2008 Mitsubishi Evo GSR: RRE Tunes The Garrett GT30R

If you can get Project Evo to a wheel dyno, it'd be cool to see what power at the wheels is, too.

Awesome. Can we get a sound clip of the current state? Is the turbo very audible? I can barely hear my N54's turbos spool up, and I wish they were just a little bit noisier. Since most of my driving is at steady highways speeds, however, maybe it is a good thing. :)

Go for a 116 octane race tune!

You must be talking about some other mid western state because the best you can get 93 octane and I have yet to see the E85 gas at any Kansas City KSMO station I have been too.

None the less to looks like all the work in the Evo is paying off now lets do the Evo vs every car on the lot competition!

Cool. Looking forward to the full test and dollar amount when y'all are finally done with this project.

Hmm..... if you extend the stock horsepower curve with an imaginary line out as far as the GT30 curve, maybe an 80whp difference?

Good results. Especially if you're still running a catalytic converter of any sort.

I disagree with not using a correction factor. While correction factors over large altitude differences lose accuracy, especially for boosted cars, you must use them to get useful comparisons at the same altitude (I find they still have excellent accuracy on NA cars even up to 5000+ ft of elevation).

Given RRE's location, I doubt their barometric pressure changes by more than 1% on any given day (I know ours doesn't), nor will humidity make a huge difference unless its raining outside. That just leaves temp, and that does play a big role, even before you consider that the ECU will pull even more power at higher temps due to intake temp timing retard. Thus, Mike Welch is right to use CFs. If you don't your high temperature day losses will be exaggerated.

BTW, next step, methanol injection. I'm sure Mike can get you a good deal on an AEM charge cooling system

Never seen 94, but 93 is good stuff.

subytrojan, im pretty sure those dyno numbers are at the wheels.

Methanol is a nice idea but NOS (pending legal status) is even better!

NOS is exactly the wrong thing to do on a high boost car on pump gas. NOS, when subjected to high temps becomes an accelerant (liberated oxygen). That means it speeds up the burn and increases cylinder pressures. On a car that is already on the verge of detonation, it will just make things worse. Yes, there is a cooling effect, but the downsides (on pump gas) far outweigh the upside.

Methanol, OTOH, is a high octane fuel. It has issues with corrosiveness, and poor economy, but with a secondary injection system, you only need to use it during high boost situations, so a gallon will last a long time. Plus, it has a charge cooling effect as well.

On Subys and Evos it isn't uncommon to be able realize 40-50 hp gains with methanol injection (and more boost timing) even on a 91 octane base setup.

thedream21479 +1, pretty sure that's WHP

$$$$?

Hi Shawn, I shy away from reporting weather corrected numbers for turbo cars mainly because people get wrapped around the axle fixating on and debating correction factors. Its too easy to exaggerate a corrected result by placing the temp probe by the exhaust or hot engine bay wash or other tricks. Some people get suspicious so I just avoid the correx altogether.

It's true that weather has an effect on the output of esp a highly strung turbo car, but the J1849-based (density correction) aren't quite the right tools for it. I think Mike uses an even more aggressive correction than J1849 that is intended to replicate what you'd get on a Dynojet.

With all that potential nonsense I've found it much more straightfoward for turbo cars just to report uncorrected output plus the temperature in the dyno cell, and let the reader decide how signficant that is to them.

Is it GT-R fast yet? I feel it's a little disappointing about the power gain from this size of turbo setup...Money/performance gain factor seems not so good...

@ greenpony

We could get it at Sunoco in the Detroit area. Every other station just had 93.

I understand jk. But Mike is an honest operator. And 93 F is not unreasonable this time of year as ambient in a dyno bay. Mike looks like he is using the same software version I do, which means he is probably using the older SAE correction that Dynapack includes. The newer J1349 would only show about a 1% correction under those conditions, but the key is consistency.

Yup--Mike at RRE is one of the most honest and straighforward guys in this biz. I trust him implicity.

Duh, yes, 1349 not 1849! Thanks for not ribbing me on that. I think 1349 CF on these runs gave... 3.5-4% or so? It was unusualy humid too.

See? It's happening anyway, getting all twisted around correx!

thedream21479 and dragonflight, hub dyno != wheel dyno.

Are you in the SoCal area, Mr. Church? Do you tune WRXs?

Why don't you guys do multi-map tuning (91 vs 100 vs E85) so you can see the TRUE potential of the bigger turbo. Results are kind of disappointing otherwise considering one is paying a lot of money for 30 extra horses and less everyday usability........

Yep Suby, down in Wilmington by the port of LA. 3 Dynapacks, 7 days/week, no waiting. We do Cobb and OpenECU on Subys.

JK, look at your printouts and see if it says SAE or J1349 SAE at the top of the power sheet. The J1349 uses a reference temperature of 89 deg F (or maybe higher) and an elevation of 1000 ft or something while the older SAE standard uses 59.9 F at sea level.

When using the J1349, I'll usually see a slightly negative correction on most days with it only going positive on really warm days. Its the whole reason all the OEM hp ratings changed a few years ago. Nothing actually changed, they just altered the "standard" temperature.

Std day for J1349 is 77 F, 99 kPa and 31.6% RH. We use that to correct the accel of all s/c and n/a cars.

As you know OEM turbo cars inherently compensate for ambient (they all control to load these days) to an extent. Among the locations we've tested, we've found that OEM turbo cars do indeed compensate very well within those bounds and do not require or justify J1849 correx.

Bottom line, those outlets that apply a density correx to OEM turbo cars are overstating the performance of those cars. In reality OEM turbo cars need a backpressure correction and not an ambient density correction.

But yeah a modded car is consuming that built-in margin, and is more sensitive to ambient than an OEM car.

I used raw data to generate the dyno stuff here--the PCRatio was 1.05 and change and that was the Dynapack's correx thingie. Mike and I toggled thru all the correx while on the dyno just for kicks and the J1349 was a touch lower.

Actually no, 94 octane isnt race gas, just premium. We also have 100 octane race gas at certain gas stations too.

Yeah I was being facetious. Here in the land of 91oct, your 94oct pump is exotic F1-level stuff.

The results don't sound too good to me either for the investment. We really need to see a tune with 100+ octane (for those track days) to determine the true benefits of the Garrett. At this point, I'd probably go with the FP Red and save $1k. Maybe the higher octane really is the money ticket.

Can you get to a comparison with the GTR yet? I had a GTR and have a 350hp Evo X and there's no comparison as of yet. Maybe with another 100hp....

What's your peak boost now and does it drop off much over the rpm range?

The peak power gains are not great probably because the two turbos are running similar peak boost due to being limited to 91 oct. However, like I mentioned before, possibly a max gain of 80whp at the elevated redline. And if you're racing, you're not below 5k rpms very much.

How much for a tune? I got a Protune from Jon @ HB Speed back in January 2008. I'm only running Stage 1. I think I hear a ping occasionally at WOT, especially over 6K. I also hear it more often if the A/C is on and I go WOT.

That's probably off topic for here Suby. You can visit my website and see the rates there. http://home.earthlink.net/~spchurch
Email me if you want to discuss details

The boxer 4's are somewhat prone to high rpm knock, especially near the rev limiter with a stock turbo and intercooler. That's what was killing the 08+ STIs initially (cracking pistons/ring lands). They want more timing as revs increase and torque falls off, but you have to balance that against knock. The boxers are also kind of imbalanced from cylinder to cylinder. Subaru takes out 2-4 degrees of timing on 2 of the 4 cylinders to prevent detonation.

If you're also hearing it on tip in, you may need more acceleration fueling as well.

That's one of the reasons I bought an EvoX over an STI. I4's are a lot easier to get nailed down tune wise. :)