Hoot Review Evo Vs R34 Gtr

[Don Dada]

Somebody with a gtss equiped gtr carry disco for a ride pls.......

[N1GTR]

Disco; You're in Central Coast NSW right?

Come to the SAUNSW Motokhana next month, I'm sure GTRSean (R34 -9's) or someone else with a similar car wouldn't mind taking you for a quick run. There's a go to whoa aswel. Will cost you nothing, just bring helmet and normal motorsport clothing (Details in NSW EVENTS area). Ill have my RB30 with -5's there aswel if you want a ride in that.

[R31Nismoid]

EVO IX run more than 14psi, i can tell you that right now.

Upper RPM it drops off to around 14psi IIRC but it spikes deliberately to i think 17psi and falls back down to either 12 or 14

I'll find out next i talk to a mate who tunes em as its basically the first thing you fix - get boost holding and you get the extra 20-30rwkw, then exhaust etc and off you go.

[R31Nismoid]

But ye, course a R34 vs a EVO - the EVO will be better stock - thats because it is

[discopotato03]

its all in the evos short gearing.

I think theres more to it that that and even though those 4G63Ts were originally from the heavier VR4 it went through lots of incremental changes between Evos 1-9 . Because it was aimed at restrictor based Rally homologation it didn't have to rev , past 5500 in Grp A trim , but it did need to make a lot of torque at what we'd consider low-medium revs . By the time the 6 came out the engine had been turned around and the turbo had the largest or 10.5cm twin scroll turbine housing and in RS and TME versions the titanium aluminide turbine wheel was available . From memory the TMEs actually had a slightly smaller compressor wheel than the GSRs 16G , I think it was called 15GK2 and where the GSR supposedly made peak torque at 3000 revs the 15G version made the same peak torque at 2750 revs and the same overall 276 Hp or 206Kw . Crunching the numbers gives 138 Hp/L or 103 Kw/L .

You get all sorts of differing opinions on part time and constant 4WD and my gut feeling is that having a "center" differential has advantages over an electrically controlled hydraulic wet clutch . Some say that the Merc developed 4 Matic system which I think Nissan based the GTRs on gives the RWD then AWD driving characteristics . I think it also means that the rears have to slip before the fronts starts to drive and the transitions may possibly be inconsistant . Mitsy also throws electronics in with the active yaw control or AYC rear diff . Personally I'd rather have had the 6RSs plate LSD because I think it would be more consistant as well as durable - and 15Kg lighter without the AYC pump and reservoir etc .

I had my 6 out earlier this evening and probably the nicest thing about its power delivery is that is so torquey even off boost - for a production 2L fourbanger . Its deceptive in that unless you boot it through the lower gears you don't get that welded to the seat feel but the part throttle stuff is very un two litre like .

For 16.5K I couldn't pass this car up and have zero regrets .

A .

Edited May 20, 2011 by discopotato03

[FineLine]

Never own an ugly car.

The evo looks like something from an animated cartoon show compared to any of the rb skylines.

I couldnt give a fig if it held the bonneville record. Its ugly as a bucket of busted crabs.

[Touge Kyousou]

Lol.. i used to think they looked quite alright and almost bought an evo 8 but bought a v35 skyline instead.. no regrets as the evo populated the roads so quick afterwards.. least i got another year or so out of the v35 before that became common as rat crap and i sold it.

My mechanic is always telling me the evo is a good car (and the amount you see going through his roller doors..frigging cockroaches). I do agree they are fantastic cars from factory and excel in many forms of motorsport well plus aren't too expensive to modify.. popular for a reason eeh.

[discopotato03]

Yes I agree Evos are not the prettiest things to look at but they do a good job of cooling a hard worked engine at sub light speeds . Its not easy to get good airflow through air water and oil coolers , particularly with a transverse engine , but Mitsy managed to do it well at least as far as the Grp A era went which was 99-2000 and evo 6 .

You do see Skylines with all kinds of extra cooling ducts in aftermarket air dams and bonnets and I guess beauty is in the eye of the beholder .

I'm a simply works broad minded person , I like what has function and function over looks suits me . You can't see it when driving it but your wallet will if its less than adequate .

Something I would like to know is the development path of the first GTRs as in was it a rehash of the R32 GTST coupe or was the GTST a re engineered toned down version .

I hear that Ralliart developed the Evos 4 5 6 first and then MHI toned everything down for the more mundane Lancer sedans of the era . To look all over my car its so different to a CE Lancer thats its hard to believe an Evo was a development of the CE . What I hear was that Mitsy was winning the international rally championships of the day and spent up big to stay on top - before WRC came along and killed production based race cars .

[simpletool]

Yeah the later model Evo engines run MUCH more boost than 14psi. They have 14psi at max power but they run a nice fat 4 or 5 psi bump in the mid-range. The pre-remap dyno sheets of Evo X with just an exhaust run 23psi in the mid-range and under 11:1 AFR to keep it cool. The turbos that mitsubishi selected were an awesome bit of kit with a decent sized turbine.

The thing I like best about the Evo is the super quick steering rack - lovely. Definitely my GTST feels sluggish around the tight corner. But I like my torque and LOVE the rear slip angles you can make even on part throttle in 2nd and 3rd with a 2.5L and mild turbo upgrade.

[discopotato03]

Yep , I reckon a lot with the turbo was a reasonable sized turbine and significantly the 10.5cm twin scroll turbine housing . Later (Evo era) 4G63Ts seem to thrive on 17+ pounds of boost and people are always amazed to find that raising the static CR to 9-9.5 doesn't greatly affect this . What that does if give these engines more torque off boost and the ability to run warm cams without really losing anything down low .

As I mentioned there is a larger 10.8cm direct bolt on turbine housing available here and at the American Evolutionm site they're talking about an 11.5 one available . The Evo 10s one is larger again .

I'd like to try an Evo 9 turbo with the titanium aluminide turbine and the 10.8cm turbine housing because what you gain with the 33% lighter turbine you lose with the larger housing , in other words no loss in a higher flowing twin scroll turbine housing . Actually Forced Performance in the states has cast up a port shrouded bolt on compressor housing so that would help with high boost surge .

If anything the HKS bolt on ball bearing turbo appears to be the cracker , its sort of like a reverse rotation twin scroll medium trim GT3076R and the word on the street is that 350 ftlbs and 350 Hp at the treads is a cake walk . They call ia a "GT II 7460R" for 74mm compressor and 60mm turbine .

Yes the steering , its bliss though full lock could be better .

[Nee-san]

If I remember reading correctly autospeed or one of the those international publications had an EVO V going round the ring several seconds slower then then an R32 GT-R.

I've said before, the weight comment is not really warranted as anything after a 6 is either the same weight or heavier then a 32.

Beer Baron makes a good point that, "man all you have to do is X Y Z to an evo and you get so much power!!!" well like he says do "just X Y Z" to a GT-R are your looking at 250awkw ++

Evo comes with a more race oriented suspension setup from the factory, no two ways about it.

I don't know where I read it buy someone was talking mod for mod the Evo will be quicker then a GT-R in standard trim, which is pretty much bullshit, admittedly the evo guys will spend the cash they have left over on hookers and blow, whilst the GT-R fans among us are forced to sell ourselves on the street. Lol.

Comparing an EVO RS and a Standard GT-R is not fair as that is a race spec or rally spec compared with a Standard road car, Take a look at a comparison between an RS and an N1...

power potential is considerably less in an evo, especially livable power potential.

Disco is 100% right though in saying that the Evo as a near standard thing is a very good bit of kit and yes, alot cheaper and bang for your buck then a GT-R but I would not include "faster" in that sentence.

As far as launching and taking off, the close ratio of the evo ( for the first three cogs anyway) is awesome, this coupled with the sharp steering rack and the firm suspension make for a very fun and fast car.

But not much launches as hard as a GT-R especially on street tyres, Just ask Duncan.

[sucram]

fastest I have ever been around a round about was in a TME. Their yaw control works well!

[simpletool]

Disco what gains would you expect from the 10.8cm housing change to an Evo9 turbo? A good friend of mine is near the limit of this std turbo Evo IX and was thinking of GT3071 upgrade. Obviously the HKS turbo is between the 3071 and 3076 but a housing swap might be better BFYB.