ReD2k1

The nines are such a difference from the past evos...the car reacts to basic bolt ons so much better and with a dyno flash it makes it sick...here is one of my friends with bushur TBE, MBC, Dynoflash(Tune), Intake, and Exedy twin clutch

http://videos.streetfire.net/video/6...3A7E325AE1.htm

btw 1.61 60' boost was about 23psi at redlinee
if you hear at the beginning he has a two step set at 6300 i believe which builds like 10lbs of boost at the line...

SinaloaCivic

iTrader: (1)

the only differance from the IX and the VIII is MIVEC, it added about 5-10 HP @ tops......still the same ol' 4G63 TC/IC that has been seen before.....



-PeTeY!! ::RedlinedEM2::

ReD2k1

and a bigger turbo...

SinaloaCivic

iTrader: (1)

exactly,still 5-10 WHP more....

ReD2k1

not true...evos before were dynoing 220-230 these are around 260-270 but dont take my word for it just look it up and its proven stock IXs can run high 12s as opposed to the the VIII running 13s....

exturbo6

iTrader: (7)

link doesnt work.

SinaloaCivic

iTrader: (1)

ok compare the VIII MR to the IX's and u'all see.....

ReD2k1

link is workin now sorry about that

CuRiOuSfIsH

iTrader: (13)

I can believe it, the MIVEC head probably helps the engine breath better.

ReD2k1

and see what?? in terms of power?

Jrfish007

iTrader: (3)

Did they add direct fuel injection to the EVO IX, I heard Mistu was thinking about it. That would help quite a bit for power.

Boost_Junkie

iTrader: (2)

Buscher... please...

AMS is where its at...haha just wait and see, they wont let buscher be that close...

SinaloaCivic

iTrader: (1)

295WHP in the IX instead of the 286 in the VIII MR

jackburton

iTrader: (1)

Even on a mustang dyno an evo 9 would not put down 270whp, it would have to have 318 to the crank. Why would mitsubishi underrate the car so much?

SinaloaCivic

iTrader: (1)

i have no clue....look at the civic...EX is rated @ 127, but hits about 95 to the wheels in the AUTO

ReD2k1

they make just as good as parts but when it comes to exhaust honestly all it is just stainless steel piping and three inches but yea i must admit AMS is a raw *** company especially with their new 900hp+ evo that they have from some guy in florida

mitsu underates them from japan beacuse of the hp limit that they have over there...

drive_fast_dail

I hope they used direct inject. GM sure made an amazing turbo engine (for GM at least) with the Sky Redline/Opel GT using direct injection. They released some stats just yesterday http://www.fast-autos.net/vehicles/S.../Sky_Red_Line/. 260 ftlb of torque at 2300 rpm seems nuts for a 2.0 liter, im really curious to to get more details. The next evo better be amazing if GM is nearing their specific output.

S2000man01

iTrader: (1)

according to the EVO forums, the new EVO 9 is no faster than the EVO 8 MR. and apparently even the MR isn't that much faster than the non MR 8. i thought they said it had something to do with gearing and weight.... ??

Boost_Junkie

iTrader: (2)

very true...

AMS likes Evo8s>9s

932 uncorrected ponies? o rly? thats old news

ReD2k1

i dont kno about all that my friend had 04 EVO and that thing str8 up sucked couldnt get past 13.9 with the same mods as the IX that he has now...even the guy that tunes his car from Dyno Flash, who by the way has a 9 second EVO VIII, says that the IXs are by far a better and faster car...the IXs do have a shorter gearing as well...

exturbo6

iTrader: (7)

My friend has pretty much the same thing....is that all for his list of mods?

Jrfish007

iTrader: (3)

There have been about 250,000 4G63 made with direct injection, none of them have been directly shipped to the US, yet, unless they used it in the EVO IX of course. Mazada also made a pretty nice use of it, see Mazadaspeed 6.

All Japanese manufactures have a gentlemens agreement not to make a standard production car with more than 275 hp. It has been a question for sometime when one of them will break it, but the rest still don't want to follow. So for now they simply underrate all their cars.

jackburton

iTrader: (1)

"i have no clue....look at the civic...EX is rated @ 127, but hits about 95 to the wheels in the AUTO"

No that is not what I meant. the guy said that the new evos dyno at 270whp on a mustang dyno and that wold necessitate 318hp at the crank. The new evo is rated at 286 at the crank, so why would they underrate it?

Now people are saying because of a gentlemens agreement. I am pretty sure 286 is about right. I do not think they underrate them they are just pushing ever so slightly, ten last year, maybe another ten this year.

Yeah the old MR have a six speed, like the new MR, so an old MR vs a new regular 9 is going to win. The new ones all weigh about the same with in like ten pounds, not sure about the old ones though..

S2000man01

iTrader: (1)

your friend can't drive to save his life. a 13.9 is a TERRIBLE time for an 04 EVO or EVO 8. they can run 13 flat bone stock.

SinaloaCivic

iTrader: (1)

all in all thier basically the same except for carbon fiber inside...new color seats, face lift and a MIVEC

S2000man01

iTrader: (1)

no they are underrated. we already explained to you why they'll say a certain horsepower even if it's well over that.

Jrfish007

iTrader: (3)

Yup, Japan has always underated their cars compared to Europe or American cars..... except Mazda and their RX-8.

drive_fast_dail

About the overrating/underrating. It's 276 hp because that probably it something even is kW, i dont feel like checking. Im not sure, but what I had heard is it used to be a law actually that they can go over, so all through though the 90's things thing the supra and 3000gt were underated, significantly in some cases, to be in line with the law. I think its not in place anymore, but most companies just feel like keeping on underrating. Although the new 350 Z is saying 300 hp so they are starting to give closer read outs. And about the overrating, japanese manufactures have be playing a dirty trick somewhat. They are getting hp readings out of the cars by draining fluids out of the engine so its got more power, till it blows up at least. Theyve finally change the rules so they cant do that I think the 8th gens power might be a little closer to accurate.

S2000man01

iTrader: (1)

"draining fluids out of the car to get more power"

lol man someone pulled the old wool over your eyes. if you drain an engine of fluids, that will NOT increase horsepower, in fact it would LOSE horsepower almost immediately. the physical characteristics of an engine alone would dictate this. i dont care what car you drive, if you drain the fluids, the car will not make any more power at all. did you happen to read that from some import-hating yokel?

drive_fast_dail

First of all look at hondas horsepower ratings of new vehicles they have this disclaimer:

*For 2006, Honda is complying with the new SAE standard for measuring horsepower and torque, SAE net (Rev 8/04). This new method slightly reduces a vehicle's horsepower rating and torque due to more stringent testing procedures. Many manufacturers are still using the older standard of measurement. Horsepower and torque can only be fairly compared if both vehicles were calculated using the same SAE standard.

and just read this article: http://www.detnews.com/2005/autosins...A01-283759.htm

Things have changed for 2006. I though I heard this horsepower difference was occuring because they were draining the oil, but it could be a number of other factors as well. It does mention level of oil in the crank case. Basically they made the testing cars for horsepower virtually unusable just to boost the rating a little. The new rules should finally bring a standard so we know exactly what we get.

Now they have the following rules and tests have to be third party confirmed
1. Manufacture has to state actual power of engine (no more underrating or overrating).
2. Engine must be in production form when testing (using production alternator, rated octane of gas, etc).
3. Engine must run the specified oil and at the specified oil level.