yes...and what are you proving??

Background Information on DSM/MMMA
October 1985, Diamond-Star Motors was incorporated as a joint venture of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) and Chrysler Corporation.
April 1986, ground broken for the auto assembly plant in Normal, Illinois. Construction of the 1.9 million square foot facility, with an annual production capacity of 240,000 vehicles, was completed in March 1988.
Diamond-Star Motors simultaneously launched its first two mass production vehicles in September 1988: the Mitsubishi Eclipse and the Plymouth Laser.
In 1989, 90,741 vehicles were produced. A second production shift and a third shift for engineering and maintenance were added in May 1989.
In 1991, MMC purchased Chrysler's 50 percent share and the plant became a wholly-owned subsidiary of MMC. On July 1, 1995, Diamond-Star Motors was renamed Mitsubishi Motor Manufacturing of America, Inc.
In October 1995, MMMA celebrated the one-millionth vehicle - which was the first Mitsubishi Eclipse Spyder convertible. It was also the 10th anniversary of incorporation.
The plant has had three expansions since 1988; the most recent was in November 2000 when groundbreaking occurred for a 170,000 square foot expansion to Stamping and Body Shops to accommodate the new sport utility to be built at MMMA in 2003 (2004 model year ). Upon completion of this expansion, square footage will be 2.5 million.
Rich Gilligan joined MMMA in December 1998 as Executive Vice President and Chief Operating Officer and began a restructuring and turnaround of plant operations.

http://www.elitedubs.com

FS (OZ SL's 18X8 with tires): http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2151062

http://www.pagparts.com

Umm..perhaps "stock" means different thing to different people.....

i concur

You said the 4G63 isn't a Mitsubishi motor. It is. I was just trying to clarify that point.

read again then:

October 1985, Diamond-Star Motors was incorporated as a joint venture of Mitsubishi Motors Corporation (MMC) and Chrysler Corporation

http://www.elitedubs.com

FS (OZ SL's 18X8 with tires): http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2151062

http://www.pagparts.com

You ain't shiat unless you're boosting like a Dually.

Oh, and look for some hi-po 20v heads coming soon.

http://www.sc-power.com

my AEB flows 500cfm biotches (at 1" lift and 50" pressure lol)

hi-po + aba headgasket = teh win

551 FWHP
501 Torque
36PSI of boost

Stock bottom end
Stock 2G intake
1G TB
950cc injectors
Hacked MAF

Sounds like a stock motor to me.

IntegratedEngineering - Bulletproof your engine.

WTB Golf IV hatch any color will do!

Go for it.

Just the Evo 8 equipped like my car retails at almost $34K.

And frankly I could care less what the people that buy Evo/WRX think about anything.

I bet their not thinking about driving slow and hugging trees.

One last thing. I've forgotten the engine model numbers. But the engines that were in the Eclipses and so forth that sprung up in the mid to late 90's- the 2.0L and 2.4L were more like Chrysler products.

The only engine that was a real Mitsubishi engine in the Eclipse was the turbo motor. The same one from the 80's prior to the Chrysler/Mistu wedding.

I will say this. As a VW tech working beside the Mitsu techs, the Mitsu motors gave much more internal problems and timing belt problems than the Chrysler engines (except for the infamous head gasket screw up on the 2.0L and 2.4L Chrysler engines).

I distinguish the two because you could see the difference in quality and manufacturing techniques when looking at the turbo motor and the non-turbo motors. The Mitsu motors looked like higher quality (whether the failed more or not).

Disclaimer, I'm retired, this was from the mid to late 90's. I may be talking out my arse about contemporary stuff..

what are you talking about?

the amount of boost you run and the amount of power it makes depends on the turbo you've got.. 30psi on a k04 and 30psi on a t-61 are two entirely different animals.

I think there are quite a few turbos you could run 30psi without any problems.... on a stock block... personally. I don't know if that's a fact, but IMHO...

mostly what i see on here... are people talking MAD ****, who have never owned, driven in, or probably even ridden in a 500+ hp vehicle. You do not own evo's, or for the most part even a highly modified 1.8t.

"The Area that needs ALOT of help is the limited cam LIFT and DURATION you can run on the intake side because of the size of the lifter , and you will deff need to rev it to 9k,"

bull****, the head is capable of duration #'s WELL beyond what is usefull for forced induction, You can buy cams into the neighborhood of 300 degrees of duration. which is too hot for FI. Lift is also available up to 13.5 or so MM which is the same as most comperable 16v heads. This is a weak excuse, and a myth which was basically invented by the 16v boys trying to wish there head wasn't outdated.

The head flows MORE out of the box then 99% of 16v heads out there, and is most certainly in the neighborhood of the honda b series and 4g63 heads.

There are 20v motors out there being revved as high as 8500 rpms while STILL using hydraulic lifters.

How much "boost" something is running has very little effect on total horsepower output, is not a good measure of that, and basically boost gauges should be banned from automobiles because every ***** *** out there thinks they are cool because they are running a k03 at 20 psi. You set the boost to make the horsepower and torque goals you want, not the other way around.


Modified by fast_a2_20v at 8:05 PM 3-9-2005

oh and for the record the chrysler motors used by mitsubishi in their second generation were the 420a motors. the 2.4l found in the spyder is a mitsubishi motor, its a 4g64 and their cranks make great basis for strokers in dsm's

http://www.sc-power.com

Quote, originally posted by Hybrid VW »

Funny, I thought we were talking about head flow, not ET's The 16V flow charts that I've seen have generally been very linear- like a straight line up until the port just can't flow any more. Now, considering you didn't give any specifics of your Mitsu head, We'll just assume that your 225cfm number was at .500" of lift. OK, so you have an extra 15cfm of flow over a BONE STOCK AEB head at max lift, fine. What about all the other lift numbers leading up to the .500"? I'll let you in on a little secret: you only hit max and min. lift once per cam revolution, but you hit everything else in between TWICE, therefore, if you have better flow at intermediate lift, you can still fill the cylinder better with a head that "flows less". THAT'S area under the curve in reguards to head flow, which again, was what you were talking about in YOUR post that I replied to. So shut it until you come back with a flow chart to defend your babble

blah blah blah...how do you want me to get a flow chart of a head that I don't use...but I will give me till tomorrow...the head I was refering to wasn't even a 3 angle valve job...it was a DIY job @ home...which was very very minimal..

comparing that technology DSM 1g...to the technology in the EVO 4g63 is a bit of a difference...

and area under curve is dependeant on flow capacity...we are talking about flow and big turbos...vs. a ko3sport...at least I was...and all that we are talking about apples and oranges still because it has a longer stroke and can push more air...regardless of the fact of what you say about max and min...

http://www.elitedubs.com

FS (OZ SL's 18X8 with tires): http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2151062

http://www.pagparts.com

I am aware that Diamond Star Motors was a joint venture of Mitsubishi and Chrysler. I am also aware that the 4G63 was used in DSMs. In fact, I said both of these things in my first post on the subject. However, that doesn't change the fact that the 4G63 is a Mitsubishi engine. You said "EVO motor is a 4G63...that motor was made by DSM diamond sport motors...not mitsu..." I honestly don't know what you were trying to say, but it IS a Mitsubishi engine. Saying anything was "built by DSM" but "not mitsu" makes no sense at all, as DSM essentially WAS Mitsubishi (and Chrysler).

we can exceed this easily.

you are never going to get into the 300's duration on an FI motor and that is easily obtainable on the head.

that arguement is nothing more then a myth. Anybody can take a look at a cat cams catalog for 2 seconds and see this.

Modified by fast_a2_20v at 12:15 AM 3-10-2005

There are 20v motors out there being revved as high as 8500 rpms while STILL using hydraulic lifters.

How much "boost" something is running has very little effect on total horsepower output, is not a good measure of that, and basically boost gauges should be banned from automobiles because every ***** *** out there thinks they are cool because they are running a k03 at 20 psi. You set the boost to make the horsepower and torque goals you want, not the other way around.

Modified by fast_a2_20v at 8:05 PM 3-9-2005[/QUOTE]

Wow, I just learned something new, I better start lowering the boost. It does'nt have an effect on power anyway.

subaru didnt really cheat. the j-a-p version of the sti is still a 2.0 due to the wrc rules. its just that the 2.0 version is slow, so for the american market they went hte easy route to make it slightly quicker...

why in hel i j a p censored... stupidest thing i ever seen.

And j-a-p is censored because many Japanese people consider it an ethnic slur.

hwo do you know they weren't different ingineers subcontracted by chrysler and mistu...you don't so stop arguing..

http://www.elitedubs.com

FS (OZ SL's 18X8 with tires): http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2151062

http://www.pagparts.com

.100 lift : 78.44 cfm
.200 lift : 149.94 cfm
.300 lift : 204.33 cfm
.350 lift : 217.56 cfm
.400 lift : 224.91 cfm

EXHAUST

.100 lift : 84.42 cfm
.200 lift : 170.2 cfm
.300 lift : 204.88 cfm
.350 lift : 206.45 cfm

STOCK INTAKE //////////////////////// MILD PORTED INTAKE

.100 lift : 78.44 cfm ////////////// .100 lift : 82.88
.200 lift : 149.94 cfm ///////////// .200 lift : 157.29
.300 lift : 204.33 cfm //////////// .300 lift : 221.97
.350 lift : 217.56 cfm //////////// .350 lift : 235.2
.400 lift : 224.91 cfm /////////// .400 lift : 244.02

it gained 20 more cfm at .400 lift with just smoothing out the edges.

see that...smoothing out edges not even a true port...

flow charts are next tought guy

http://www.elitedubs.com

FS (OZ SL's 18X8 with tires): http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2151062

http://www.pagparts.com

the final results were 255 cfm at .400 lift on the intake, and 220 cfm at .400 lift on the exhaust

show me one 1.8T head that will do this...

http://www.elitedubs.com

FS (OZ SL's 18X8 with tires): http://forums.vwvortex.com/zerothread?id=2151062

http://www.pagparts.com

There was an article somewhere about Jon Allison's GTI that stated they sent the AEB head to a respected head shop that specializes in DSM's, and they cleaned the ports on the AEB and it outflowed their stage 3 (I believe) 4G63 head. If anyone can find the link to that, it'd be great since I can't

The biggest reason that we haven't seen huge numbers from these engines has to do with two things- money and platform. Hondas have engines that are built more like a racing engine in regards to CC shape, flow capability and rev capability. DSM's have a good engine and an AWD chassis. Not too many people want to spend the time and money to COMPLETELY go through a 1.8T to make it rev to 9000 reliably and then throw in in a FWD chassis

Oh, and my new boost gauge reads up to 999psi so