[ View Full Version Of This Page ]

How to get more torque from a 4g93 SOHC 16v - Page 2

All Forums » Everything else » How to get more torque from a 4g93 SOHC 16v

Pages: 1 [2]
BobC92
6/17/2005 5:20:15 PM
quote:

ORIGINAL: FireDoc

I see nothing wrong with your goals. I, however, Will spend $ whatever the cost if it is what I have to do to get the best results I can with my ability level. I guess that is also why I have a hard time getting rid of ANYTHING I modify, too much sentimental value. A victim of my own device!


I appreciate what you're saying. I have stuff that I've fabricated, worn out, taken off, and abandoned YEARS ago - for vehicles I don't even own anymore - still lying around!

In my case I don't feel that I lack much in ability, just specific knowledge. I enjoy the challenge of making the largest improvements possible for the least amount of cash out-of-pocket. Doing the research and figuring out ways to do or make the spendy mods myself - cheaply - is a big part of the appeal.

For example, I have a Jeep Cherokee that I've been working on for about a year now, making it steadily more and more off road capable. Last time I updated my modifications list I had made improvements/upgrades to it that would retail for close to $5,000 if I just bought the parts ready-made (not counting what it would cost to have them installed). By buying the few items I couldn't build myself second-hand, and then designing and building the rest of parts myself, I was able to do all of the modifications for under $2,000. The net result is that I have less than $4,000 total invested in it, and it is probably one of the most modified and capable $4,000 Jeep Cherokees on the planet!

So, that's where I'm "coming from". I could probably afford to buy the most expensive mods available, and even pay to have someone install them for me if I really wanted to invest that kind of money. But what would be the fun in that? Doing more with less is not only more interesting, it just makes more sense to me financially.
FireDoc
6/17/2005 6:53:19 PM
"Justification for a higher education"
BobC92
6/18/2005 12:11:59 AM
Yeah, kind of like another fabricator/tinkerer/Jeepaholic I know is fond of saying......

"Building anything just requires the right combination of brains and materials. The more brains you use, the less materials you need!"

But with me, you can substitute the word "money" for the word "materials"......
BobC92
6/18/2005 9:51:28 PM
When I got home last night the cone filter and MAF adapter were sitting there waiting for me.
OH BOY, OH BOY!

I Installed it all today. I disconnected the battery while I did the install to reset the ECU for good measure. It was a pretty simple install. I started by pulling out the MAF and the tube between it and the throttle body. Then I removed the old stock airbox and the frame that supports it. I had to fab a support bracket to bolt between the MAF and the fenderwell to give the MAF & filter some support and hold them in place - can't have 'em just flopping around under the hood. After it was all installed I took it for a test drive to see if I could tell the difference.......

MAN what an IMPROVEMENT! MUCH quicker throttle response, revs up much faster, revs higher in every gear, more power - at both low AND high RPMs, better acceleration. It pulls stronger to redline and actually seems to be reaching a higher top speed in each gear. In second it will run all the way up to 50 mph, and in third it will pull hard all the way up to 70! Seriously, this intake filter REALLY woke this little motor up!

AND IT SOUNDS REALLY COOL TOO! At anything below 1/2 throttle the increase in intake noise is hardly even noticeable. BUT at wide open throttle (WOT) the intake noise gets significantly louder than it used to be, though not obtrusively so. Just a really nice growly sound that quickly builds to a full snarl. I'd say that at WOT you can hear about twice as much intake sound in the cabin as what you could hear with the stock intake, but the sound has a much lower, meaner quality to it. Needless to say I LIKE IT!

Made a couple of high-speed WOT passes at my favorite hill to confirm what the old "butt dyno" was telling me. At the start of the steepest part of the hill I was in 4th gear and was up to 75-78 mph - versus about 70-72 mph before. I topped the hill at 62 mph (!) - compared to 55 mph before installing the filter - and 50 mph originally! A 12 mph improvement over the original 100% stock setup. If letting it breathe by installing a low restriction filter makes this much difference, I can't WAIT to see what the bigger throttle body and MAF will do for it!

Next thing you know I'm going to be challenging hopped up Civics to stoplight drag races Wouldn't that blow 'em away - gettin' whupped by a MINI-VAN?
BobC92
6/19/2005 8:18:27 PM
Spent a couple of hours giving it a good cleaning today. Probably the first real "bath" its had in about 2 years. I figured that since it is running good and has been pressed back into DD duty, it was due for a good scrubbing down. Afterwards it looked so good I decided to take a couple of pictures! As far as exterior/appearance mods, the only things I've done are the wheels, some slightly wider tires (with a lower profile to maintain stock overall diameter) and the front "chin spoiler" - which actually came off an old Ford Ranger I used to own, but just happened to fit almost perfectly with virtually no modifications

I don't have too much planned in terms of appearance mods either. Probably tint the windows, repaint some of the black trim, and maybe add the rear "wing" from a late 80's / early 90's civic hatchback across the top of the rear hatch - if I can find one cheap enough. Might fabricate a set of side skirts out of plastic too - just to give it the aero look. I need to find a set of factory form-fitting front mudflaps to mount in front of the rear wheelwells before I can do that though. I figure the skirts can attach to the molded mud flaps front and back that way and it will look almost factory - but cost next to nothing.

Anyway, here's what it looks like right now.....


Thumbnail Image



Thumbnail Image
BobC92
7/2/2005 2:37:51 AM
Well, I've been running it with the IAT resistor dial set at about 75% (7.5k ohms) for a little over two weeks now. Seems to have reduced the gas mileage by about 1.5 mpg, compared to having it set at 50% (25.6 mpg vs 24.1 mpg). Not too bad for the performance improvement described in my previous post.

I made a 480 mile round trip earlier this week. Filled the tank before I left and on the way there I ran it with the dial at the 75% setting, and got 25.2 mpg. Filled the tank again for the the return trip and drove over the exact same stretches of the exact same roads, just in reverse, but with the dial set to 100% (10k ohms) on the way home, and got 26.0 mpg. Seems odd that going from a 50% setting to 75% reduced mileage by 1.5 mpg, but going from 75% to 100% increased mileage by .8 mpg!?!

I'll be driving with it set at 100% for another week or so before making any more changes, just to fully test the effect, and see if the mileage increase was just a fluke. I also still need to drive it at the zero setting for a week or two to see what the MPG effects of that are - since I wasn't tracking my mileage closely before doing the mod.

In a little over a week I should be getting the throttle body from a 92 Expo with the 2.4 liter 4G64 engine. I found and bought it for $40 + $10 S&H from a wrecking yard through car-part.com. Installing it will be my next mod - sometime around the 23rd since I'll be out of town and not driving it for 2 weeks in the middle of the month.

About the second week of next month or so I'll be doing my next mod - installing the MAF off an Expo with the 2.4 liter. I found one at a local wrecking yard for $15.

This next week I should be getting the adjustable cam gear I bought on eBay for $46 + $16 S&H. Installing it will probably be my last mod for a while and be done about the last week of next month or so.

MAN! it is so hard to only do these mods one every couple of weeks - to allow time for some testing & gathering results data for each one! I want to just do them ALL and see what the final result is! But that isn't the scientific method though, so I can't just do it that way....
FireDoc
7/2/2005 8:35:53 AM
Just a thought about your mileage. It sounds like you have a slight difference in elevation between your starting point and your and destination. Could be the reason for your odd mileage?
BobC92
7/2/2005 11:26:18 AM

quote:

ORIGINAL: FireDoc

Just a thought about your mileage. It sounds like you have a slight difference in elevation between your starting point and your and destination. Could be the reason for your odd mileage?


That's a possiblility, I suppose. Though according to TopoZone between the two endpoints there is only a 350 feet elevation difference. Though of course, you do have to go over a couple of 3,000 - 4,000 foot high mountain ranges in between.

I wouldn't think that such a small net change in elevation would make any difference on a 240 mile trip - especially when compared to the amount of overall elevation change in between them. Would you?
FireDoc
7/2/2005 4:59:04 PM
I dont know about where you live, but here a drive to fairbanks(100 miles) and back will be 1/4 tank to, and 1/3 on the way back. Reason is fairbanks sits at 430' give or take, and I am at 1230'.
BobC92
7/2/2005 10:13:08 PM

quote:

ORIGINAL: FireDoc

I dont know about where you live, but here a drive to fairbanks(100 miles) and back will be 1/4 tank to, and 1/3 on the way back. Reason is fairbanks sits at 430' give or take, and I am at 1230'.


Well then, that may very well be it. You're only talking 800 ft difference in elevation - just over twice the 350 ft. difference I saw on my trip.

Just goes to show why I am going to have to drive it this way for at least a week to see what the mileage really is before I change anything else.
BobC92
7/25/2005 2:17:44 AM
Well, I've driven it enough since the last mod to say that my gas mileage hasn't suffered. Still about 20mpg city and 28mpg highway - 24 mpg average. Basically no change.

Guess it's time to do the 2.4 liter throttle body install. I got it delivered the other day, so I'll report back on my results after I do the install later this week or next weekend......
Yusri
4/26/2006 3:15:57 AM
hi all....

hi bobc92, for more power u can use auto engine cam.... i have outo 1 for 4g93 sohc.... can speed up to 60 in 2nd and 100 in third... able to hit red line also in 4th... i have remove the airflow sensor and other vacume sensor... can easily hit 125 mph... also can try libero gear box
Pages: 1 [2]
Related Threads

[ View Full Version Of This Page ]

Return to the Mitsubishi Forum home page - Archive Home