Evo X upgrades - Page 50

**Shane@DBPerformance** · 06-17-2010

There is no reason the MAF shouldn't max in a housing close to stock size. Mitsu wouldn't put some crazy oversized setup on the car. With a hotwire setup you want the MAF diameter to be somewhat close to what you need, the bigger you go the worse driveability gets and less resolution you have in the low throttle areas where you need it. All the Mustang, Subaru, Nissan, Audi, etc guys goto bigger MAF housing/pipes when they make more and more power, it isn't anything weird or new. For the Mustangs you can buy calibrated MAFs with flowsheets and the numbers that you need to plug into the MAF scaling tables in the ECU to make it easier to tune.

Also remember that someone might not notice the MAF is maxed and just try to over compensate for it by adding fuel to the main fuel table.

**Murlo26** · 06-17-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecoli

ETS does not tune cars.

Read the mod list and note the intake size and intercooler size. The dyno chart looks like shit, but you get the idea.

http://forums.evolutionm.net/evo-x-d...turbo-kit.html

Apparently that car is on speed density Shane, that is what Michael at ETS told me...that is their shop car.

Here is what he sent me:

I spoke with the foreman and we could build one, we would just need the flange. We actually build a 4.0" intake pipe for our turbo kits and haven't had a problem with airflow on the stock MAF. You can check the evolution x dyno section. We run speed density on our car, so it's not a good example since it doesn't use a MAF.

The foreman is actually looking at building a custom MAF adapter housing that's 3.5" since it's going to be tough to snake a 3.5" pipe all the way through. The custom CNC maf adapter housing and billet 5" tapered filter unit would be a one piece unit and the price would be around $250.00 for the setup. We would be looking at around 3-weeks for production.

**Murlo26** · 06-17-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecoli

There is no reason the MAF shouldn't max in a housing close to stock size. Mitsu wouldn't put some crazy oversized setup on the car. With a hotwire setup you want the MAF diameter to be somewhat close to what you need, the bigger you go the worse driveability gets and less resolution you have in the low throttle areas where you need it. All the Mustang, Subaru, Nissan, Audi, etc guys goto bigger MAF housing/pipes when they make more and more power, it isn't anything weird or new. For the Mustangs you can buy calibrated MAFs with flowsheets and the numbers that you need to plug into the MAF scaling tables in the ECU to make it easier to tune.

Also remember that someone might not notice the MAF is maxed and just try to over compensate for it by adding fuel to the main fuel table.

I believe you are right shane, i am going to get a 3.5" intake for sure, I am just relaying information right now.

You are the Yoda...i am...maybe an imperial guard at best, lol.

FattyBoomBatty · 06-17-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by Murlo26

You are the Yoda...i am...maybe an imperial guard at best, lol.

Dreaming big, are we?

**Shane@DBPerformance** · 06-17-2010

We could do speed density on yours...

**Murlo26** · 06-17-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by ecoli

We could do speed density on yours...

$$$$$ I am guessing...I think the only option on the X is the cosworth one and motec.

**mlomker** · 06-17-2010

The good news is that CBRD is interested in making an intake for us. He implied that they've already started prototyping one this evening.

I'm pretty sure I have the highest whp BBX car to date so he wouldn't want to hold me up.

**Murlo26** · 06-17-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlomker

The good news is that CBRD is interested in making an intake for us. He implied that they've already started prototyping one this evening.

I'm pretty sure I have the highest whp BBX car to date so he wouldn't want to hold me up.

Actually even given your constraints and problems, 430 is the highest i have seen when calculating in dyno differences. GST's reads at least 20-30whp higher depending on the power level, and they haven't broke 450 yet with one.

You need more hold ups though...so i can catch up, lol.

**mlomker** · 06-18-2010

No real news here, just more confirmation. The additional airflow mods on my car vs a stock motor & manifolds probably account for the difference.

Quote:

Originally Posted by mlomker

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryan@GST

Approx 450whp on our Mustang dyno.

Have you had any cars in this power range run out of MAF?

My car seems to have maxed out an AMS 3" intake at 25-26psi @7500 rpm.

Quote:

Originally Posted by bryan@GST

This one was 4.95v at 8100rpm, boost was 27psi at that point. AEM intake.

26psi seems a bit low to be hitting 5v

**scheides** · 06-18-2010

Good deal!

**Murlo26** · 06-18-2010

Yea, the 26psi on your car i would guess is closer to 29psi on that car with the MAP head, cams and better intake.

The FPred was on the AEM intake as well that hit 525, i wonder if that has something to do with it.

**mlomker** · 06-18-2010

A small convenience for when the time comes.

FattyBoomBatty · 06-18-2010

Evo X's have 8 calipers?

**scheides** · 06-19-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by FattyBoomBatty

Evo X's have 8 calipers?

All Brembos have two bleeders per caliper. One inside, one outside.

**mlomker** · 06-19-2010

Dad helped me drop the car off at Full Blown today. Shane had left the car out front last night and when I first saw it I smiled. Dad doesn't like the wing. Everyone is a critic. lol.

I have my fingers crossed for FB being able to sort things out for me. If they can't find a problem with the current setup then I'll undoubtedly get a quote for a custom fuel system. A fuel cell/surge tank/double pump would be cooler than hell. Not sure if I can afford that, but let me dream for a minute ok?

Time to go get my Thai take-out. yummy.

**mlomker** · 06-20-2010

I've had a couple people ask what the stock Evo X hanger looks like vs the FB, so here are a couple photos.

\
Large version

Large version

**scheides** · 06-20-2010

Is it just me or does the stock hanger position the pumps *a lot* lower in the tank than the FB hanger?

**mlomker** · 06-20-2010

Quote:

Originally Posted by scheides

Is it just me or does the stock hanger position the pumps *a lot* lower in the tank than the FB hanger?

A fair question. The FB hanger doesn't use springs so I am assuming that they measured carefully and their fixed hanger is actually hitting the bottom. I'm also assuming that BlaqOPs cut the small hoses connecting the pumps to the hanger at the proper length so that they are actually touching the bottom of the FB hanger.

I also question the FB hanger's use of slits at the bottom since the stock hanger holds fuel...you are guaranteed to get fuel all over the place when you pull the stock hanger. It drains out on the FB hanger.

These are the main questions that I need FB to answer for me this week. I have zero interest in pinning blame on either vendor. I'm all about wanting a car that can be driven!

**scheides** · 06-20-2010

^Good attitude. Beyond blame at this point, just need to solve the problem and move forward.

Eagerly awaiting word from FB on this.

**Murlo26** · 06-20-2010

Yea hopefully FB figures something good out, it would suck to have to do another fuel setup.