Why 4 only 4 cylinders in evo?

I was just wondering why Mitsubishi only puts four cylinders in its evolution model. Wouldn't it give it more power if it 6 or 8? I am planning on buying one once they reach the States.

Lower compresion and a Turbo replaces the lack of dispacement in a Force inducted 4 poper.:licker:

Originally posted by GSXer
Lower compresion and a Turbo replaces the lack of dispacement in a Force inducted 4 poper.:licker:

...but it is a forced-inducted "4 popper"...:confused:
And compression is not dependent on the number of cylinders last time i checked. and compression is increased with a turbo.

i believe they did this to reduce costs and weight. 6 or 8 cylinders would be more expensive and this is fitting in the same catagory as the WRX, the "poor man's sports car" as it will come with drilled brakes a turbo and accelerate very quickly for under 30k, which is very nice. Also the whole philosophy on turbo charging is improving horse power and torque without adding much weight. So many import carmakers prefer four-cylinders mostly because they're balanced naturally (inline 4, on a V shape such as most 6-c and 8-c, it requires a balancer, which is more wieght, complication, etc) and are very light weight. This is seen in a certain supra as well, it's a show car and they replaced the I-6 engine with a 4-banger. and i believe it went even faster...of coarse it probably cost a ton as well ;)

Just put it this way,

Go out for a real race! I will jump in a four banger with 200+ hp and you jump in a car with a 350 ci big block with almost 400hp. Yeah up to 130 you will be in the lead and then what happens is you are winning with a time lead but I will win with a mpg lead. You figure a 4 cyl vs. an 8 cyl. (Now this is not exact info but merely for the purpose of showing a point.) I am using half the fuel and while you take 5 min to fill up your 20 gallon tank I am now 10+ miles ahead if still running over 120. Well here we go for the second fuel stop which will probably be time for my first and I am where, ahead. Just picture what whould happen if you were driving a car for the WRC, which would you want to be in?

Originally posted by w8n4myevo
Just put it this way,

Go out for a real race! I will jump in a four banger with 200+ hp and you jump in a car with a 350 ci big block with almost 400hp. Yeah up to 130 you will be in the lead and then what happens is you are winning with a time lead but I will win with a mpg lead. You figure a 4 cyl vs. an 8 cyl. (Now this is not exact info but merely for the purpose of showing a point.) I am using half the fuel and while you take 5 min to fill up your 20 gallon tank I am now 10+ miles ahead if still running over 120. Well here we go for the second fuel stop which will probably be time for my first and I am where, ahead. Just picture what whould happen if you were driving a car for the WRC, which would you want to be in?

hmm. well for starters 350ci is not a big block to be anal. Next, last i checked horse power meant how hard the engine works, thus obviously a car with twice the horse power would consume (ideally) twice the gas, but really its dependant on the specific engine, transmission etc. And sorry to disapoint you but a 200 hp i-4 probably has even less torque and a big block would rape it so bad it could stop for gas all it wanted, as long as the driver could put all that torque to the ground. like i said, it all depends on alot more varibles than the number of cylinders, which leads me to conclude that any car (regardless of cylinders) can be a decent sports car; alot of four-cylinder cars hang with v8's using turbo/super chargers and other modifications.

Ok, a 350ci in a Chevrolet is considered a small block, sorry. A pontiac 350ci (back in the good old days) in my book is considered a medium block as it is longer than a Chevrolet block. But there is no term for a medium block so I see that as a big block. If I am not mistaking, Ford made a 350 big block (longer block than a Pontiac's block). Maybe I should have made myself clearer from the start. I am going on what I know from real "muscle cars" (late 60's-early 70's) as I own a 1973 Firebird.

Thats not the point, what I was tring to say in my previous post, is that I would rather by far race with the technology in todays 4 bangers than in a car like my Firebird.

WRC rules only allow vehicles that have a max displacement of only 2 liters, so it would be very weird if mitsubishi made a v8 lancer that only was 2 liters in size. Also a manufacturer needs 3000? road legal cars of a car that competes in the wrc. An example of this just happened to BMW in the touring car class, the e46 m3 gtr is a v8 so they had to pull it until bmw made road versions of the car (which they did $150000)

Bryan8412, I know that number of cylenders does not have any influence on diplacement. I never said it did. It was just a lazy answer to a somewhat vague, yet complicated question. But I agree with the rest of the comments here, Mitsu did take into consideration the cost of building a high powered motor.

none of that I4vs v8 stuff even matters here. It has a 4 because its RALLY CAR!! it has to have a 4 cylinder to meet regulations to be able to race. besides, a 4 cyl is lighter, therefore the track performance is going to be better because of a better power/wieght ratio. And why would you need more than a 4 banger if you are able to keep up with porsches/lambos/ferraris at the track? V8s are okay for american muscle cars. The beauty of the evo is its ability to have earth-shattering performance with just a 2 liter four... I guess if you really have a desperate need to screw up the handling characteristics of the car, you could always wedge a small block chevy in there. GOod luck driving in anything other than a straight line though...

Just because I loike to have the last word....
Keep in mind that I am not putting down the EVO at all, I cant wait to get mine. Previously you stated "GOod luck driving in anything other than a straight line though", just take a look at nascar and show me another car that can keep up at the track with anything other than a 358ci.

are you trying to tell me that nascars have great handling characteristics? have you ever actually WATCHED nascar? they drive around in a circle... An evo could demolish a nascar ( or whatever you call them) at the track. Not an OVAL track, an actual track with more than 2 turns. I dont think nascars have a turning radius good enough to get through just about any actual road course... They aren't tuned for that. to paraphrase, I dont see your point.

the common misconception,

have you ever watched a race at Watkin Glen. Also a SCCA track. By the way, the post that I was replying to was anything other than a straight line. 11 turns over 2.45 miles and try to do that in 70 seconds averaging 122 mph. I dont know but i dont see that happening seeing that several turns are damn near 180 degrees. The top guys of the SCCA come in around 100 seconds and averaging 90 mph. So with these facts, you tell me what you think. I will reiterate myself again. I am not putting down the evo.

no, you're just comparing it to multi-million dollar race cars. And the cars that drive those courses are tuned VERY differently than the ones that you normally see on speedvision driving around in a huge oval. That also makes up like...1% of what is effectively reffered to as nascar. Yeah, for a car that has had millions of dollars pumped into it, and is no longer even remotely streetable, I would have to hope it can beat something like an evo around a track. I still fail to see your point. I fail to see the point of this argument as a matter of fact. This being an EVO forum, I can only imagine that you are comparing the evo to nascars. Why? The point I was initially trying to make was that mitsubishi didn't put a v6-8 in the evo because it would have been too big for the car, and I'm right. If you shoved a giant ass v8 under the hood of an evo, it would be useless for anything but driving in a straight line. Nascar doesn't have any cars based on the cedia/lancer chassis like the evo is. They are based on monte carlos, or stratuses or whatever. They are meant to take those engines. They are designed to perform well with a large displacement v8, the evo isn't, therefore putting a big engine in an evo would be detrimental to its perfmance, as would putting a turbocharged 4 in a stratus.

If that was your argument that a V-8 in an EVO would only be able to go in a srtaight line then Im sorry for wasting your time. I took your post as being that any car witha v-8 could only run a straight line.

The only problem is that you simply stated:

"are you trying to tell me that nascars have great handling characteristics? have you ever actually WATCHED nascar? they drive around in a circle... An evo could demolish a nascar ( or whatever you call them) at the track. Not an OVAL track, an actual track with more than 2 turns. I dont think nascars have a turning radius good enough to get through just about any actual road course...

A: They would have to have handling characteristics to do that.
B: Yes I have watched a Nascar Race
C: Are you sill telling me that an EVO would demolish a nascar rascar at the track?
D: Do you still think that they dont have good enough of a turing radius to get through any road course?

If you're going to pm me and tell me to stop arguing on the board, you should at least try to avoid hypocrisy and take initiative.

and to answer your questions...yes. In the state of tune a nascar normally finds itself (oval track...or at least thats the way I see it. 12 hrs a day you can turn to speed vision and find a show entitled "NASCAR" and it will 99.999% of the time be cars driving in circle) A nascar would probably not be able to complete a road course without the aid of its trailor. When those cars hit Watkin Glen, they are set up VERY differently than they are in their normal day to day races. Those races are the exception rather than the rule...