Questions about Evo III 16g and small 16g

[BOBS90TURBO]

{QUOTE}(First off just get 3" exhuast, do not get 2.5" b/c you will just be upgrading later. They say this b/c "boost creep" which can be solved alot better than getting smaller exhuast. Get a 2g o2 housing and port the hell out of it and a 34mm flapper and you shouldnt have boost creep){QUOTE}


Please just do the 2 1/2"inch exhaust, I have been through all this before, I started off with a 3"inch system with heavy porting on everything and had bad boost creep, I then had too buy a 2 1/2" turbo back, and the boost creep was gone instantly. My car rocks with my big16g and support mods(stock sidemount) and yes 550's, this weekend I ran a 12.6 @109 (not to bad) I did a 12.4@110 a few weeks ago.

Yes some cars do get away with a 3"inch sysstem with no creep. but why take the chance when 2 1/2" is more than enough.

 

[doug]

2 1/2" is more than enough.

 

[Syndicate13]

Why do you think that the Evo III is so expensive?

It is definitely worth the upgrade.

Small 16G = 35lb/min
Evo III 16G = 42lb/min
20G = 44lb/min

It is closer to a 20G than it is to a small 16G. But it spools just about as fast as a small 16G. Plus the housing won't crack like a small 16G housing does (I went through 2 on my small 16G before upgrading). Everything is a plus with this turbo!

Where did you get this information from? Is the difference between a small 16g and an Evo 3 really that much? This has got me wondering if selling my small and getting a Evo 3 would be worth it.

 

[pianoman]

My buddys 14b just took a crap last week, so he ordered a E316G. He has it set to 10lbs, due to the fact that his whole fuel system is stock. He does have a ghetto 3inch turbo-back ported 2g 02 and 2g exhaust mani. I have to say that this turbo pulls VERY well for 10psi. Granted it was tested from the seat of my pants, but even so I could defintly tell a big diffrence between his car and my cousins car thats running the same mods with a small 16g 13psi. I don't think you can beat this turbo for the price

 

[BOBS90TURBO]

If you had a Big16g and wanted to upgrade to the new evo16g, I would say it is not worth the time and trouble just for H/P gain, but I would do it to upgrade from a small16g to an EVO16g or Big16g.

Click on each one and look at the vendor links, they will explain more about each turbo flow maps.
http://www.dsmtuners.com/parts/default.php?cPath=2_139_89

 

[94Talon2]

Where can you get 510cc injectors, what car are they from? wouldn't you run to rich? I guess you could turn the plastic screw in the MAF, but it's just a matter of how much.

 

[ShapeGSX]

If you check the turbo maps, the s16g is a much more effecient turbo than the e16g. Do some searching and plot it out, you'd actually be surprised. People talk about running bazillion psi on their e16g.. not a great idea, I did a lot of calculations recently, and found that optimium compressor effeciency is around 17-19psi for power, 20-24psi == around 60% effeciency, and you get to 25-26psi and your looking at thrust bearing damage.

You are reading the compressor maps wrong.

Take it from someone who had actually RUN both of these turbos on the same car. The Evo III 16G blows away the small 16G in every possible way. Who gives a crap if your calculator tells you that the smaller turbo is "more efficient" if the larger turbo pumps out another 80hp than the smaller one?

 

[onegee]

If deciding on a turboback exhaust size is hard, do what I did.

I bought a VRS 2.5 02 eliminator downpipe with test pipe from slowboyracing and a 3" thermal catback exhaust. I found that its ALOT quieter than friends with full 3" thermal turbobacks. Plus that should be enough for what you want to do, unless you decide you want to run a big ass turbo requiring a 3" o2 housing.

2.5 to 3" catback I felt was good enough for what I wanted, low 12s and a car with good low end response for autox. Go with what works for you and your goals.

I really like the VRS o2 eliminator's design, I'll probably do a review on it when I have the chance. Its been over 3 years since I bought it .

 

[onegee]

Sorry, should have looked at the stupid dates. This thread is a bit old.

 

[ShapeGSX]

efficiency is important, otherwise everyone would have an e16g and running 60psi. Understand the statement, the s16g is a much more efficient compressor than the e16g. There is a reason for the madness, don't try to run a e16g at 15psi on a smic, it'll just own all over it, and you'll knock like crazy, but I guess we could drown it out with gas right? Maybe patch it up with a better IC? Great turbo, effecient? no.

s16g gets into 74+% running boost, while the e16g starts around 70%, and goes down hill from there.

When you run a turbo out of its efficiency range, you basically just blow hot air, and we all know hot air is TEH POWA MKER.

e16g does flow a lot more, its a great turbo, and has a huge range. But there is definatly better out there, maybe not for your buck. A s16g is also a great turbo, don't have to worry with heatsoaking your SMIC.

Turbo's are not just, wow slap the crap on and weeeee, you should not follow the croud at all.

Who's following? My car was the first DSM with an Evo III 16G bolted to it to run in the 11s.

I'm telling you that at any boost level, the Evo III 16G walks all over my old small 16G. Period. Maybe it isn't as efficient, I don't really care! Efficiency percentage numbers don't tell you how much air the turbo is flowing.

Incidentally, you have to be kidding me. An Evo III 16G can't run 15psi with a stock intercooler on 93 octane without knocking? Don't believe everything an compressor map tells you. Oh yeah, and pay attention to the units on the horizontal axis of each compressor map. They might not be the same units on every map!

 

[sweet97]

Wellthe post is old and the originator may be long gone but at idle my gauge drops to nothing but has over 11 PSI which is enough for idle and picks up 10PSI for each 1000RPM's. If you have a 1G get the Scanmaster for tuning helpwith a MAFT, it makes it easy. By the way, anyone running a comp cams setup? mark
PM me if you have the 101100's or the 101200's. thanks.

 

[ShapeGSX]

I used to run mine on a stock smic, knocked like a mother, drowning knock with fuel is not the greatest idea in the world. and an IC shouldn't be a bandaid to an ineffecient turbo.

Did you ever think that something else might be wrong with your car to cause knock at only 15psi? What other mods did you have? What was your base timing set to?

Compressor maps are extremely important, that is if you don't plan on replacing your turbo often. Look at the maps on the 14b, that thing absolutely blows when compared to a s16g. If you mapped out your turbo you might be extremely surprised, I don't have my charts with me at work, but I think 15psi is into the trust bearing damage on a 14b (correct me if im wrong).

What do you mean "if" I mapped out my turbo? Have you done this yet?

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

Note the red line. That is a plot of my pressure ratio vs my airflow in 3rd gear of a drag racing pass in which I ran 118mph in my full weight 2G Eclipse GSX. I got the data from a DSMLink datalog.

I did map it out. I know where the turbo is operating on my car.

Note that I'm in the 68% island for most of 3rd gear. Note that I also ran 118mph in a 3315lb car. Note that if I turn the boost down, the car gets slower, so it isn't just "blowing hot air" at that point. Yes, it was pretty much maxed out. Note that I also probably have the smallest FMIC available on my car (18" wide, 6" tall Griffen).

I run 20psi daily on my car. The turbo is over one and a half years old and still kicking.

In the end, that little red line is still just a little red line. A timeslip showed me that the turbo had incredible potential when I mis-set my boost to 26psi by accident when I ran 12.6 @ 118mph on that pass. A few more trips to the drag strip got me my 11.8.

Oh yeah, my previous best on the "much more efficient" small 16G with the exact same setup was a 12.4@112mph (after running the turbo for ~4 years, I think). I'll take an extra 6mph in the 1/4 over supposed efficiency any day.

 

[neuro]

Seems to me he's talking about the fact that in practice (not theory), those few extra percentage points of efficiency on the S16G compressor map that you're raving about don't make up for the extra airflow that the E16G is capable of at similar pressure ratios. Theory is fine, but it's really all about making real horsepower! Maps are great for an apples to apples laboratory data comparison of two given compressors at STP, but real world applications can be and are often different. You're saying this and that can't be done while Shape's saying "Been there, done that". I'll take real-world data over theory any day. Ease up on quoting Corky Bell (I mean the "intercooler as a band-aid" quote)...I'm sure if we all followed what we read in Maximum Boost, we'd all be running ball bearing 50 trims or Aerodyne VATNs on tubular headers and external wastegates.

 

[ShapeGSX]

Neuro got it.

I do the calculations because I think it is an interesting and fun excercise. But real world testing is always needed, and it trumps the calculations. You can't include every variable in your calculations.

 

[biglady112]

Ok. I have two friends that have these two turbos. The car with the small 16g runs dsmlink and has a decent mod list. He heat soaks by the top of second gear. It knocks way too much as well. I have to drown it out with fuel. FMIC coming soon. This car runs 15psi on pump gas. 23psi on high octane gas.

The Evo III still has stock upper intercooler piping. Mods are walbro 255, greddy profec B, Turbo XS BOV returned, excedy clutch end Evo III 16g. He actually can run more boost (16-18) on pump gas then the small 16g can.

These are 2G's. 95(small 16g, dsmlink) and 96(Evo III). At stock settings with stock injectors in the 95 the 96 walks all over the other car at any boost. With the 690cc's in and pump gas tune, the small 16g runs away at 2-3 less psi.

So I think the Evo III in my opinion is a much better turbo. But tuned well the small 16g can do some damage. The small 16g car has run a 13.0 here at 5800ft with unknown intake leaks at the time. He is heast soaking and kocking the whole way. This was a 20psi. The Evo III can't even keep up at 19psi with high octane gas. We have swapped the ECU into the 96 to verify that it is indeed slower.

So it is a matter of tuning here. From a second gear roll, to the middle of fourth, the small 16g car puts 3-4 car lenghts on the Evo III. From a dig it is worse as the dsmlink car gets out of the hole better from a better clutch ( ACT vs Excedy) and 2 step.

My vote goes for the Evo III. But the small 16g is a great choice and surprises me everyday.

The 95 mods are as follows,
Small 16G, DSMlink, Nippon-denso 690's, 1G fuel rail, SX AFPR, ACT 2600, Stainless steel clutch line, oil feed line, aluminum radiator, ARP head studs, 4 layer mitsu head gasket, HKS 264's, kevlar timing belt, no balance shafts, ACT flywheel, W rated tires, no A/C, Hallman boost controller, hard upper/lower intercooler pipes, 1G BOV, ongreenperformance air filter/adapter, walbro 255, shifter bushing(under hood/center console), built tranny,

 

[pboglio]

Why in the hell would Mitsubishi switch to an "EVOIII 16g" if it was a disadvantage compared to a small 16g? Use some common sense. They have a rally budget that is just staggering, and they are going to spec a turbo that has worse performance than the previous turbo, common now?

Read the maps, the EVOIII blows the crap out of a small 16g. Who cares about 4% in compressor efficiency when your flowing over 40 lb/min. Whatever temp increase gets mitigated by a decent sized FMIC. Whatever resulting exhaust backpressure increase is insignificant. The small 16g couldn't even flow that much at standard air temps, and if it could the efficiency would be a hell of a lot lower than 65%. Anybody that can read a map would have figured this out already.

 

[sweet97]

EVO III, 550cc inj's and a 2.5"exhaust. 93 octane and 18 PSI without knock on the stock IC. I'm surprised mitsu hasn't deleted the small and big 16G's from their catalog, at least the big 16. The small does fill a hole from the 14b to the EVO.
Please, I am just stating what worked for me and I am not interested in any sort of arguement. PEACE to all!

 

[GPTourer]

Why in the hell would Mitsubishi switch to an "EVOIII 16g" if it was a disadvantage compared to a small 16g? Use some common sense. They have a rally budget that is just staggering, and they are going to spec a turbo that has worse performance than the previous turbo, come on now?

Word. Thank you.

 

[CrazyUglyCoyote]

Just my .02
I run the Big Evo III at 18 psi on a compltely stock car with except for 550 cc injectors, S-AFC. I dont have any knock at all. Ive taken it up to 20 psi durring a race and killed the other car w/ no problems. And my pump gas is only 91 octane. You guys are lucky back east!