 20 wheel hp more than every other EVO 8 that we've dyno'd since its release. I suspect the pre-production car would have made nearly 210 wheel hp on our dyno.

So... in summary, the production cars we've tested seem to be making 20 horsepower less than the ringer SCC Project EVO which makes approximately 10 wheel hp less than the pre-production super-ringer test car reviewed by the magazines.

Thought you guys might find this interesting, but somewhat dissappointing. I knew from the moment I drove the car on the street that it was something special. FWIW, it had a Dec. 02 build date, making it the oldest car we've tested.

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).

Best Regards,
Shiv

PS. All tests were conducted on 91 octane.

jedinite

On the flip side, I wonder if some issue came up that required to tune down the cars a notch before release? I wonder if the production delays supposedly related to the spoiler were really something more sinister?

I seriously doubt it... just forwarding some conspiracy theory...

Alfriedesq

iTrader: (6)

Who cares ? So what if they are de-tuning the production cars and tapering the boost at the high rpms?

I just drove a production EVO today and I can verify from my butt dyno it was slow as heck - - Shiv is prob right when he is claiming like 20 HP more than the WRX on top - - it just didn't feel that fast

BUT - I think is doing this prob to avoid blowing up a whole buntch of cars

All you have to do is add a super afc and a boost conroller and you cal get that extra 20 hp very easily

gtr

iTrader: (6)

Shiv, how many miles are on that car? Perhaps the computer learned to give it more timing? Or are you sure it's a ringer?

Alfriedesq

iTrader: (6)

I was told by a higher up at that they had serious difficulty with the EPA getting the final approvals on thsi car and that was one of the main reasons why the car was delayed

enthusiast

Shiv,

Although the EVO was released just a few months ago, what are your ideas on getting the EVO up to 'ringer' par? ECU management?

Will you also be offering upgrade packages like the WRX? If so, when?

Sorry, just had to ask. As you can see I am having trouble deciding between the STi and EVO. Thanks for posting here!

shiv@vishnu

iTrader: (20)

The SCC car ran the same boost curve as all but one EVO we've tested. 19psi peak, tapering down to around 17psi. So it's not simply a tweaked boost map.

That said, and based on nearly 400 tuning runs on our own test EVO, I don't think that level of performance can be gained through ECU tuning alone-- at least not the 91 octane we're have in CA. At certainly not that consistently. We suspect that there is something going on internally with the engine. Perhaps a ported head, different cams, extrude honed turbo/exhaust/etc, or any combination of the above. There is talk about ripping off the head and camshafts to see if and how it is different from a true production car.

GTR- All the cars we've dyno'd including the SCC car had between 700 and 1000 miles on the clock. The dyno difference between the SCC car and all the other EVOs is so profound that it's almost laughable. It's stronger at all engine speeds, not just above 5500rpm where typical car-to-car, knock control-induced variance has been shown to occur. The torque curve is simply beautiful. It is impossible to dismiss as typical car-to-car variance or standard ECU learning. I'll post up dyno result on Monday comparing it to the other EVOs we've tested.

Shiv

gtr

iTrader: (6)

OH no . I have the feeling it's going to be an emission cam. No wonder our cars didn't arrive in January. If you would rip it apart and take a look at the cam please let us know.

Better yet make a cam similar to the evo 7 or that preproduction evo.

Thanks for the info Shiv, we really apprecite your post.

Jonasan50

iTrader: (1)

HHMMM, I knew something was amiss.... Thans Shiv, keep the posts coming...

Turboniam

Great info Shiv!!! Keep up the good work!

shiv@vishnu

iTrader: (20)

From what we've seen so far, engine management will play a big role in getting good power out of the EVO. Especially in octane limited conditions like California, AZ, CO and other states which are cursed with 91 octane gas. In higher hp applications, the car demands a very controlled timing curve. Something that goes right out the window when tweaking fuel with an S-AFC. We have nearly 400 runs on our own test car and things are looking quite positive. Every day, we're making progress and finding out something new about the standard ECU. It's very different from a Subaru engine control system and substantially different from EVOs of past.

As for the STi, I'll be testing one in a couple of weeks at Willow Springs. I'm sure it will be better than the regular WRX in every respect. The only advantage I see it possibly having over the EVO is power output potential on pump gas due to its big displacement advantage. On race gas, of course, I wouldn't be surpised if the EVO came on top since it probably better suited for very high boost levels. Plus, I have a feeling that the 2.5L STi motor won't be a high-revver, thus handicapping its ultimate hp-making potential in race environments.

Power output aside, the STi has to be substantially better than the regular WRX if it hopes to fare well against the EVO. In terms of handling, braking, etc,. the EVO is so far ahead of the WRX, I have a hard time even comparing the two. Two vastly different animals. I'm curious to see how the STi stacks up.

Just my 2c,
shiv

Shahul X

iTrader: (3)

its not just mitsu.... when I took my RSX home it seemed much differant than the test-car i drove and there were many theories of production "detuned" cars... give the mags better models than us and hope dont notice???lol... still thinking STi, but still got evo on the mind....

sidenote whats up with this symbol???, oh and Vishnu rocks... feel that indian power???

-Shahul X

Shahul X

iTrader: (3)

the STI wont be a high rever or CANT be... its 300 at 6,000... doesnt it have the same 7k redline as the EVO? or after ecu changes it will be able to rev higher than the larger 2.5?

-Shahul X

jrsc

Shiv, Thanks for all the Dyno testing. I can remember two incidents recently where production cars came up short on the dyno.
In 1999 Ford recalled 5,300 SVT Mustang Cobras after admitting the vehicle's engine did not produce its advertised 320 horsepower. The recall came after Mustang Cobra owners complained of a shortfall of as much as 50 horsepower. Ford traced the power problem to the engine's cast aluminum intake manifold and its exhaust system.
In 2001 a leading car magazine was concerned the Mazda Miata was not putting out its advertised 155 horsepower. When Mazda retested the production cars they found horsepower was now 142! Mazda offered to re-purchase the Miata, a $500 rebate or $800 in free factory-scheduled maintenance on those affected Miatas.
So Shiv, keep up the good work!

zstryder

iTrader: (19)

Thanks Shiv, keep the info coming! If the Evo really is more or less J-spec, I want to know where this power loss is coming from? It's quite a mystery, as we have been shown so far