------- What turbo is on the Mitsu Evo8 ?
09-30-2004, 06:27 AM
#26
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 4,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Charlie Moua)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Charlie Moua »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">1) This <FONT COLOR="blue"> antisurge cover </FONT> can it be created to applied to any turbo out there?
2) How is the air flow controlled as in if it'll go to the DIRECT port inlet out around it?
or does it not matter?
3) is that picture of the actual Evo8 turbo?
Does anyone have any pictures?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
1) This option is more commonly found on big turbos that can push high pressure ratios. So where a typical turbo runs close to the surge line, this option will help expand the compressor map island and run more efficient at higher boost levels.
2) It doesn't. It'll flow from the area with least resistance. Usually, that'll be in the usual inlet area. But at higher boost levels, it'll draw from the exducer portion in addition. Well, in theory anyways.
3) No, that's not an EVO8 turbo. I got it off CheapTurbo.com's site. It's a Garrett GT30R.
This is a stock EVO8 turbo:
2) How is the air flow controlled as in if it'll go to the DIRECT port inlet out around it?
or does it not matter?
3) is that picture of the actual Evo8 turbo?
Does anyone have any pictures?
</TD></TR></TABLE>
1) This option is more commonly found on big turbos that can push high pressure ratios. So where a typical turbo runs close to the surge line, this option will help expand the compressor map island and run more efficient at higher boost levels.
2) It doesn't. It'll flow from the area with least resistance. Usually, that'll be in the usual inlet area. But at higher boost levels, it'll draw from the exducer portion in addition. Well, in theory anyways.
3) No, that's not an EVO8 turbo. I got it off CheapTurbo.com's site. It's a Garrett GT30R.
This is a stock EVO8 turbo:
09-30-2004, 07:24 AM
#27
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ashEVILle, NC, USSR
Posts: 4,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Charlie Moua)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Charlie Moua »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
please explaine. That statment told us nothing of how it works. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Most of the innovative R&D into internal combustion engines was done pre-WW2. I'm learning more these days looking back fifty years, reading patents, and the only modern info worth paying attention to is the wealth of online literature concerning pulsejet/turbojets; a combustor is not unlike a combustion chamber, if you're only looking for general trends to use as leads into your own research.
Bucci was playing with diesels boosting at 5 bar way back in the teens. He developed a manifold design in which you tied together no more than three cylinders, and had a camshaft duration of no more than 240 degrees, thereby avoiding overlap. By doing this, the exhaust pulse that begins when you open an exhaust valve can't bounce off the turbine restriction and induce reversion into another cylinder - because all other avialable cylinders exhaust valves are closed.
The split scroll turbine pairs cylinders 1 + 4 and 2 + 3 on the Evo 8, it's a Bucci design that shares a common turbine wheel. Elegant, modernized packaging, yes - cutting edge technology, no.
Since we're on the subject of exhaust dynamics, antiquated pre-war tech, and manifold designs... you are aware that Bucci's contemporary Birdman was the first person to steal the Full-Race long runner merge collector manifold design? A Birdman manifold is large diameter runners to mute exhaust pulses, smoothed collector transition, and long runners. Principle of it is that even if the exhaust valves have some overlap, the pulses have so far to travel up and down the runners that they can't possibly foul out their cylinder of origin, or any other cylinder.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Charlie Moua »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
If it is out dated tecnology how come they have brought it back and using it in a bad *** car & awesome motor?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Because it is slightly less outdated technology than what is currently used with other run of the mill factory turbo tunerboy ****. I'll be happy when OEM intake/exhaust designs mimic 20 year old F1 technology.
... and I don't define an OEM finally figuring out they need a robust AWD transmission in a tuner car as making it "badass," nor do I think a warmed over 4G63 with the shittiest cylinder head that design has ever seen as an awesome motor. Don't get me wrong, I *like* Evo's, a lot, but I like perspective more than hype. There are a lot of trick things about them, but it comes down to me just wanting a decent suspension design, chassis rigidity, and a robust drivetrain. Well, looks like the Evo 8 has all that - should I applaud Mitsu for finally providing the bare minimum that should be their job in the first place?
Hope you don't confuse my passion for cars and desire for futuristic technological advances from the 1940's as a personal attack on you at all. Nothing but respect on my end. I like to yell and swear a lot, it doesn't go over too well online sometimes, most people find it amusing IRL.
please explaine. That statment told us nothing of how it works. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Most of the innovative R&D into internal combustion engines was done pre-WW2. I'm learning more these days looking back fifty years, reading patents, and the only modern info worth paying attention to is the wealth of online literature concerning pulsejet/turbojets; a combustor is not unlike a combustion chamber, if you're only looking for general trends to use as leads into your own research.
Bucci was playing with diesels boosting at 5 bar way back in the teens. He developed a manifold design in which you tied together no more than three cylinders, and had a camshaft duration of no more than 240 degrees, thereby avoiding overlap. By doing this, the exhaust pulse that begins when you open an exhaust valve can't bounce off the turbine restriction and induce reversion into another cylinder - because all other avialable cylinders exhaust valves are closed.
The split scroll turbine pairs cylinders 1 + 4 and 2 + 3 on the Evo 8, it's a Bucci design that shares a common turbine wheel. Elegant, modernized packaging, yes - cutting edge technology, no.
Since we're on the subject of exhaust dynamics, antiquated pre-war tech, and manifold designs... you are aware that Bucci's contemporary Birdman was the first person to steal the Full-Race long runner merge collector manifold design? A Birdman manifold is large diameter runners to mute exhaust pulses, smoothed collector transition, and long runners. Principle of it is that even if the exhaust valves have some overlap, the pulses have so far to travel up and down the runners that they can't possibly foul out their cylinder of origin, or any other cylinder.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Charlie Moua »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
If it is out dated tecnology how come they have brought it back and using it in a bad *** car & awesome motor?</TD></TR></TABLE>
Because it is slightly less outdated technology than what is currently used with other run of the mill factory turbo tunerboy ****. I'll be happy when OEM intake/exhaust designs mimic 20 year old F1 technology.
... and I don't define an OEM finally figuring out they need a robust AWD transmission in a tuner car as making it "badass," nor do I think a warmed over 4G63 with the shittiest cylinder head that design has ever seen as an awesome motor. Don't get me wrong, I *like* Evo's, a lot, but I like perspective more than hype. There are a lot of trick things about them, but it comes down to me just wanting a decent suspension design, chassis rigidity, and a robust drivetrain. Well, looks like the Evo 8 has all that - should I applaud Mitsu for finally providing the bare minimum that should be their job in the first place?
Hope you don't confuse my passion for cars and desire for futuristic technological advances from the 1940's as a personal attack on you at all. Nothing but respect on my end. I like to yell and swear a lot, it doesn't go over too well online sometimes, most people find it amusing IRL.
09-30-2004, 07:38 AM
#29
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 4,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (J. Davis)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by J. Davis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">s... you are aware that Bucci's contemporary Birdman was the first person to steal the Full-Race long runner merge collector manifold design? </TD></TR></TABLE>
09-30-2004, 09:32 AM
#31
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (J. Davis)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by J. Davis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
nor do I think a warmed over 4G63 with the shittiest cylinder head that design has ever seen as an awesome motor. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm gonna nominate the good ole' flat head for that prize.
Of course, it's all about compromise, cost containment, blah blah... but I don't think I've ever heard of a worse flowing head design on a "modern" engine.
nor do I think a warmed over 4G63 with the shittiest cylinder head that design has ever seen as an awesome motor. </TD></TR></TABLE>
I'm gonna nominate the good ole' flat head for that prize.
Of course, it's all about compromise, cost containment, blah blah... but I don't think I've ever heard of a worse flowing head design on a "modern" engine.
09-30-2004, 10:14 AM
#32
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ashEVILle, NC, USSR
Posts: 4,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (fsp31)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by fsp31 »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
I'm gonna nominate the good ole' flat head for that prize.
Of course, it's all about compromise, cost containment, blah blah... but I don't think I've ever heard of a worse flowing head design on a "modern" engine.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Uhm... if dear sweet Mean Gringo Bob read that, your *** would be flamebait. Good old Bob does me the favor of chewing on my *** when I have a poorly thought out theory, much in the same manner as I chew on other people's asses for giving bad advice. He scorns the pent-roof 4 valve/cyl designs, as there are so many other areas of engine design that are completely lacking, that would make the same/better gains in combustion. His pet project at the moment is a twincharged turbo-roots 3.7 liter flathead I-6, smallish size block sourced from a farm tractor, done up with Ford feedback-EGR style s-tube bypass controls to keep IM and EM pressures at the correct ratio for best scavenging, charge temp, and power. It's being dropped into a 72 Muffstank, and his intended prey are the "built LS1 and modified Cobra tards." Like fish in a barrel.
I'm gonna nominate the good ole' flat head for that prize.
Of course, it's all about compromise, cost containment, blah blah... but I don't think I've ever heard of a worse flowing head design on a "modern" engine.</TD></TR></TABLE>
Uhm... if dear sweet Mean Gringo Bob read that, your *** would be flamebait. Good old Bob does me the favor of chewing on my *** when I have a poorly thought out theory, much in the same manner as I chew on other people's asses for giving bad advice. He scorns the pent-roof 4 valve/cyl designs, as there are so many other areas of engine design that are completely lacking, that would make the same/better gains in combustion. His pet project at the moment is a twincharged turbo-roots 3.7 liter flathead I-6, smallish size block sourced from a farm tractor, done up with Ford feedback-EGR style s-tube bypass controls to keep IM and EM pressures at the correct ratio for best scavenging, charge temp, and power. It's being dropped into a 72 Muffstank, and his intended prey are the "built LS1 and modified Cobra tards." Like fish in a barrel.
09-30-2004, 11:40 AM
#33
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (J. Davis)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by J. Davis »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
Uhm... if dear sweet Mean Gringo Bob read that, your *** would be flamebait. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Heh, yeah I knew I'd hear it for posting that. Flatheads are one o' those sacred cows...
But I can't help it man. It's just goofy! Valves all over to the side like that. Now I sound like a bigot...
Although a number of other factors make it a brilliant design overall. Performance-wise though... Now I'm not saying ya can't *make* it work, but there are easier head designs to start out with!
I'm sorry people. This is the worst case of thread jacking I've ever committed.
Uhm... if dear sweet Mean Gringo Bob read that, your *** would be flamebait. </TD></TR></TABLE>
Heh, yeah I knew I'd hear it for posting that. Flatheads are one o' those sacred cows...
But I can't help it man. It's just goofy! Valves all over to the side like that. Now I sound like a bigot...
Although a number of other factors make it a brilliant design overall. Performance-wise though... Now I'm not saying ya can't *make* it work, but there are easier head designs to start out with!
I'm sorry people. This is the worst case of thread jacking I've ever committed.
09-30-2004, 08:27 PM
#34
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (fsp31)
did i just see someone say the 4g63 was a badass motor????
hahah, that motor is older than the b16 and blows *******... come on, 20psi and makes 230hp to the wheels in stock trim.. give me a break.
here's how shitty mitsu is... in just tuning we have picked up around 70 on a fairly stock engine (exhaust and ems=305hp, exhaust=228) add cams = 45hp, then add intake manifold=30hp, then headwork=another 50hp, adds up to 430hp on the stock boost level with the stock turbo... i have seen it done a hundred times.. there is NO reason on earth an engine should pick up that much power from simple mods. replace the shitty *** stock turbo manifold and gain a nother good 20-25hp. 450 w/stock turbo on stock boost level.. its proven and that says to me that mitsu sucks. any car thats THAT easy to double the hp in (asside from going from na to boosta) is junk.
but yeah, joseph is right.. someone needs to invent some new ****, im sick of 1910's technology.
hahah, that motor is older than the b16 and blows *******... come on, 20psi and makes 230hp to the wheels in stock trim.. give me a break.
here's how shitty mitsu is... in just tuning we have picked up around 70 on a fairly stock engine (exhaust and ems=305hp, exhaust=228) add cams = 45hp, then add intake manifold=30hp, then headwork=another 50hp, adds up to 430hp on the stock boost level with the stock turbo... i have seen it done a hundred times.. there is NO reason on earth an engine should pick up that much power from simple mods. replace the shitty *** stock turbo manifold and gain a nother good 20-25hp. 450 w/stock turbo on stock boost level.. its proven and that says to me that mitsu sucks. any car thats THAT easy to double the hp in (asside from going from na to boosta) is junk.
but yeah, joseph is right.. someone needs to invent some new ****, im sick of 1910's technology.
10-01-2004, 04:16 AM
#36
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: MN
Posts: 12,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (JDogg)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JDogg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">did i just see someone say the 4g63 was a badass motor????
hahah, that motor is older than the b16 and blows *******... come on, 20psi and makes 230hp to the wheels in stock trim.. give me a break.
here's how shitty mitsu is... in just tuning we have picked up around 70 on a fairly stock engine (exhaust and ems=305hp, exhaust=228) add cams = 45hp, then add intake manifold=30hp, then headwork=another 50hp, adds up to 430hp on the stock boost level with the stock turbo... i have seen it done a hundred times.. there is NO reason on earth an engine should pick up that much power from simple mods. replace the shitty *** stock turbo manifold and gain a nother good 20-25hp. 450 w/stock turbo on stock boost level.. its proven and that says to me that mitsu sucks. any car thats THAT easy to double the hp in (asside from going from na to boosta) is junk.
but yeah, joseph is right.. someone needs to invent some new ****, im sick of 1910's technology.</TD></TR></TABLE>
damn.... I had no fucken idea that you could free up THAT MUCH power by simply mods (how much would that all cost BTW) ?
with those mods on same psi you make like 200whp more, does that at all make the motor more unreliable or decrease the life span of the block?
example: headwork done on a gsr head with some cams, i-h-e- does make say....20-30 more whp but does not change the life of the engine nor realiablity?
If I can go from 230whp (of stock evo8) to 450ish whp with simple bolt ons and not stress reliablity... i'm all for it!
hahah, that motor is older than the b16 and blows *******... come on, 20psi and makes 230hp to the wheels in stock trim.. give me a break.
here's how shitty mitsu is... in just tuning we have picked up around 70 on a fairly stock engine (exhaust and ems=305hp, exhaust=228) add cams = 45hp, then add intake manifold=30hp, then headwork=another 50hp, adds up to 430hp on the stock boost level with the stock turbo... i have seen it done a hundred times.. there is NO reason on earth an engine should pick up that much power from simple mods. replace the shitty *** stock turbo manifold and gain a nother good 20-25hp. 450 w/stock turbo on stock boost level.. its proven and that says to me that mitsu sucks. any car thats THAT easy to double the hp in (asside from going from na to boosta) is junk.
but yeah, joseph is right.. someone needs to invent some new ****, im sick of 1910's technology.</TD></TR></TABLE>
damn.... I had no fucken idea that you could free up THAT MUCH power by simply mods (how much would that all cost BTW) ?
with those mods on same psi you make like 200whp more, does that at all make the motor more unreliable or decrease the life span of the block?
example: headwork done on a gsr head with some cams, i-h-e- does make say....20-30 more whp but does not change the life of the engine nor realiablity?
If I can go from 230whp (of stock evo8) to 450ish whp with simple bolt ons and not stress reliablity... i'm all for it!
10-01-2004, 04:49 AM
#37
Re: (Charlie Moua)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Charlie Moua »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">If it is out dated tecnology how come they have brought it back and using it in a bad *** car & awesome motor?</TD></TR></TABLE>
...because it is cheaper to produce and implement at this time. Back twin scroll was new technology it was not economically feasable to the bean counters. (i.e. cuts too much into the profits)..........did I mention I "greatly dislike" purchasing departments?
The new tech **** is out there and is being tested. There is also a decent amount ot stuff you have not seen yet.....that has been old news for quite some time. It is all about "making the money" to manufacturers. Production platforms get the shitty end of the stick when compared to one-off prototype builds......it has always been like that.
Modified by BROOD at 6:05 AM 10/1/2004
...because it is cheaper to produce and implement at this time. Back twin scroll was new technology it was not economically feasable to the bean counters. (i.e. cuts too much into the profits)..........did I mention I "greatly dislike" purchasing departments?
The new tech **** is out there and is being tested. There is also a decent amount ot stuff you have not seen yet.....that has been old news for quite some time. It is all about "making the money" to manufacturers. Production platforms get the shitty end of the stick when compared to one-off prototype builds......it has always been like that.
Modified by BROOD at 6:05 AM 10/1/2004
10-01-2004, 05:37 AM
#38
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 4,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (JDogg)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JDogg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">here's how shitty mitsu is... in just tuning we have picked up around 70 on a fairly stock engine (exhaust and ems=305hp, exhaust=228) add cams = 45hp, then add intake manifold=30hp, then headwork=another 50hp, adds up to 430hp on the stock boost level with the stock turbo... i have seen it done a hundred times.. there is NO reason on earth an engine should pick up that much power from simple mods. replace the shitty *** stock turbo manifold and gain a nother good 20-25hp. 450 w/stock turbo on stock boost level.. its proven and that says to me that mitsu sucks. any car thats THAT easy to double the hp in (asside from going from na to boosta) is junk.
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'd like to say that it's "de-tuned" from the factory unintentually...
But are you talking about the motor in the EVO or the older motors in the DSM's? (Or are they practically the same design?)
</TD></TR></TABLE>
I'd like to say that it's "de-tuned" from the factory unintentually...
But are you talking about the motor in the EVO or the older motors in the DSM's? (Or are they practically the same design?)
10-01-2004, 07:13 AM
#39
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Finest)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Finest »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
But are you talking about the motor in the EVO or the older motors in the DSM's? (Or are they practically the same design?)
</TD></TR></TABLE>
they are basicly the same piles of steaming crap
But are you talking about the motor in the EVO or the older motors in the DSM's? (Or are they practically the same design?)
</TD></TR></TABLE>
they are basicly the same piles of steaming crap
10-01-2004, 07:20 AM
#40
Honda-Tech Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: MN
Posts: 12,561
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (JDogg)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JDogg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
they are basicly the same piles of steaming crap</TD></TR></TABLE>
HUM... if the motor is basically the same, why are evo8 better than gsx/tsi?
(besides the fact that they come stock with more power)
they are basicly the same piles of steaming crap</TD></TR></TABLE>
HUM... if the motor is basically the same, why are evo8 better than gsx/tsi?
(besides the fact that they come stock with more power)
10-01-2004, 07:25 AM
#41
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Charlie Moua)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Charlie Moua »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
why are evo8 better than gsx/tsi?
)
</TD></TR></TABLE>
who said they were better? they just stuck a bigger turbo on there and they done have the crankwalk issue of the 2nd gen's... nothing special
the 1st and 2nd gen dsm heads flow WAY better than the evo 8 head.. not saying much, but still
why are evo8 better than gsx/tsi?
)
</TD></TR></TABLE>
who said they were better? they just stuck a bigger turbo on there and they done have the crankwalk issue of the 2nd gen's... nothing special
the 1st and 2nd gen dsm heads flow WAY better than the evo 8 head.. not saying much, but still
10-01-2004, 07:41 AM
#42
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Jun 2003
Location: prosser, wa, us
Posts: 163
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (JDogg)
i still dont see why you guys say that the 4g63 is a shitty engine.I dont know of any other 4 cyl engine that can hold 450hp+ on stock internals.
10-01-2004, 07:57 AM
#43
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Feb 2000
Location: Milwaukee, WI
Posts: 4,887
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (Dlanda)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Dlanda »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i still dont see why you guys say that the 4g63 is a shitty engine.I dont know of any other 4 cyl engine that can hold 450hp+ on stock internals.</TD></TR></TABLE>
SR20DET and 3SGTE comes to mind.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JDogg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the 1st and 2nd gen dsm heads flow WAY better than the evo 8 head.. not saying much, but still</TD></TR></TABLE>
SR20DET and 3SGTE comes to mind.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JDogg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">the 1st and 2nd gen dsm heads flow WAY better than the evo 8 head.. not saying much, but still</TD></TR></TABLE>
10-01-2004, 08:19 AM
#44
Honda-Tech Member
Re: (Dlanda)
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by Dlanda »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">i still dont see why you guys say that the 4g63 is a shitty engine.I dont know of any other 4 cyl engine that can hold 450hp+ on stock internals.</TD></TR></TABLE>
haha, almost any 4cylinder that came stock w/turbo... hell i have seen a couple of hondas do it... not for long, but they did
haha, almost any 4cylinder that came stock w/turbo... hell i have seen a couple of hondas do it... not for long, but they did
10-01-2004, 10:59 AM
#45
Honda-Tech Member
Join Date: Aug 2002
Location: ashEVILle, NC, USSR
Posts: 4,417
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: (JDogg)
Keep in mind the majority of our fancy-pants technological finesse has been in developing a better grasp of materials selection, and learning how to use what we already have (cam profile design, block webbing, cooling systems, etc). Recently we - or at least the enthusiast/layman - has been learning to tweak engine control systems, and learning what engines like instead of just blowing them up and thinking displacement is god.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JDogg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
haha, almost any 4cylinder that came stock w/turbo... </TD></TR></TABLE>
With the exception of the EA82T, I agree.
<TABLE WIDTH="90%" CELLSPACING=0 CELLPADDING=0 ALIGN=CENTER><TR><TD>Quote, originally posted by JDogg »</TD></TR><TR><TD CLASS="quote">
haha, almost any 4cylinder that came stock w/turbo... </TD></TR></TABLE>
With the exception of the EA82T, I agree.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
