What happend to outdoing the Evo??

I know I shouldn't do it.

Yeah. It'll only cause more problems.

But I have to. It's my duty as a sarcastic asshole.

*ahem*

Collage student! Glorious!!!

That is all.



Hey at leased you are honest about it.

Hey, don't worry about it. It's just because I'm too funny for words.

Uh we are taliking about refined power delivary here, not just how much you can put to the ground. If that were the case we would be taking about top fuel dragsters.

Top fuel dragsters/funny cars did cross my mind (there is a lot more technology in these cars than first meets the eye, they are quite an amazing piece of engineering), but even omitting those and talking about refinement (basically not including the engine or clutch in the drivetrain package), that still leaves F1 cars, kit cars, off-road vehicles, and rally specials.

you are right I have never raced on a legal track, I am a broke collage student just trying to make ends meet

I'm a broke college student too, I work during the day to fund my hobby and school at night in pursuit of a mechanical engineering degree.

You are half wrong on the swaybars thing; they do INCREASE maxamum cornering grip

A larger rear sway increases oversteer, which makes the car want to slide earlier rather than stick, so less lateral acceleration. The only time it would increase is if your car has just a gross amount of understeer from the factory that you get rid of, but even then, too stiff will result in less grip due to oversteer.

despite your bias anti-Evo agenda

What? I'd piss my pants to just have the chance to drive an EVO on track! If I had $30,000 to spend on a car tomorrow, I'd be hard pressed to decide between the STi and EVO. It'd probably come down to which dealership would give me the best deal.

A larger rear sway increases oversteer, which makes the car want to slide earlier rather than stick, so less lateral acceleration. The only time it would increase is if your car has just a gross amount of understeer from the factory that you get rid of, but even then, too stiff will result in less grip due to oversteer..[/QUOTE/]


Like I said a swaybar increases traction to a point, and past that point they reduce traction. How much is just right? It all depends on your suspention type and center of gravity and road conditions if the road/track is very smooth there is no such thing as too much swaybar hence solid axle cars can race aginst independents on a smooth track (all Nascar racers use solid axles) but not on a street course. Think of it this way the only reason that stiffer suspensions loose grip is because they transmit vibration from one side of the car to the other, and if there is (virtualy) no vibration to transmit the stiffer suspension has no disadvantage. Just ask yourself one quick question, does a car loose more grip if it is stiff, or if it is riding on just the outer edge of its tires. Please notice that I did say that you are half right, but at the same time my point is the other half. And if you want to see how a car with too little swaybar handles just look at musclecars. Huge amounts of body roll, wide ranges of radical camber changes, very poor cornering (even on totaly smooth tracks). I saw a recent test of a 1969 Camaro and even on modern tires (wider than stock) it only cornered as .75Gs. Besides the Evo also has a very, and some would argue overly stiff, consistant suspention, it's swaybar did not hurt it's cornering, it is unfortunete that auto mags don't messure body roll and chassie deflection. Oh and before we get off the subject of cornering and precision handeling we have to take into account toe and (negative) camber. These are the fine tuning aspects of a suspension that separate the OK engineers from the great ones. I suppose that only a run around the track will tell for sure if the STis refinment will make up for the Evos extra grip, it is a tough call. By the way if you read any real tuner magazines you will see that when the make a cornering car usualy the first thing that they add is a stiffer swaybar and it does raise cornering grip on the avarage sportscar on the avrage track.

You brought up one good point here: alignment

From the factory, the STi has 0 camber and 0 toe front and rear. 0 toe is OK, 0 camber is bad. With a decent alignment, the STI gains more than the EVO.

I won't go into a long detailed suspension theory analysis here, as it would take far too much time, however simply adding stiffer sway bars will help to a point, but stiffer springs are usually the better option in cars where terminal understeer (read: FWD) is not a problem.

The reason stiffer swy bars are done first is because they're inexpensive and easy to do, and there's not a whole lot you can do to screw things up. If you don't know what you're doing and don't take everything into account, changing the spring/shock combination can do more harm than good.

Body roll is a function of the springs. Stiffer springs = less roll.

An independent rear axle setup is better than a solid rear axle if done properly. The only car that has both available (Ford Mustang), has terrible geometry for the IRS, and in that one case, a valid argument can be made that the solid axle is better because of the limitations put on the original design of the IRS.

I still use the stock sway bars on the 944, and when it was running, it was very well balanced. Stiffer springs with a proper adjustment of the f/r spring rate distribution provided a much bigger performance gain than a stiffer sway bar does.

You brought up one good point here: alignment

From the factory, the STi has 0 camber and 0 toe front and rear. 0 toe is OK, ) camber is bad. With a decent alignment, the STI gains more than the EVO.

I won't go into a long detailed suspension theory analysis here, as it would take far too much time, however simply adding stiffer sway bars will help to a point, but stiffer springs are usually the better option in cars where terminal understeer (read: FWD) is not a problem.

The reason stiffer swy bars are done first is because they're inexpensive and easy to do, and there's not a whole lot you can do to screw things up. If you don't know what you're doing and don't take everything into account, changing the spring/shock combination can do more harm than good.

Body roll is a function of the springs. Stiffer springs = less roll.

An independent rear axle setup is better than a solid rear axle if done properly. The only car that has both available (Ford Mustang), has terrible geometry for the IRS, and in that one case, a valid argument can be made that the solid axle is better because of the limitations put on the original design of the IRS.

I still use the stock sway bars on the 944, and when it was running, it was very well balanced. Stiffer springs with a proper adjustment of the f/r spring rate distribution provided a much bigger performance gain than a stiffer sway bar does.



Before you get everybody confused let me make one thing clear negative camber is not always a bad thing, in fact it is used to increase the contact patch of the outside tire during hard cornering, hence most race cars are set with a few degrees of negative camber, secondly toe is also used in racing to adjust the cornering behavior of a car, so it too is not always bad. I just finnished reading about a professional build up of an STi, the entire objective of was to out corner the Evo, after six thousand dollars in wheels, sticky tires, sway bars bushings and springs, they finaly got the STi to match the Evo, but they said that the stock the Evo is much better than the STi. If you want to read it yourself I Will get you the magazine date while I am at work today. I don't know about you but I would rather save the 6k+instalation and just get a stock Evo. By the way The also had an Evo on stock internals pushing over 600hp with no excessive wear, (after over 450 dyno pulls it still had a leakdown of only 2-3% most engines are never that good) show me an STi with that kind of power potential on stock internals. Like I said before "What happened to outdoing the Evo?" I am not saying that the STi is bad but it is no match for the Evo on the track or the strip.

Where is the ej25 proven? It just came out a few months ago! I don't even know of a professional racer that uses it yet.

weeelll....Irish Mike's Racing produces NA EJ25 motors that run around 250hp at the flywheel for race use. And the EJ25 didn't come out a few months ago...Try a few months ago IN 1998. And they're the #1 engine choice in small personal aircraft.

Of course it's had its problems, but so has the 4g63, remember crankwalk? or how about that balance shaft problem where the b-belt would snap and screw the timing in the 1g's. i don't know if the EVO had these problems, but they were pretty big problems stateside. so whatever happened on the other side of the world is irrelevant.

and don't start with transmissions, b/c i remember a certain recall on the T-case for the awd dsm's. a leaky seal due to manufacturer oversight/defect?

Of course many wrx and 2.5rs owners have broken gears in their tranny, but i haven't heard of 1 case in the STI or a broken transmission other than a race related casualty. And on the same note, i personally know 2 ppl who had EVOs that had to be taken back to the dealer TWICE b/c the clutches were shattering. They said it's a common thing with the EVO.

so when it's all said and done...these companies have had their ups and downs, both companies derive their technical prowess from racing programs, which is a great thing since it's tried and true in the absolute harshest environment, and both companies aren't surviving soley on EVO/STI sales. So at the end of the day, it pretty much comes down to person bias. Having owned a dsm and a subaru for a few years each i know who i would go to.

I just finnished reading about a professional build up of an STi, the entire objective of was to out corner the Evo, after six thousand dollars in wheels, sticky tires, sway bars bushings and springs, they finaly got the STi to match the Evo, but they said that the stock the Evo is much better than the STi. If you want to read it yourself I Will get you the magazine date while I am at work today. I don't know about you but I would rather save the 6k+instalation and just get a stock Evo. By the way The also had an Evo on stock internals pushing over 600hp with no excessive wear, (after over 450 dyno pulls it still had a leakdown of only 2-3% most engines are never that good) show me an STi with that kind of power potential on stock internals. Like I said before "What happened to outdoing the Evo?" I am not saying that the STi is bad but it is no match for the Evo on the track or the strip.

not to sound like i'm bashing EVOs...or you or anything....but it sounds like you're making this stuff up. 450 dyno pulls? what OCD weirdo has dynoed their EVO 450 times? do you realize how insanely long that would take? and spending $6,000 in only tires, sway bars, bushings and springs? were they made of gold? I think someone at that magazine was writing shit off and pocketing the cheese. Seriously...just b/c some hack spends 6 grand on suspension parts for an STI (i didn't even know there was 6 grand in parts for the STI on the market) doesn't mean the car will turn anyone driving it into a supreme driving master.

and now to add fuel to the fire...if the evo is so damn hot, then how come i didn't see it mentioned on the Road and Track 'best car of 2004 you vote' this morning on Speedvision? Just askin...;)

and spending $6,000 in only tires, sway bars, bushings and springs? were they made of gold?

:lol: no kidding. I don't even know how it's possible to spend that much money on just those parts. You could replace all that on 5 STi's for that much money.

600hp on stock internals is a time bomb, if you don't see that I don't know what to say. Also I'm pretty sure that's just BS anyways, since I remember seeing the stock block (with aftermarket cams) EVO record, from AMS at 525 whp. Even that's a time bomb.

Jared, you just bumped a month old thread to revive an argument, do you seriously have nothing better to do? You could have at least used that month to find something decent to bring to the table. But no, just more magazine racing. Stop being a troll.

I corrected a typo in my last post. What I meant to say was 0 camber is bad, and more camber meaning more negative camber (about 1.5 deg negative on most street cars) is good. The theoretical ideal is to have negative camber on the outside (loaded) tires and positive camber on the inside (unloaded) tires. If you look at a Nextel (ugh) cup car or a CART car set up for an oval, you will see the left side tires have positive camber and the right side tires have negative camber. What you want for toe is based on what you want to do with the car. 0 toe is theoretically ideal, but due to other factors, usually a little front toe out and a little rear toe in is what is used in most race cars.

With a decent set of DOT track tires ($700) and nothing else, the STi will outhandle the EVO on street tires in the dry.

:lol: no kidding. I don't even know how it's possible to spend that much money on just those parts. You could replace all that on 5 STi's for that much money.

600hp on stock internals is a time bomb, if you don't see that I don't know what to say. Also I'm pretty sure that's just BS anyways, since I remember seeing the stock block (with aftermarket cams) EVO record, from AMS at 525 whp. Even that's a time bomb.


I was gonna say when i had a set of fly cut EVO pistons in my 1g, it was crossing into dangerous territory tuning at a guestimated ~425 at the crank. granted my ecu tuning skills arent the GREATEST, but they'll turn into little metal turds pushing out that much 525WHP for 450 dyno pulls.

not to sound like i'm bashing EVOs...or you or anything....but it sounds like you're making this stuff up. 450 dyno pulls? what OCD weirdo has dynoed their EVO 450 times? do you realize how insanely long that would take? and spending $6,000 in only tires, sway bars, bushings and springs? were they made of gold? I think someone at that magazine was writing shit off and pocketing the cheese. Seriously...just b/c some hack spends 6 grand on suspension parts for an STI (i didn't even know there was 6 grand in parts for the STI on the market) doesn't mean the car will turn anyone driving it into a supreme driving master.

and now to add fuel to the fire...if the evo is so damn hot, then how come i didn't see it mentioned on the Road and Track 'best car of 2004 you vote' this morning on Speedvision? Just askin...;)



Read the February edition on Modified magazine and never accuse me of lying again I never do. The suspention that they installed in that STi was a special variable pressure air suspention that costs a pretty penny that was in the Feburary edition of HCI I think I'll look it up again. The people at road and track as pushovers and would not know a good car if it bit them, it was either them or motor trend that in the 70s called the Vega the car of the year! Can you say payoff? Well I let the numbers speak for themselves.

I corrected a typo in my last post. What I meant to say was 0 camber is bad, and more camber meaning more negative camber (about 1.5 deg negative on most street cars) is good. The theoretical ideal is to have negative camber on the outside (loaded) tires and positive camber on the inside (unloaded) tires. If you look at a Nextel (ugh) cup car or a CART car set up for an oval, you will see the left side tires have positive camber and the right side tires have negative camber. What you want for toe is based on what you want to do with the car. 0 toe is theoretically ideal, but due to other factors, usually a little front toe out and a little rear toe in is what is used in most race cars.

With a decent set of DOT track tires ($700) and nothing else, the STi will outhandle the EVO on street tires in the dry.


Although 0 toe is ideal in a perfect car people use it to compensate for poor weight balences in their production car. And even racers use it to fine tune their cars to the track that they are racing on.

Read the February edition on Modified magazine and never accuse me of lying again I never do. The suspention that they installed in that STi was a special variable pressure air suspention that costs a pretty penny that was in the Feburary edition of HCI I think I'll look it up again. The people at road and track as pushovers and would not know a good car if it bit them, it was either them or motor trend that in the 70s called the Vega the car of the year! Can you say payoff? Well I let the numbers speak for themselves.

if by people at road and track you mean Jay Leno, IRL drivers, all the people who showed up at the test drives and all the people voting then i guess yah, that's pretty pushover. and modified magazine hardly has the clout any real auto mag. does. sorry but i'm not into hearing about the latest fart pipe to hang from some gay wings west honda at NOPI.

Read the February edition on Modified magazine and never accuse me of lying again I never do. .

i do believe you may have made a rather large error. seeing how it's January 15th, the feb. edition isn't out yet, which means you're speaking of feb. 2003. If that's the case the STI wasn't even stateside besides for the few that came over for dealer and press testing. That would mean they held a regular WRX up against the EVO. I've read a few other magazines that have done the same exact thing. Of course the evo would rape a WRX. These unfair reviews and the fact that the evo came over a few months before the STI means that all non critical mag. stand readers saw wrx and assumed it was the sti. *shakes head* please clear this one up...

Although 0 toe is ideal in a perfect car people use it to compensate for poor weight balences in their production car. And even racers use it to fine tune their cars to the track that they are racing on.

Changing the toe has nothing to do with compensating for poor weight balances. It is used to compensate for changes in suspension geometry at the various points in suspension travel. Toe change is used as a fine-tuning device in racing, but there are other things that gat changed before suspension geomentry in the finer stages of tuning a race car for a particular track. Spring rates, camber, tire pressures, shock dampening rates, and sway bar rates are all changed more frequently than the toe is in race cars.

i do believe you may have made a rather large error. seeing how it's January 15th, the feb. edition isn't out yet, which means you're speaking of feb. 2003. If that's the case the STI wasn't even stateside besides for the few that came over for dealer and press testing. That would mean they held a regular WRX up against the EVO. I've read a few other magazines that have done the same exact thing. Of course the evo would rape a WRX. These unfair reviews and the fact that the evo came over a few months before the STI means that all non critical mag. stand readers saw wrx and assumed it was the sti. *shakes head* please clear this one up...


I did not make a typo the feb issue is already out go to Kmart and see for yourself. Reserch the facts before you assume that I am wrong. And they did compere the STi read it yourself.

Changing the toe has nothing to do with compensating for poor weight balances. It is used to compensate for changes in suspension geometry at the various points in suspension travel. Toe change is used as a fine-tuning device in racing, but there are other things that gat changed before suspension geomentry in the finer stages of tuning a race car for a particular track. Spring rates, camber, tire pressures, shock dampening rates, and sway bar rates are all changed more frequently than the toe is in race cars.


Do you know anything about cars???? If your car is understearing due to too much weight over the front wheels (poor weight ballence) you can make it ballenced or even overstear by adding negative toe (problem fixed). Learn this stuff before you assume that I am wrong. Yes other things get changed before toe but that makes it no less important, that is just the sequence of fine tuning.

ok big guy. i found a Modified Magazine at the gas station...it was the Feb. issue with teh 850hp rx-8 on the cover. i looked at every page and there was no comparison with an STI and EVO8. There were articles on both, but no comparison. what magazine are you reading this in? My friends and I are interested in this.

:lol: I noticed the same thing, I swear I must've went through that magazine 5 or 6 times just looking for this comparison. I couldn't even find anywhere where they even talked in detail about the mods on the STi. Not to mention the EVO was the very one I mentioned earlier from AMS with 525 whp.

hahah...you're right! that thing was hella modified. the ppl in the gas station were like...."are you going to buy that?"
I've been out of touch with these 'import' magazines. I couldnt tell whether they were selling legitimate nice parts, or just a new wave of rice parts. like a carbon fiber intake manifold...it looks cool and for a second i was like...wow cool, but then i thought...what the hells the point?

Do you know anything about cars???? If your car is understearing due to too much weight over the front wheels (poor weight ballence) you can make it ballenced or even overstear by adding negative toe (problem fixed). Learn this stuff before you assume that I am wrong. Yes other things get changed before toe but that makes it no less important, that is just the sequence of fine tuning.

Yes I do know something about cars, and I think you missed my point. Changing the toe can affect the balance of the car, but it has NOTHING to do with what the weight distribution of the car is. Putting more toe out on the rear of a car (to an extent) will make it oversteer more regardless of what the weight distribution of the car is. The changes you mention will have the same effect on the car if 65% of the weight of the car is on the front axle (such as in a FWD production based car) or if 35% of the weight is on the front axle (as are many Formula cars are). Watch any CART or F1 race where there is a slow tight hairpin (Long Beach, Magny Cours, Monaco, Laguna Seca, or Spa to name a few), and the cars understeer terribly, and it's not due to too much front weight bias. Mire toe out would help reduce understeer, though for various reasons, the car is faster if it does understeer in very slow corners (this gets into the role of aerodynamics, which is another topic entirely). My argument is that for the same suspension geometry, changing the toe of the car will have the same effect on a car regardless of what the wieght distribution of that car is. The reason why this is not done very often in real race cars is that the more toe you have (either in or out), the more rolling resistance there is, and the more drag there is for the engine to overcome. A car will accelerate the fastest (though not fastest through the corners) with zero toe and zero camber at the drive wheels (a case can be made for the car accellerating faster with more camber on the non-drive wheels), and the closer that you can keep it to that, the better off you are. That is why other things usually get changed first. Toe changes are used most often in stock-level classes where limited changes are allowed, but in every racing series and every racing car I have ever dealt with (extensive enough to not list it here), once the ideal toe is determined, it has been very consistent track to track, and other things on the car are changed to change the balance of the car before the toe is changed. For Auto-x, things are slightly different, as usually a lot of front toe-out is put in the car to help the transitions between corners, but again, this is the same regardless of the weight distribution of the car, and is less of an issue because straight line acceleration can basically be ignored because there is none.

In conclusion:

Will changing the toe affect the balance of the car? Yes.
Is the toe change dependent on the weight distribution of the car? No.
Is toe change used in racing to account for differences between different tracks? Not often.

ok big guy. i found a Modified Magazine at the gas station...it was the Feb. issue with teh 850hp rx-8 on the cover. i looked at every page and there was no comparison with an STI and EVO8. There were articles on both, but no comparison. what magazine are you reading this in? My friends and I are interested in this.


Must have been the Jan issue sorry I don't have it in front of me at the moment but I will get the info while I am at work tonight to be for sure.

Yes I do know something about cars, and I think you missed my point. Changing the toe can affect the balance of the car, but it has NOTHING to do with what the weight distribution of the car is. Putting more toe out on the rear of a car (to an extent) will make it oversteer more regardless of what the weight distribution of the car is. The changes you mention will have the same effect on the car if 65% of the weight of the car is on the front axle (such as in a FWD production based car) or if 35% of the weight is on the front axle (as are many Formula cars are). Watch any CART or F1 race where there is a slow tight hairpin (Long Beach, Magny Cours, Monaco, Laguna Seca, or Spa to name a few), and the cars understeer terribly, and it's not due to too much front weight bias. Mire toe out would help reduce understeer, though for various reasons, the car is faster if it does understeer in very slow corners (this gets into the role of aerodynamics, which is another topic entirely). My argument is that for the same suspension geometry, changing the toe of the car will have the same effect on a car regardless of what the wieght distribution of that car is. The reason why this is not done very often in real race cars is that the more toe you have (either in or out), the more rolling resistance there is, and the more drag there is for the engine to overcome. A car will accelerate the fastest (though not fastest through the corners) with zero toe and zero camber at the drive wheels (a case can be made for the car accellerating faster with more camber on the non-drive wheels), and the closer that you can keep it to that, the better off you are. That is why other things usually get changed first. Toe changes are used most often in stock-level classes where limited changes are allowed, but in every racing series and every racing car I have ever dealt with (extensive enough to not list it here), once the ideal toe is determined, it has been very consistent track to track, and other things on the car are changed to change the balance of the car before the toe is changed. For Auto-x, things are slightly different, as usually a lot of front toe-out is put in the car to help the transitions between corners, but again, this is the same regardless of the weight distribution of the car, and is less of an issue because straight line acceleration can basically be ignored because there is none.

In conclusion:

Will changing the toe affect the balance of the car? Yes.
Is the toe change dependent on the weight distribution of the car? No.
Is toe change used in racing to account for differences between different tracks? Not often.


Please notice that I originaly said that toe can compensate for a poor weight ballence, not change the weight ballence. So I have been right all along. You just misunderstood.

OK, toe can compensate for a poor weight distribution, but that's not generally what toe changes are intended to do. What a toe change does and what it affects has nothing to do with the weight distribution of the car. Saying that changing toe compensates for weight distribution is like saying a box of [insert name of least favorite cereal] that's not past the expiration date makes the quality of food at the supermarket it's in good. It is a very small part of what is actually going on and not really taken into consideration when the big picture is considered. I have never considered the weight distribution of the car when changing the toe of a car, it has always been for some other purpose, such as minimizing tire wear or changing how the car reacts to direction changes at various points of the suspension travel. Technically you are correct, but it's not done in the real world, which is the point I'm arguing.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally Posted by Jared_80
Although 0 toe is ideal in a perfect car people use it to compensate for poor weight balences in their production car. And even racers use it to fine tune their cars to the track that they are racing on.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

The above quote says the reason people change toe is to account for poor weight distribution. Although theoretically they can, in the real world the reasons that the toe of a car is changed has virtually nothing to do with the weight distribution of the car, as there are a lot of other much more significant factors that need to be taken into account when a toe change is made. Going from zero to 2 mm front toe out on a Porsche 996 (weight distribution 60% rear) will have an almost identical effect as going from zero toe to 2mm front toe out on a 1998 Ford Mustang (weight distribution 60% front), and the same goes for just about any Strut type front suspension, regardless of the weight distribution.

uhhum like I have already stated, toe affects the handeling of the car and can make a car that is prone to understearing (usualy a for too much weight in the front) balenced or even overstear if so desired. You have made you point you do have a basic grasp of what toe is good for you. Now if you will just please move along I am tierd of repeating myself and having you tell me that I am wrong when I am saying the exact same thing as you just presented in a different manner. You are presenting it from the technical standpoint while I think of it in the practical applacation standpoint. (although I know the technical as well) You misunderstood what I was trying to say because you never thought of it like that, fine just quit trying to correct me from the technical side, because the are both right. Oh and you are right about the toe affecting both cars identicaly, but the mustang needs it more because of it's poor weight distrabution. Like I said compensate for poor weight balences.

hahah...you're right! that thing was hella modified. the ppl in the gas station were like...."are you going to buy that?"
I've been out of touch with these 'import' magazines. I couldnt tell whether they were selling legitimate nice parts, or just a new wave of rice parts. like a carbon fiber intake manifold...it looks cool and for a second i was like...wow cool, but then i thought...what the hells the point?

By the way that carbon fiber intake manifold has much shorter than stock intake runners which all techheads know increase high RPM volumetric efficency, and thus hp. In addition to that the carbon fiber makes it several pounds lighter than the stocker. If you are going to make racing parts might as well make them out of the best materilas right? One of the keys to being a good tuner is being able to spot the differences between poser crap and real proformance parts. The fact that you are very critical of shiny objects is a big step in the right direction. But take my word on it that manifold is the real deal although it is not street legal. About half of what is advertised in tuner mags in my oppinion is either no better than stock or so slightly better that it makes no noticable difference, and thus is not worth the money. If you want to see what really works check out what the REAL racers use.

Sorry to go off topic and be an asshole, Jared, but as a college student you have horrible grammatical skills. Where do you go to school?

Jared,

Since you seem to think that weight distribution is the primary factor in setting toe on a car, can you then explain to me why both the Porsche 996 and the Mustang run virtually identical front toe out settings (6mm total front toe out on a 996 on 18" wheels, 3/16" total toe out on the Mustang with 17" wheels) with totally different weight distributions?

While you're at it, can you explain why a Porsche 993 with virtually identical weight distribution to the 996 runs 4 mm total toe out in the front on 18" wheels, a significant percentage difference?

And why does a Mazda Miata have the same toe both front and rear as a Formula Ford and a Laughlin Chassis Busch Grand National road course car? They all have VERY different weight distributions.

Sorry to go off topic and be an asshole, Jared, but as a college student you have horrible grammatical skills. Where do you go to school?

I spent my highschool years in the former USSR. Simfaropal Ukraine to be exact (which is why my spelling sucks, everything in Russian is spelled phonetically). But now I am back in America and currently in a Jr collage in Gulfport Mississippi.

Jared,

Since you seem to think that weight distribution is the primary factor in setting toe on a car, can you then explain to me why both the Porsche 996 and the Mustang run virtually identical front toe out settings (6mm total front toe out on a 996 on 18" wheels, 3/16" total toe out on the Mustang with 17" wheels) with totally different weight distributions?

While you're at it, can you explain why a Porsche 993 with virtually identical weight distribution to the 996 runs 4 mm total toe out in the front on 18" wheels, a significant percentage difference?

And why does a Mazda Miata have the same toe both front and rear as a Formula Ford and a Laughlin Chassis Busch Grand National road course car? They all have VERY different weight distributions.


Because different cars are built for different people genus. People who like extreamly stable cars will tend to buy cars with less toe out than a racing fanatic. Secondly the Mustang has a solid rear end which destabalizes it on less than perfect surfaces its toe is probably used to compensate for its ancient rear sespension.

ok big guy. i found a Modified Magazine at the gas station...it was the Feb. issue with teh 850hp rx-8 on the cover. i looked at every page and there was no comparison with an STI and EVO8. There were articles on both, but no comparison. what magazine are you reading this in? My friends and I are interested in this.


Sorry for the mistake it is Feb Sport Compact Car not Modified. I encourage you to read it.

Hmmm, the 993, 996, and Mustang were all set up for road courses and for the same driver, as is the same case with the road course set-up Miata (two, actually) and the Busch North car. The Formula Ford driver has also driven Miatas with the same setup and been quite happy with it. So much for the "different people" argument.

Additionally, the solid rear axle and different driving styles have nothing to do with weight distribution, unless there is a significant weight difference between drivers in the same car, though when I set up a car for the track, we have some sort of ballast approximating the driver's weight in the driver's seat to remove that variable.

BTW, you may want to try spelling "Genius" correctly. It will help your (lost) cause. Also, I took 3 years of Russian, and there are many Russian words that aren't phonetic. A miyaki zhnak (phonetic here, there is no good direct translation of how the name of the letter is pronounced) is one of a few Cyrillic letters that does not have any sound attatched to it.

By the way that carbon fiber intake manifold has much shorter than stock intake runners which all techheads know increase high RPM volumetric efficency, and thus hp. In addition to that the carbon fiber makes it several pounds lighter than the stocker. If you are going to make racing parts might as well make them out of the best materilas right? One of the keys to being a good tuner is being able to spot the differences between poser crap and real proformance parts. The fact that you are very critical of shiny objects is a big step in the right direction. But take my word on it that manifold is the real deal although it is not street legal. About half of what is advertised in tuner mags in my oppinion is either no better than stock or so slightly better that it makes no noticable difference, and thus is not worth the money. If you want to see what really works check out what the REAL racers use.

well...i only looked at the ad for about 1 minute while on a cell phone while balancing the mag on a 12 pack of bottled water..lol. so i didn't really pick apart the intake manifold technically. I always thought that when you weren't running idividual throttle bodies that technically longer intake runners helped with air delivery into the engine. Hence the butterfly valve on the honda's vtec intake manifolds that add another few inches of intake runner length. but that MAY be more relevant to smoother air delivery. i dunno right now, i'm too tired to think right now...lol i just finished cleaning up the wiring of an STI swap....talk about tedious wiring.

and you really can't say REAL racers when referring to parts being sold out of a magazine, b/c most everything made for a REAL race car isn't street legal. i can scan up some REAL race car parts for you from a couple of REAL race parts suppliers...

Hmmm, the 993, 996, and Mustang were all set up for road courses and for the same driver, as is the same case with the road course set-up Miata (two, actually) and the Busch North car. The Formula Ford driver has also driven Miatas with the same setup and been quite happy with it. So much for the "different people" argument.

Additionally, the solid rear axle and different driving styles have nothing to do with weight distribution, unless there is a significant weight difference between drivers in the same car, though when I set up a car for the track, we have some sort of ballast approximating the driver's weight in the driver's seat to remove that variable.

BTW, you may want to try spelling "Genius" correctly. It will help your (lost) cause. Also, I took 3 years of Russian, and there are many Russian words that aren't phonetic. A miyaki zhnak (phonetic here, there is no good direct translation of how the name of the letter is pronounced) is one of a few Cyrillic letters that does not have any sound attatched to it.


Since the miyaki znack (there is not h sound in it, where did you hear that one from??) has no sound of it's own (it just makes the letter before it soft) it does not make something non-phonetic, it just helps place the stress of the word. The opposite of it is the tvorde znack which just makes the prevous letter harder. Maby these racecars that you are talking about have modified weight distrabutions? Or maby the driver found one setting that he liked and decided to use it on all of his cars? I don't know this driver but anybody with any sence what so ever could tell you that perfect suspention settings on different cars will be different. It also depends on the driver technique, some ballence their understear with toe while others ballence it with throtle (in RWDs) while others use a combanation of both. It realy depends on how skilled the driver is and in some cases how much hp you have to prompt on demand overstear (not a problem in most racing cars). Like I said all along different settings for different drivers for different cars. By the way the first thing that you need to do if you want an STi to match an Evo on the track it to replace it's toe control arm in it's multilink rearend. It makes too much toe in when compressed (which most stock multilinks do because the are designed for avrage drivers) look it up yourself. The Evo has no such problem with it's rearend, it's handeling is being compared with the supercars. Just read the Motortrends take on it or SCC article on it or better yet Modified magazins car of the year award.

well...i only looked at the ad for about 1 minute while on a cell phone while balancing the mag on a 12 pack of bottled water..lol. so i didn't really pick apart the intake manifold technically. I always thought that when you weren't running idividual throttle bodies that technically longer intake runners helped with air delivery into the engine. Hence the butterfly valve on the honda's vtec intake manifolds that add another few inches of intake runner length. but that MAY be more relevant to smoother air delivery. i dunno right now, i'm too tired to think right now...lol i just finished cleaning up the wiring of an STI swap....talk about tedious wiring.

and you really can't say REAL racers when referring to parts being sold out of a magazine, b/c most everything made for a REAL race car isn't street legal. i can scan up some REAL race car parts for you from a couple of REAL race parts suppliers...


Bridged intake runners are great on street cars because they allow for a compramise between high hp short runners and high torque long runners (although they are not as good either in their spacific RPM ranges) I think the butterflys on the S2000s intake open at 6000RPM making the engine get better volumetric efficency at topend. By the way not all Vtechs have briged intake runners just the S2000 in America I think. BTW not all racing parts are illigal on the street just usualy the ones that affect combustion and and exaust. But you could use a racing turbocharger or an innercooler or racing chassie braces.....ect

By the way the first thing that you need to do if you want an STi to match an Evo on the track it to replace it's toe control arm in it's multilink rearend.

Or you can change tires, rear sway, and suspension settings. Just seems a lot easier to me that way.

I read this article you're raving about in SCC... They didn't even test the cars on a track to see which one handled better! :lol: All they did was the skidpad and slalom, which as we've already been over, not NOT by ANY means say a car will handle better because it gets better numbers in those 2 tests. That's like saying a car is faster through the 1/4 mile because it dynos higher.

BTW not all racing parts are illigal on the street just usualy the ones that affect combustion and and exaust. But you could use a racing turbocharger or an innercooler or racing chassie braces.....ect

A turbo doesn't affect combustion or exhaust? :eek7:

...Maby these racecars that you are talking about have modified weight distrabutions?

Yes, the Mustang was down to 58%F 42%R distribution, the 996 was 38% F 62% R and the 993 was 36%F 64% R. Slightly better, but still significantly different from each other.

Or maby the driver found one setting that he liked and decided to use it on all of his cars?

All 3 cars were set up for multiple drivers, though only one drove all 3. The drivers in this case don't deal with the actual numbers for the most part, just comment on what is there. Driver feel has nothing to do with weight distribution, so you're supporting my case here, not yours.

I don't know this driver but anybody with any sence what so ever could tell you that perfect suspention settings on different cars will be different.

Since the toe settings are the same on these 3 cars, and the weight distributions are totally different, you're supporting my case here, not yours.

It also depends on the driver technique, some ballence their understear with toe while others ballence it with throtle (in RWDs) while others use a combanation of both. It realy depends on how skilled the driver is and in some cases how much hp you have to prompt on demand overstear (not a problem in most racing cars).

Again, the 996, 993, and Mustang had the same driver with the same driving technique in all 3 cars. HP was about 380 for the 993, 420 for the 996, and 525 for the Mustang, similar enough to not require totally different driving styles. In any case, driving style and HP available have nothing to do with weight distribution, so you're supporting my case here, not yours.


Like I said all along different settings for different drivers for different cars.

What you said in your post #74 was

Although 0 toe is ideal in a perfect car people use it to compensate for poor weight balences in their production car. And even racers use it to fine tune their cars to the track that they are racing on. was weight distribution determines toe setting.

My point in the following posts was that it was suspension settings are A LOT more complicated than that, which is the point I've been arguing all along, and you have supported my argument a lot over the last few posts.

By the way the first thing that you need to do if you want an STi to match an Evo on the track it to replace it's toe control arm in it's multilink rearend. It makes too much toe in when compressed (which most stock multilinks do because the are designed for avrage drivers) look it up yourself. The Evo has no such problem with it's rearend, it's handeling is being compared with the supercars. Just read the Motortrends take on it or SCC article on it or better yet Modified magazins car of the year award.

Or, I could put the DCCD in Manual mode. There is not one magazine article I have ever read where performance testing was done with the car in manual mode. Auto mode does very strange things to the handling of the car at the transitions from brake to throttle on that go away if the car is in manual mode. Or, as ldelaysionl mentioned the suspension settings that the car comes with from the factory are horrible. Or, I could also put on a set of tires that would be good for 4-5 sec/lap at most tracks. Or, I could relocate several other suspension points that would be of great benefit. As I have not driven an EVO, I can not accurately say what mods would be good for how much compared to stock. My decision for the STi over the EVO was based on the more advanced AWD system that comes stock, as that is not something I'm ever likely to modify on a street car, and I live where it snows quite often during the winter and the roads I drive on to work usually do not get plowed very well. Also, looking at the mods I would be likely to make to the car (Not what is available, but what I would actually do), the STi appeared to me that there would be more gains for the modifications I would be making in the STi than in the EVO. If I went in knowing that the only conditions I would ever drive the car in would be absolutely no modifications (including only running the stock tires) to the car or only on smooth dry pavement, then I would have bought the EVO, though if either of those had been the case, I may very well have ended up with something totally different. There are a lot of other things I would change in the STi suspension as well if I really wanted to make it an ultra-high performance car, but the reality of the situation is I will probably leave the driveline stock, and not move any of the suspension mounting points because I do have to use the STi to get to work every day, and if something brakes I don't want to have to wait 2 months to get custom parts made and not have anything to drive. For all intents and purposes, the STi and EVO have a few minor differences as to where their strengths and weaknesses are, and those characteristics pointed me to the STi rather than the EVO.

Even though I'm a suspension guy and not an engine guy, my basic knowledge of engine design, physics, chemistry, thermodynamics and aerodynamics lead me to agree with ldelaysionl when he imlpes that a turbocharger does indeed affect both combustion and exhaust.

A turbo doesn't affect combustion or exhaust? :eek7:



Boost pressure affects combustion and exaust. Not the Turbo you run it through. Unless you have a major oil leak. The few difference between a smaller turbo and a larger one can be eliminated by using a good innercooler, so the turbo that you use does not nessasarly affect your combustion or exaust, and thus not illigal.

Kfoote how long can you make a reply that almost took up the whole page and despite all those words you said nothing usefull (writing alot of words does not mean that you know what you are talking about). The fact remains that cars with different weight splits (everything else being identical) will drive differently! It is just a fact of life live with it. People want different things for their suspension so they will continue to use different settings even on the same track with the same car. That is another fact that you seem to be missing. So go ahead and take up another 20 pages and keep saying that I you are right and I am wrong, and that I am actualy agreeing with you. Confuse the heck out of everybody here, but the facts still remain the Evo outhandles the STi in everybodys tests, the Evo is a better deal because it's proformance is better than the STi and it costs thousands less, and the Evo RS is going to thrash you even more because it is about 170lbs lighter. Cry whine gripe all you want to but don't come trying to argue with me without some real numbers from a reliable source. BTW if you actualy read what I wrote you will see that I did not once support what you were saying, quit assuming that I did. Since you are too self absorbed to notice this I was not saying that driver feel or hp affect the weight split! You would have to be some sort of retard to missunderstand somthing that bad. Your whole "you are supporting my case here not yours" argument needs go back to kindergarden for jerks where you got it from. How old are you anyway?

Kfoote how long can you make a reply that almost took up the whole page and despite all those words you said nothing usefull (writing alot of words does not mean that you know what you are talking about).

This coming from....you? :eek7:

How long will you continue?

This thread has gone so far from the original topic it must be a whole new record. :screwy:

This coming from....you? :eek7:

How long will you continue?

This thread has gone so far from the original topic it must be a whole new record. :screwy:


Hey at leased I know what I am talking about, unlike some of the other people in here. And you are right it has gone off topic that is why I am trying to shift it back. I am still waiting for a stock STi that can top 13.06 in the 1/4 or pull .97g on a skidpad. When I get the numbers on the new RS I'll post them too, but yall probably don't want to see them, you are too buisy sitting in your dark padded room chanting "the STi is faster, the STi is faster, the STi is faster" Let me state my honest oppinion oence again. I really do hope that they make the STi faster than the Evo. I always cheer for the underdog no matter how bad he is doing, but at the same time I live in the real world and tell it like it is as it stands right now the Evo is the faster cheaper car. Who knows maby next week they will release a better STi that will blow the Evo out of the water, then I will be going to the Evo forums and teasing them for letting the underdog beat them, telling them the same things that I am telling you, unlike most people I don't support any brand, I do my homework and find out who is the best. The brand is just a piece of plastic that is stamped on the front of the car, that means nothing to me, proformance and practicality are everything.
Kfoote otkuda te Ruske znish??

we should wrap this post in a big ballon, attach a basket and go sight seeing....who gives a crap anymore

Kfoote how long can you make a reply that almost took up the whole page and despite all those words you said nothing usefull (writing alot of words does not mean that you know what you are talking about). The fact remains that cars with different weight splits (everything else being identical) will drive differently! It is just a fact of life live with it. People want different things for their suspension so they will continue to use different settings even on the same track with the same car. That is another fact that you seem to be missing. So go ahead and take up another 20 pages and keep saying that I you are right and I am wrong, and that I am actualy agreeing with you.

Since you have completely changed the basis of your argument to "Cars with different weight splits will handle differently" from "People use toe to compensate for poor weight balances" many of your arguments make a lot more sense. The first is 100% correct, the second is 100% wrong.

...the facts still remain the Evo outhandles the STi in everybodys tests, the Evo is a better deal because it's proformance is better than the STi and it costs thousands less, and the Evo RS is going to thrash you even more because it is about 170lbs lighter. Cry whine gripe all you want to but don't come trying to argue with me without some real numbers from a reliable source.

Yes, the EVO outhandles the STi in everybody's tests, but not one of these tests that I have seen has been with the DCCD in Manual mode, as I mentioned in my last post. I'd love to see someone do a comparison test with the DCCD in Manual mode at each of the 6 different settings against the EVO, which do make a noticeable difference in the handling characteristics of the car. If you have seen one, please point me to it, because until I do, I will not be able to say I have seen any real numbers from a reliable source that show the EVO outhandles the STi, either.

Boost pressure affects combustion and exaust. Not the Turbo you run it through. Unless you have a major oil leak. The few difference between a smaller turbo and a larger one can be eliminated by using a good innercooler, so the turbo that you use does not nessasarly affect your combustion or exaust, and thus not illigal.

So as long as you run a racing turbo that runs at stock boost and has stock air density through the entire rev and throttle input range along the path from the turbocharger to the cobmustiuon chamber, it will have the same emissions as stock. That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense to me is that there seems to be no advantage to running an aftermarket turbo that runs at stock boost and has stock air density through the entire rev and throttle input range along the path from the turbocharger to the cobmustiuon chamber. Am I missing something here? :screwy:

Boost pressure affects combustion and exaust. Not the Turbo you run it through. Unless you have a major oil leak. The few difference between a smaller turbo and a larger one can be eliminated by using a good innercooler, so the turbo that you use does not nessasarly affect your combustion or exaust, and thus not illigal.

Noo.... Say your car runs 15 psi stock, and you swap on a turbo that flows twice the air at the same boost pressure. Now you're getting twice as much air in your combustion chambers at the same boost pressure. If you don't add any more fuel, your mixture is now leaner and your emissions are changed. Not to mention the new turbo will have different boost characteristics, effective powerband, and spool times. Meaning altered exhaust flow and emissions. IF you DO add more fuel to compensate for the extra air, you're now burning more fuel with each cycle than before, and you will have different emissions...

A turbo sits in the exhaust stream, and uses the exhaust stream itself to drive a compressor, which forces more air into the combustion chamber so that more fuel can be burned. To say it doesn't affect combustion or exhaust is preposterous. I think you might benefit from reading up on how turbos, and engines in general, work and make power. Here is a good place to start - http://auto.howstuffworks.com/turbo.htm

the facts still remain the Evo outhandles the STi in everybodys tests

All you've shown is the EVO out skidpads and slaloms the STi. I've already pointed out several times why this is incomplete in determining which car "handles better". You have yet to show anything about which is actually faster on a track. I know it's out there, why are you having such a hard time coming up with it?

I am still waiting for a stock STi that can top 13.06 in the 1/4

What the hell, you never even asked for that! I could have given that to you back on page 1!

here - http://forums.nasioc.com/forums/showthread.php?s=&threadid=461564

That's a 12.9, 100% bone stock, pump gas with a sound system and subwoofer box weighing him down from stock. BTW, that's an average everyday driver, still getting used to his car. He's only 24 years old!

Whoops! :lol: Maybe now you're starting to understand that reading magazines doesn't make you an expert on these cars!

P.S. I still don't think you understand that a 13.06 you read in C&D magazine isn't ACTUALLY a 13.06, but it's a corrected time based on temperature and humidity, among other things. The actual time they ran was likely around a 13.3X. The 12.9 from the STi I posted, on the other hand, is what he ACTUALLY ran... wonder what his "corrected" time would be...?

Actually I think you do understand that, you just choose to ignore it because it hurts your cause :lol:

Nevermind that times from different tracks on different days isn't really comparable, that doesn't seem to bother you much. You just want the NUMBAZ! :rolleyes:

ldelaysionl, good point at the top, I have added air density considerations to my previous post

So as long as you run a racing turbo that runs at stock boost and has stock air density through the entire rev and throttle input range along the path from the turbocharger to the cobmustiuon chamber, it will have the same emissions as stock. That makes sense.

What doesn't make sense to me is that there seems to be no advantage to running an aftermarket turbo that runs at stock boost and has stock air density through the entire rev and throttle input range along the path from the turbocharger to the cobmustiuon chamber. Am I missing something here? :screwy:



Ever heard of turbo lag? And a whole lot more tuning potential. Good turbochargers can make more boost when needed. Many people turn up their boost by using stiffer blowoff valves, when they are on the drag strip, and are using racing fuel.

You don't use a blowoff valve to turn up boost. A blowoff valve releases pressure when you let off the gas and the throttle plate closes, but the turbo is still spooling. Otherwise you could freeze up the compressor wheels because the air has nowhere else to go, called "compressor surge". It's more of a "safety device" as it prolongs the life of your turbo.

The wastegate is what controls the amount of boost you get. A boost controller works as a bottleneck in the signal line that goes to the wastegate, by not allowing the air to go through as fast, it keeps the wastegate closed longer, allowing the turbo to build more boost. Which, BTW, is easy to implement on ANY turbo, not just an aftermarket "racing turbo".

I actually made a boost controller last week and installed it on a WRX Saturday. Spools faster and makes full boost in all gears. Still on the stock turbo.

Ever heard of turbo lag? And a whole lot more tuning potential. Good turbochargers can make more boost when needed. Many people turn up their boost by using stiffer blowoff valves, when they are on the drag strip, and are using racing fuel.

A turbo that reduces turbo lag increases air density over the RPM range and throttle position at which the lag is reduced, thus violating one of the premeses of my argument, and changing the emissions in these conditions.

You don't use a blowoff valve to turn up boost. A blowoff valve releases pressure when you let off the gas and the throttle plate closes, but the turbo is still spooling. Otherwise you could freeze up the compressor wheels because the air has nowhere else to go, called "compressor surge". It's more of a "safety device" as it prolongs the life of your turbo.

The wastegate is what controls the amount of boost you get. A boost controller works as a bottleneck in the signal line that goes to the wastegate, by not allowing the air to go through as fast, it keeps the wastegate closed longer, allowing the turbo to build more boost. Which, BTW, is easy to implement on ANY turbo, not just an aftermarket "racing turbo".

I actually made a boost controller last week and installed it on a WRX Saturday. Spools faster and makes full boost in all gears. Still on the stock turbo.



First of all not all turbos have a wastegate (though all new ones do). And I never said that you could not make extra power on the stock turbo just that you can make more with some aftermarket turbo upgrades. I have seen a stock turbo Evo make just shy of 400hp with stock cams. But with a GT35r bolted on it made about 525hp at the wheels!

A turbo that reduces turbo lag increases air density over the RPM range and throttle position at which the lag is reduced, thus violating one of the premeses of my argument, and changing the emissions in these conditions.


Turbo lag is related to the weight and width of the compresser wheel. The air density is related to the compressor efficency. You have it backwards compressors that have less lag (smaller compressors) usualy heat the air more and have less density per pound of pressure. That is why choosing a turbo is a compromise between max power and lag. Go back to school! :smokin:

What this all boils down to is that a turbo CAN affect your emmisions if it raises the intake temp (which most aftermarket turbos do NOT do) or if you poorly configure your fuel system to accomadate the extra boost pressure, but adding boost alone does not kill your emmisions, the Evo and STi both use up to 19psi of boost and are legal in every state! What will kill your emmisions is a very restrictive turbo (not enough heat gets to your cat), or retarding your ignition to keep your extra boost from making your engine knock. (does not fully burn all of the hydrocarbons). There with all of that said quit trying to change the subject, and just get back to trying to find me a driver that can make a stock STi do the 1/4 in less than 13.06 or a stock STi that can pull .97g on the skidpad. All yall have done this entire time is say that the STi is more refined and that it really is faster than the evo, just nobody can prove it, because they don't know how, or the tests are rigged, or they lied.......ect. Quit making excuses for the car and look at the facts!!!!! Then and only then will you see that the Evo really is the faster car and that subi needs to step up to the plate if they want to keep their promise.

Turbo lag is related to the weight and width of the compresser wheel. The air density is related to the compressor efficency. You have it backwards compressors that have less lag (smaller compressors) usualy heat the air more and have less density per pound of pressure. That is why choosing a turbo is a compromise between max power and lag. Go back to school! :smokin:

Here's the Porsche 930 example, which is the best one I can think of to demonstrate my point, since you're missing where the premise is violated and the emissions change.

Let's say you're travelling along in a stock 1979 Porsche 930 with huge turbo lag at 2000 RPMs in 4th gear. From this, you floor the gas pedal. Suppose it takes 2.5 sec for the turbo to spool up and get to about 4000 RPM, where the turbo starts making boost. Until you get to 2000 RPM, very little boost is being made, and the air density just before getting to the combustion chamber is very close to atmospheric pressure and ambient temperature.

Let us now throw on a much smaller turbo that significantly reduces turbo lag (the small turbo from a MK IV Toyota Supra is a good visual example). At 2000 RPM, the turbo is already spooled up and producing a slight amount of boost. When you floor the gas, there is very little lag and suppose you are making full boost (for ease of calculation, suppose 1 bar) at 3000 RPM. Thus, from 3000-4000 RPM with the throttle planted, the air density is 2 bar (There are other considerations that are minimal except for temperature, which I will go into shortly) at the entrance to the combustion chamber. That difference violates the air density premise.

The ideal gas law states PV=nRT, where P=Pressure, V=volume, n is the number of moles of the substance in question, R is the universal gas constant, and T is the temperature in Kelvins. We can come up with an equasions for each condition, say P1V1 = n1RT1 and P2V2=n2RV2. Let us assume that the volume doesn't change. These can then be rearranged to V1 / R = n1T1/P1 and V2/R = n2T2/P2. Since V1=V2, these equasions can be combined into n1T1/P1 = n2T2/P2. From the above example, P2 = 2P1. This substitution results in n1T1/P1 = n2T2 /(2 x P1), which can be simplified and rearranged to 2 x (n1T1) = n2T2, and subsequently 2 x T1/T2 = n2 / n1. What this tells us is that in order for the number of moles of gas to be the same, the temeprature in Kelvins has to be doubled. Thus, if in our first example, the air temperature at the point of entry into the combustion chamber is 300 K (27 deg C, about 80 deg F, fairly typical for cruising around), in order for the emissions to not be affected, the air temp in the second example would be have to be heated to 600 K (327 deg C, about 620 deg F) in order to not increase the air density. Even in non-intercooled cars, this is very hot for the intake air temperature, and realistically can not be done in the above scenario. Note that this calculation is one data point in the lower end of the 2000-4000 RPM range, and throttle position is constant (full) between the two.

On the next topic, Idealyson posted a link earlier where a stock STi ran a legit 12.9 in the 1/4 mile.

A stock STi will not pull 0.97 on a skidpad. The fact that the EVO does tells me that the EVO is very good at going around steady state corners. Higher slalom speeds tell me that a car is better at changing directions with minimal throttle position change (but not full throttle) and has less understeer built into it. On a race track, when you are cornering, if you are ever steady state cornering when you are not either changing throttle positions, have the throttle floored, or are on the brakes, then you are slow. Saying a car is better based purely on the numbers in magazine tests is like saying someone is smarter than someone else because they got a higher SAT score.

First of all not all turbos have a wastegate (though all new ones do).

Wrong. All turbo's have a wastegate. Without a wastegate, it would spool indefinately and keep building boost till the engine explodes. You can not have a turbo without a wastegate. Most turbos have an INTERNAL wastegate. Some have an EXTERNAL wastegate.

There is one exception to that, but it's irrelevent because it's obscure technology. Do you know what it is?

And I never said that you could not make extra power on the stock turbo just that you can make more with some aftermarket turbo upgrades.

Well duh, how long did it take you to figure that out?

I have seen a stock turbo Evo make just shy of 400hp with stock cams. But with a GT35r bolted on it made about 525hp at the wheels!

You're talking about the very same EVO I posted about several pages ago! The one you thought had 600 hp until I corrected you!

Turbo lag is related to the weight and width of the compresser wheel.

Aspect Ratio is the single biggest factor in turbo lag. Lightweight wheels, ball bearings, special wheels, and so on are minor in comparison.

a turbo CAN affect your emmisions if it raises the intake temp (which most aftermarket turbos do NOT do) or if you poorly configure your fuel system to accomadate the extra boost pressure

No, changing turbos will affect your emissions no matter what. Even IF you finely tune your fuel curve to account for the extra air, you're now burning more fuel than before. How hard is that to understand?

but adding boost alone does not kill your emmisions

Adding boost will always affect your emissions. You're adding more air into your compression chambers. You're burning more fuel. It's not rocket science!

the Evo and STi both use up to 19psi of boost and are legal in every state!

That has nothing to do with anything :lol: :lol: :lol:

What will kill your emmisions is a very restrictive turbo

Like the T25? It's super restrictive, but my friends Talon with the stock T25 burned WAY less fuel and had WAY less emissions than with the big giant T04 60-1 he switched to.

and just get back to trying to find me a driver that can make a stock STi do the 1/4 in less than 13.06

I ALREADY DID! :lol: :lol: :lol: Look 9 posts up!

I also already told you like 10 times that the EVO you're talking about did NOT run a 13.06. Do you have that hard of a time understanding corrected times?

a stock STi that can pull .97g on the skidpad

I already told you many times that that does not prove which car handles better.

that it really is faster than the evo

Nobody has even said that. We HAVE said that they are a pretty even match. Stock for stock, the STi is a bit quicker in a straight line, and the EVO is a bit quicker through the corners. You're just too hard headed to understand that's what we've been saying all along

edit:

I'm also gonna add this.

Swapping on a turbo, that's the EXACT same size as stock, running the EXACT same boost as stock, but faster spooling, will STILL change your emissions. If it spools faster, then it's burning more fuel and cycling more air at lower RPM than the stock turbo, and if it's doing that, then it's making more power at lower RPM too. For all the knowledge you pretend to have, you should know that ANY TIME you make more power, you alter the emissions. Power is created through burning fuel. Everything that came in your engine from the factory is there so that the engine can burn fuel and make the car go. Every performance part you add to your engine is there so the engine can burn more fuel and make more power. A turbo is there to add more air, so more fuel can be added and burned. Intakes and exhausts are made to get more air in and get it back out quickly, so more fuel can be burned. Aftermarket cams are designed to open the valves more so more air can get in, so more fuel can be burned. It should be OBVIOUS to you that if you burn more fuel, you create more emissions. Somewhere around 70% of the energy in fuel is lost through the exhaust.

Wrong. All turbo's have a wastegate. Without a wastegate, it would spool indefinately and keep building boost till the engine explodes. You can not have a turbo without a wastegate. Most turbos have an INTERNAL wastegate. Some have an EXTERNAL wastegate.

There is one exception to that, but it's irrelevent because it's obscure technology. Do you know what it is?



Well duh, how long did it take you to figure that out?



You're talking about the very same EVO I posted about several pages ago! The one you thought had 600 hp until I corrected you!



Aspect Ratio is the single biggest factor in turbo lag. Lightweight wheels, ball bearings, special wheels, and so on are minor in comparison.



No, changing turbos will affect your emissions no matter what. Even IF you finely tune your fuel curve to account for the extra air, you're now burning more fuel than before. How hard is that to understand?



Adding boost will always affect your emissions. You're adding more air into your compression chambers. You're burning more fuel. It's not rocket science!



That has nothing to do with anything :lol: :lol: :lol:



Like the T25? It's super restrictive, but my friends Talon with the stock T25 burned WAY less fuel and had WAY less emissions than with the big giant T04 60-1 he switched to.



I ALREADY DID! :lol: :lol: :lol: Look 9 posts up!

I also already told you like 10 times that the EVO you're talking about did NOT run a 13.06. Do you have that hard of a time understanding corrected times?



I already told you many times that that does not prove which car handles better.



Nobody has even said that. We HAVE said that they are a pretty even match. Stock for stock, the STi is a bit quicker in a straight line, and the EVO is a bit quicker through the corners. You're just too hard headed to understand that's what we've been saying all along

edit:

I'm also gonna add this.

Swapping on a turbo, that's the EXACT same size as stock, running the EXACT same boost as stock, but faster spooling, will STILL change your emissions. If it spools faster, then it's burning more fuel and cycling more air at lower RPM than the stock turbo, and if it's doing that, then it's making more power at lower RPM too. For all the knowledge you pretend to have, you should know that ANY TIME you make more power, you alter the emissions. Power is created through burning fuel. Everything that came in your engine from the factory is there so that the engine can burn fuel and make the car go. Every performance part you add to your engine is there so the engine can burn more fuel and make more power. A turbo is there to add more air, so more fuel can be added and burned. Intakes and exhausts are made to get more air in and get it back out quickly, so more fuel can be burned. Aftermarket cams are designed to open the valves more so more air can get in, so more fuel can be burned. It should be OBVIOUS to you that if you burn more fuel, you create more emissions. Somewhere around 70% of the energy in fuel is lost through the exhaust.




Wow so much crap and only seven min till the next class, first of all that Evo made 525hp at the wheels!!!!! That would be about 600 at the flywheel (AWD have more drivetrain loss than FWD or RWD) Secondly using a different turbo does not have some magical juju that ruins emmisions, it is still the same air afterall. (with slight density changes if you do not use proper innercooling) It all depends on how you set it up, but since you think that your friends car is the standard for all scientific reserch and debate, you probably won't believe that anyway. And please remember that emmisions tests are based on % emmisions not total. So burning more air and fuel does not mean higher emmisions. In fact turbod cars usualy make less than NA proformance cars with their higher CR and valve overlap. Time is up gatta run. Ill finish shooting you down later.

OK I am back. Time to get back to shooting people down. Quick question smart boy what was the corrected time for the STi??? Do you still think that it is faster in a stright line?? My memory may be failing me but I seem to recal that MT said a 13.2 in the 1/4. :evillol: I know why you hate me Mr Moderator you hate someone who can bash your car and back it up. So go ahead and ban me for speaking the truth go ahead. Prove to everybody here that I was right and you are scared to admit it, too scared to continue debating me because you don't want to loose face. I stand defiently aginst your threats trying to shut me up! :ylsuper: Face it adjusted or actual the Evo is just faster. Oh and I hate to bring this up again but you do understand how they rate emmisions right? You were saying that since a car burns more gas than it must have more emmisions, that is totaly incorrect. I don't mean to be a bully or anything but boost pressure usualy does not affect emmisions that much it usualy has alot more to do with valve timing and spark timing. Why do you think that they can legaly supercharge or turbocharge cars that hardly pass emmisions in stock trim. Like I said before emmisions are a % test otherwise there would be no SUVs on the road. (except for that freeking Toyota hydrogen concept) Read the latest SCC and check their emmisions test on that 700+hp supra running street gas. The thing passed with flying colors. (yea so what if the turbos were not spooled up at 2500RPM) While the Ultama GTR (a NA BMW V12) floped bigtime because of its exaust overlap. It had over 10 times the emmisions of the top ranked cars!!! Please keep sending me your excuses why the Evo keeps beating the STi I am loving every one of them, but one day you will run out of crappy excuses and have to face the fact that in EVERY PROFORMANCE TEST THE EVO WINS!!! Look it up yourselves, and I am only talking about the regular Evo the RS will thrash you even harder. If your argument was that the STi was a more mild mannerd car, more comfortable, more attractive car, I might have to agree with you, but when it comes to speed yall need to wake up and see that the Evo is the slightly faster car. Is it worth the harsh ride? is it worth the extra noise? Is it worth the ugly front end? It depends on how much you love speed.

Jared.

2 things.

Please stop bringing this thread back up.
Stop the insults.