EVO V111 340
#31
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
Interesting comparison to the 05 STI. T-uk's father has an 05 STI without the Prodrive pack, and we wondered if the STI was a bit more stable over bumpy roads. The Evo can move about a bit over drain covers etc. Also the rear end feels inherently unstable, presumably set to give a sportier drive. It can be tricky in the wet, agree on lift off, can be quite hairy, but with the diff on gravel it seems more stable in the wet as it keeps the diff locked a bit more and for a bit longer on turn in.
#32
Originally Posted by john banks
I do not believe 26% losses at 4000 RPM. You can't apply the (already inflated IMHO) power figure adjustments to torque figures.
I had 245 WHP at 4000 RPM on one of my dyno runs, with several others over 240 WHP at 4000 RPM. With this ridiculous 0.76 adjustment that becomes 423 lbft! In reality the losses were only 9% at 4000 RPM, giving a 0.91 adjustment to 354 lbft. This was running more boost with MIVEC and a larger turbo than the VIII MR.
Some realism is needed with these torque figures.
I had 245 WHP at 4000 RPM on one of my dyno runs, with several others over 240 WHP at 4000 RPM. With this ridiculous 0.76 adjustment that becomes 423 lbft! In reality the losses were only 9% at 4000 RPM, giving a 0.91 adjustment to 354 lbft. This was running more boost with MIVEC and a larger turbo than the VIII MR.
Some realism is needed with these torque figures.
My graph is in the MLR modified under kyl3cook (271.1 atw) if you want to look
http://www.lancerregister.com/mlr_modified.php
#34
Originally Posted by john banks
Interesting comparison to the 05 STI. T-uk's father has an 05 STI without the Prodrive pack, and we wondered if the STI was a bit more stable over bumpy roads. The Evo can move about a bit over drain covers etc. Also the rear end feels inherently unstable, presumably set to give a sportier drive. It can be tricky in the wet, agree on lift off, can be quite hairy, but with the diff on gravel it seems more stable in the wet as it keeps the diff locked a bit more and for a bit longer on turn in.
#35
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I think the styles of the cars are just different and have their advantages in different situations. I think overall I prefer the setup of the Evo as whilst it feels loose it doesn't seem to move too far at the back.
#36
Originally Posted by john banks
Your wheel graphs are fine, it is the flywheel extrapolation that is flawed.
Power=torque*RPM/5252 (units BHP and lbft)
Power=torque*RPM/5252 (units BHP and lbft)
A certain tuner who operates a DD rolling road do not use the Dyno Dynamics Approx flywheel figures which are calculated automatically from the ATW figures. Instead they use some other calculation and "write" the flywheel figures on the graph using the inbuilt paint style package. If your figures on your original DD graph are not in a red box then they are b*llox and NOT supported by DD or the shootout standard.
kyl3cook, without seeing your original graph I cannot comment further on your Approx flywheel figures.
Conrad
#37
Originally Posted by john banks
I think the styles of the cars are just different and have their advantages in different situations. I think overall I prefer the setup of the Evo as whilst it feels loose it doesn't seem to move too far at the back.
Have you sampled any of the Litchfeild cars type20/25? Or a spec C? Supposed to be a bit closer in those Evo departments you like. JL
#38
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Nov 2000
Location: 32 cylinders and many cats
Posts: 18,658
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
I've not jeremy. I couldn't find a JDM Scooby to try even remotely nearby. I'd be happy with either car, just when I tried an Evo I was sucked in by the tunability and the steering/seats/chassis.
Conrad, I think this practice should stop if these are shootout graphs. I won't quibble over 15-20 BHP, it is less than the inflation I expect from the most optimistic rolling roads, but I will certainly make noises over 60 lbft differences and implausible torque figures for the engine size and boost level used.
When I said 26% losses earlier, I should correct to say 24%, with the commonly used 0.76 multiplier. The point still stands though, in the midrange the losses are only 9% at Dastek.
Conrad, I think this practice should stop if these are shootout graphs. I won't quibble over 15-20 BHP, it is less than the inflation I expect from the most optimistic rolling roads, but I will certainly make noises over 60 lbft differences and implausible torque figures for the engine size and boost level used.
When I said 26% losses earlier, I should correct to say 24%, with the commonly used 0.76 multiplier. The point still stands though, in the midrange the losses are only 9% at Dastek.
Last edited by john banks; 26 May 2006 at 11:49 PM.
#40
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Still loving the Subaru but now in an Evo 8 MR FQ320
Posts: 569
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
MR 340 for sale on private sale items on scoobynet 05 plate 9500 miles he says he will take 18K for it as he needs money for project.Hell of a car.
#43
Scooby Regular
Join Date: Apr 2004
Location: shine on you crazy diamond
Posts: 1,486
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by VXRBOY
Anybody got or had one of these, thinking about buying one, saw my03 one with 7000 miles on it, garaged, one owner, 16k. This seems a good price but is it? might it be an import etc? What is tuning capability on it?
evo 8 driver / life after owning a spec c aint all bad!!
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Wingnuttzz
Member's Gallery
30
26 April 2022 11:15 PM