New Evo IX is a beast...
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: Pembroke Pines, Florida, US
Rep Power: 0 
New Evo IX is a beast...
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...
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...
Last edited by ReD2k1; Apr 12, 2006 at 02:14 PM.
Ill punch you in the face before you visit Myspace
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
From: Reppin' 559 Fresno/Clovis, California
Rep Power: 0 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::
-PeTeY!! ::RedlinedEM2::
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: Pembroke Pines, Florida, US
Rep Power: 0 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....
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 320 
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.
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: Pembroke Pines, Florida, US
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by Boost_Junkie
Buscher...
please...
AMS is where its at...haha just wait and see, they wont let buscher be that close...
please...AMS is where its at...haha just wait and see, they wont let buscher be that close...
Originally Posted by jackburton
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?
Last edited by ReD2k1; Apr 12, 2006 at 06:39 PM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Rep Power: 0 
Originally Posted by Jrfish007
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.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 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.... ??
Thread Starter
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 102
Likes: 0
From: Pembroke Pines, Florida, US
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by S2000man01
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.... ??
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 320
Originally Posted by 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.
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.
Originally Posted by jackburton
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?
Last edited by Jrfish007; Apr 13, 2006 at 10:00 AM. Reason: Automerged Doublepost
"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..
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..
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Originally Posted by 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...
Ill punch you in the face before you visit Myspace
iTrader: (1)
Joined: Sep 2005
Posts: 456
Likes: 0
From: Reppin' 559 Fresno/Clovis, California
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by jackburton
"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..
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..
all in all thier basically the same except for carbon fiber inside...new color seats, face lift and a MIVEC
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400
Originally Posted by jackburton
"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.
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.
My SL65 rim, because a rim is all I can afford
Hey! Look At Me!! I'm a Supporting Member!!
iTrader: (3)
Joined: Mar 2004
Posts: 4,818
Likes: 0
From: Medina Ohio
Rep Power: 320 Yup, Japan has always underated their cars compared to Europe or American cars..... except Mazda and their RX-8.
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Rep Power: 0 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.
Joined: Dec 2001
Posts: 10,031
Likes: 0
From: Milwaukee, Wisconsin, US
Rep Power: 400 "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?
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?
Registered!!
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 239
Likes: 0
From: Cincinnati, OH
Rep Power: 0
Originally Posted by S2000man01
"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?
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?
*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.
