Just finished reading Motortrend's 6/94 issue testing a m/t GSX and a/t GST

[91Bomb]

According to Motortrend Magazine (6/94) the reason that the '95 a/t turbo models were 5 hp less then the m/t's (210 vs 205) was due to the fact that the turbo's are smaller??? Is this true? They go on to say that the smaller turbo helps provide for 6 ft/lbs more torque (220 vs 214)

They also conclude that "It's a toos-up whether the GSX or the GST is more entertaining to drive." (that's comparing 5-spds)

GSX m/t 0-60 - 6.4, 1/4 mi - 14.9 @ 91.6
GST a/t 0-60 - 7.4. 1/4 mi - 15.5 @ 90.3

They should've tested the GST a/t using the 'free mods'. The 1/4 mi would've looked more like 14.8 @ 95 mph.

That extra gear helps a lot but I still love the auto trans as long as it's on a car like a turbo DSM. ( I'd also take a C5 'vette with a 4-spd auto over the 6-spd m/t)

 

[ilikeboost]

i don't think they were properly informed... auto and manual 2g's all have t-25, If i'm right they should put out the same power, but i could be wrong. I remember reading somewhere that automatic cam's are different then manual. I don't think thats right i could be wrong. Doesn't matter though. either way they're both kick ass cars.

 

[housegsx]

I believe the auto's have slightly smaller injectors. 410cc if I remember correctly.

 

[definitiveno]

i don't think they were properly informed... auto and manual 2g's all have t-25, If i'm right they should put out the same power, but i could be wrong. I remember reading somewhere that automatic cam's are different then manual. I don't think thats right i could be wrong. Doesn't matter though. either way they're both kick ass cars.

did they make 2g's in 94?

 

[housegsx]

did they make 2g's in 94?

No, they started the 2g with model year 1995. The magazine is mid/late '94. And it's reviewing a '95 as stated in the original post. Motor Trend generally test new cars, not old ones.

 

[Defiant]

According to Motortrend Magazine (6/94) the reason that the '95 a/t turbo models were 5 hp less then the m/t's (210 vs 205) was due to the fact that the turbo's are smaller??? Is this true?

It was for 1Gs. 2Gs all use the T-25.

They go on to say that the smaller turbo helps provide for 6 ft/lbs more torque (220 vs 214)

They also conclude that "It's a toos-up whether the GSX or the GST is more entertaining to drive." (that's comparing 5-spds)

Yeh. Well, it's Motor Trend. I don't know how they can even type while doing that to the sponsor's.... pleasure with their mouths. This is also very early for the 2G, undoubtedly pre-production test models and without production details fully determined. But it sounds like they're crossing-up the turbo detail. I'd not put it past Mits to give them the wrong info.

They should've tested the GST a/t using the 'free mods'.

The free mods came from the users once we got our hands on the cars. Magazines don't do new-car road tests with "modded" cars- or, they're not supposed to.

 

[SilverMitsu]

Actually the 2g AT Turbo DSM does have 205 hp and 220 torque according to the chilton, everything else is the same as a manual, cams, pistons...blah bllah blah...only difference is the tranny, no we dont have 410 injectors, we have 450's just like a MT. The 1g AT Turbo DSMs came with 390's, not the 2g's...

 

[housegsx]

Actually the 2g AT Turbo DSM does have 205 hp and 220 torque according to the chilton, everything else is the same as a manual, cams, pistons...blah bllah blah...only difference is the tranny, no we dont have 410 injectors, we have 450's just like a MT. The 1g AT Turbo DSMs came with 390's, not the 2g's...

Then where does the 5hp difference come from? Or was that just some dumb marketing scheme?

 

[91Bomb]

Actually the 2g AT Turbo DSM does have 205 hp and 220 torque according to the chilton, everything else is the same as a manual, cams, pistons...blah bllah blah...only difference is the tranny, no we dont have 410 injectors, we have 450's just like a MT. The 1g AT Turbo DSMs came with 390's, not the 2g's...

What does chilton say the M/T HP + torque is?

I thought the 1st 2g ws actually a '94-1/2 which came out around May of '94 so I don't think those were pre-production cars they had tested. But they did get their info all backwards perhaps in a rush to get the article to press and /or mitsu gave them some bad info.

As far as 210 (m/t) vs 205 (a/t) that is the #'s I've always seen mitsu list in their ads and read in various write ups on these cars. Also, when the 2g first came out they were running some print ads touting the fact that the turbo put out 11.1 lbs of boost which I believe was an increase over the 1g's 10.8 (m/t) and 9.9 (a/t)

But where does that 5hp go? Are the cams definately the same on both m/t + a/t cars?


A 5 hp difference wouldn't bother me the way that the 15 hp difference of the 1g models did. Not long after I bought my '91 TSI a/t I started losing sleep at night because I was tormented by the fact of being 15 hp below the m/t's. One day I finally had enough and went out and hack-sawed the cat off and put a straight pipe on to help make up some of the difference -- I slept better at night after doing that . I knew I wasn't gaining 15 hp but if I was getting 5 back that mitsu/chrysler had cheated me of I was happy. This was before I had acess to the internet and DSM sites and back then I didn't even know what controlled the boost so I couldn't raise that either although I did wind up bending the ?lever? on the turbine housing that the wastegate actuactor arm attaches to and upped the boost a hair. In my greed for speed I kept fooling with that lever until it broke off I was left with 0 boost and had to drive it that way for about 2 miserable months. I priced a new turbine housing from mitsu and they wanted $150 for it and $400 for a new 1g ex man that I needed (the small a/t one).
So I drove around for awhile with no boost until I started hiting the junkyards and the owner of one place said he could order me a brand new turbine housing for $50 and a new 1g mani for $100 -- $150 total vs mitsu's $650 for the same stuff! A week later I was back in bussiness

 

[91Bomb]

Actually the 2g AT Turbo DSM does have 205 hp and 220 torque according to the chilton, everything else is the same as a manual, cams, pistons...blah bllah blah...only difference is the tranny, no we dont have 410 injectors, we have 450's just like a MT. The 1g AT Turbo DSMs came with 390's, not the 2g's...

WRX = 215 lbs torque
2g a/t = 220 lbs torque

 

[SilverMitsu]

the chilton also says for MT 210hp 214 torque....

HP/torque is different due to drivetrain loss...us AT have like a 22% and the MT have like 16%....so in actuality, maybe the AT were given MORE hp than the MT but because our trannies suck balls stock we lose so much of that power, but that is just a theory...An AT has drivetrain loss like an AWD MT. As far as what the chiltons says, we are identical though....

Also keep in mind that miniscule HP like that can be made/lost doing something as simple as adjusting fuel mapping, maybe us AT's were tuned a bit different because our downlow torque blows with the stock TQ until the t-25 would kick...