Page 4 of 14 FirstFirst ... 23456 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 132

Thread: [Engine swap] 4G63 into a 2014 Mirage (2L turbo)

  1. #31
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    New-Brunswick
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    151
    Thanks
    24
    Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistah JT View Post
    I am thinking of doing it if it fits.
    2L mivec mirage. Goodbye anyone that races me. Just need to run some decent front tyres.
    4G63T > 4B11T, dont even think about it being FWD, AWD is mandatory, going from 74 hp to 300 is insane.


        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 40.8 mpg (US) ... 17.4 km/L ... 5.8 L/100 km ... 49.0 mpg (Imp)


  2. #32
    Senior Member Ares's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Houston
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    1,908
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 201 Times in 142 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DirectNova View Post
    4G63T > 4B11T, dont even think about it being FWD, AWD is mandatory, going from 74 hp to 300 is insane.
    I'll have to agree with this.

  3. #33
    Senior Member satria_wr's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    Jakarta
    Country
    Indonesia
    Posts
    279
    Thanks
    39
    Thanked 101 Times in 56 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DirectNova View Post
    4G63T > 4B11T, dont even think about it being FWD, AWD is mandatory, going from 74 hp to 300 is insane.
    Is there a 4wd mirage avaliable? Does it use multilink rear end?
    2013 Honda Vario CBS VB
    2014 Mitsubishi Mirage CVT EGM
    2015 Toyota Innova 2.5V AT SMM
    2013 Proton Preve CFE CVT PW
    2013 Mitsubishi Outlander Sport PX CVT PW
    2016 Mitsubishi Pajero Sport Dakar AT TGM Limited

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage Exceed 1.2 automatic: 39.0 mpg (US) ... 16.6 km/L ... 6.0 L/100 km ... 46.8 mpg (Imp)


  4. #34
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Country
    Australia
    Posts
    601
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 105 Times in 76 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by DirectNova View Post
    4G63T > 4B11T, dont even think about it being FWD, AWD is mandatory, going from 74 hp to 300 is insane.
    Why turbo? Something that weights under 900kg with any amount of power doesn't need a turbo.
    I would rather the 4B11 anyway. Newer engine, better technology.
    Also AWD with such a small wheelbase would be insanely hard to drive. Snap over/understeer. Straight line would be fun.

  5. #35
    Senior Member Ares's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Houston
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    1,908
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 201 Times in 142 Posts
    Pretty sure this is AWD. And turbo.



    Can't believe you're complaining about AWD. Mitsu has been proud of their AWD tech. It may not be as good as the STi's but it's pretty damn good. AWD would eat out of any FWD in road racing any day every day.

    Currently, the best FWD car, the Ford Fiesta ST does not even match an older Lancer Evo in road racing.

    Lastly, that "newer engine, newer technology" is bull****. People are still using the 2jz in newer cars or even Nissan's RB engines.
    Last edited by Ares; 08-19-2014 at 01:47 PM.

  6. #36
    Senior Member Rkt Ship's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Mansfield, Oh
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    384
    Thanks
    22
    Thanked 188 Times in 79 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistah JT View Post
    Why turbo? Something that weights under 900kg with any amount of power doesn't need a turbo.
    I would rather the 4B11 anyway. Newer engine, better technology.
    Also AWD with such a small wheelbase would be insanely hard to drive. Snap over/understeer. Straight line would be fun.
    Actually other than changing to a full on aluminum engine and swapping the intake and exhaust around it doesnt really have any more technology (and thats saying there isn't much technologically different unless you get the flappy paddles but most people shy away from that) than the earlier evos. Even the ayc and acd are pretty much the same as the earlier versions. So other than weight savings there really isn't any positives (as far as technology is concerned) to using a 4b11 over a 4g63.

    Quote Originally Posted by Ares View Post
    Pretty sure this is AWD. And turbo.



    Can't believe you're complaining about AWD. Mitsu has been proud of their AWD tech. It may not be as good as the STi's but it's pretty damn good. AWD would eat out of any FWD in road racing any day every day.

    Currently, the best FWD car, the Ford Fiesta ST does not even match an older Lancer Evo in road racing.

    Lastly, that "newer engine, newer technology" is bull****. People are still using the 2jz in newer cars or even Nissan's RB engines.
    Generally the reason they use those outdated engines is because its easier to make power without worry on Iron blocks. Theres a reason GM still use engines loosely based on their engines from eons ago.....its easier and cheaper to go with what you know than to make something new(also accounting for huge prices in R&D).

  7. #37
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Jun 2014
    Location
    New-Brunswick
    Country
    Canada
    Posts
    151
    Thanks
    24
    Thanked 10 Times in 9 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Mistah JT View Post
    Why turbo? Something that weights under 900kg with any amount of power doesn't need a turbo.
    I would rather the 4B11 anyway. Newer engine, better technology.
    Also AWD with such a small wheelbase would be insanely hard to drive. Snap over/understeer. Straight line would be fun.
    Look at current rallye cars and you will understand what i'm talking about.


    The best bet would be to mount the engine at the back but pushing a little bit the engine behind the front wheels could be managable.

    S-AWC from the Evo X is a very good system. Being fragile kills it, as the AYC from the evo 4 onward.

        __________________________________________

        click to view fuel log View my fuel log 2014 Mirage ES 1.2 manual: 40.8 mpg (US) ... 17.4 km/L ... 5.8 L/100 km ... 49.0 mpg (Imp)


  8. #38
    Senior Member Ares's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Houston
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    1,908
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 201 Times in 142 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Rkt Ship View Post
    Actually other than changing to a full on aluminum engine and swapping the intake and exhaust around it doesnt really have any more technology (and thats saying there isn't much technologically different unless you get the flappy paddles but most people shy away from that) than the earlier evos. Even the ayc and acd are pretty much the same as the earlier versions. So other than weight savings there really isn't any positives (as far as technology is concerned) to using a 4b11 over a 4g63.

    Generally the reason they use those outdated engines is because its easier to make power without worry on Iron blocks. Theres a reason GM still use engines loosely based on their engines from eons ago.....its easier and cheaper to go with what you know than to make something new(also accounting for huge prices in R&D).
    My point exactly.

  9. The Following User Says Thank You to Ares For This Useful Post:

    Rkt Ship (08-19-2014)

  10. #39
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Oct 2013
    Location
    Sydney
    Country
    Australia
    Posts
    601
    Thanks
    7
    Thanked 105 Times in 76 Posts
    Quote Originally Posted by Ares View Post
    Pretty sure this is AWD. And turbo.



    Can't believe you're complaining about AWD. Mitsu has been proud of their AWD tech. It may not be as good as the STi's but it's pretty damn good. AWD would eat out of any FWD in road racing any day every day.

    Currently, the best FWD car, the Ford Fiesta ST does not even match an older Lancer Evo in road racing.

    Lastly, that "newer engine, newer technology" is bull****. People are still using the 2jz in newer cars or even Nissan's RB engines.
    Not complaining about it, saying I wouldn't want it in a short wheelbase car. Compare the length of the evo X to the mirage.

    Also putting an old engine into a new car is illegal here, so hence my other choice for the 4b11. Why make a track car when I need a daily?

  11. #40
    Senior Member Ares's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2014
    Location
    Houston
    Country
    United States
    Posts
    1,908
    Thanks
    42
    Thanked 201 Times in 142 Posts
    Would hate to live in sydney for your automotive rules.

    Below are a couple of AWD racecars that are about mirage length. Both seem to be doing just fine. Maybe you need to work on your driving skills?

    Suzuki SX4 pikes peak:


    Ford Fiesta gymkhana edition:




  12. The Following User Says Thank You to Ares For This Useful Post:

    HitShane (06-23-2016)

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •