Which engine? 6A12TT, MIVEC or EVO 7?

This forum is for technical discussions on anything that will make your car handle better or go faster.

Moderators: IMC, Club Staff

Post Reply
User avatar
spetz
Oldtimer
Posts: 2915
jedwabna poszewka promocja
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 6:00 pm

Which engine? 6A12TT, MIVEC or EVO 7?

Post by spetz »

Hey guys,

I am changing engines again in my lancer.
A bit over a year ago I had an FTO MIVEC engine fitted, with FTO brakes, gearbox etc.

Anyway, one of the bearings in it is gone so I have the following choices:

A) Get another 6A12 MIVEC, this one will be completely rebuilt, balanced to within 1 gram, blueprinted, ported and polished heads, match ported and polished intake runners, ported plenum, oversized (65mm) throttle body, RPW HPC coated extractors with a 3" cat and 2.5" mandrel exhaust, Apexi Power intake with CAI setup, FSE fuel pressure regulator, and all tuned with a GReddy E-manage.

B) Evo 7 engine, all standard with a modified FTO gearbox to suit it, front mount with custom piping.

C) 6A12TT with MIVEC heads on it. This is probably not really an option as I would need to use a standalone ECU and can't afford it, as the FTO ECU uses MAP sensors where as the 6A12TT uses air flow meters so there is no ECU interchangability.


What do people think? The cheapest option is the MIVEC, the Evo engine is inbetween and option C really just isnt affordable.

Keeping in mind I really wanted to stay NA, but I have also come to the stage where I want the car to be quite quick. In saying that the MIVEC should still do 13 second quarter mile times.

I need to make my mind up within about 2 days :(
Top
User avatar
Slither
Mechanic
Posts: 707
Joined: Mon Feb 16, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Out There Somewhere....

Post by Slither »

No mater what engine you put in it, it's still a FWD and as such you're always going to have troubles making a really "quick" car. Personally i'd go with the EVO 7 engine, there is plenty you can do to it to extract more power and tunability wise it's a much better option.

That said putting out more power is just going to cause trouble with traction so you are some what limited to your power output anyway!

I vote 4G63!!! 8)
Top
User avatar
FTO338
Oldtimer
Posts: 6712
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:00 pm
Location: Port Melbourne: Pimping with RX400h, B200 Turbo.

Post by FTO338 »

I agree with Ethan, no matter which option you going for, you going to have the problem of torque steer due to FWD. But I would go for 4G63, as it’s much easier to maintain & lots more aftermarket parts for it.
DISCLAIMER: The above text is the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the indisputable truth. The author is not responsible for any deaths, injuries or mental illness caused by the above statments.
Top
User avatar
devil2004
Grease Monkey
Posts: 174
Joined: Sat Mar 27, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: sydney

Post by devil2004 »

I agree with the above. There are a lot more performance mods for the evo engine, whereas fto engine mods are so limited.
Top
User avatar
RichardB
Grease Monkey
Posts: 194
Joined: Fri Oct 01, 2004 5:00 pm
Location: UK
Contact:
Contact RichardB

Post by RichardB »

What do you guys class as a really quick car?

I think a 12.44 1/4 mile is a really quick car, not quick enough for you ?? In america there are some 7 and 8 second 1/4 mile FWD cars http://www.nhrasportcompact.com/2004/any ... 01201.html

Some people do talk crap at times.
The World's fastest FTO - sub 9's checkout www.mitsubishi-fto.net to see the latest time.

Sponsored by : NR Autosport, RB Performance, PPG Gearboxes, IPG Parts, S1 Chiropractic
Top
User avatar
FTO338
Oldtimer
Posts: 6712
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2003 6:00 pm
Location: Port Melbourne: Pimping with RX400h, B200 Turbo.

Post by FTO338 »

Well to me a "quick" car is something that is an all rounder, which mean apart from straight line performance, its got to able to handle twisty well.

Any one can build a straight line performance car, all you have to do is pour enough cash into it. The fact is, you most likely to spend twice the amount of money if not three times to get a FWD doing low 1/4 miles compare to a same displacement RWD or AWD, not to mention you will defiantly lose the street drivability, especially on mountain/twisty run.

I could be wrong but I think the reason why most people here got a FTO is because it had a great shape, outstanding handling & a good balance of usable torque on twisty & short course.
DISCLAIMER: The above text is the personal opinion of the author and does not represent the indisputable truth. The author is not responsible for any deaths, injuries or mental illness caused by the above statments.
Top
User avatar
Bennoz
National President
Posts: 23676
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Contact:
Contact Bennoz

Re: Which engine? 6A12TT, MIVEC or EVO 7?

Post by Bennoz »

spetz wrote:Hey guys,

I am changing engines again in my lancer.
A bit over a year ago I had an FTO MIVEC engine fitted, with FTO brakes, gearbox etc.

Anyway, one of the bearings in it is gone so I have the following choices:

A) Get another 6A12 MIVEC, this one will be completely rebuilt, balanced to within 1 gram, blueprinted, ported and polished heads, match ported and polished intake runners, ported plenum, oversized (65mm) throttle body, RPW HPC coated extractors with a 3" cat and 2.5" mandrel exhaust, Apexi Power intake with CAI setup, FSE fuel pressure regulator, and all tuned with a GReddy E-manage.

B) Evo 7 engine, all standard with a modified FTO gearbox to suit it, front mount with custom piping.

C) 6A12TT with MIVEC heads on it. This is probably not really an option as I would need to use a standalone ECU and can't afford it, as the FTO ECU uses MAP sensors where as the 6A12TT uses air flow meters so there is no ECU interchangability.


What do people think? The cheapest option is the MIVEC, the Evo engine is inbetween and option C really just isnt affordable.

Keeping in mind I really wanted to stay NA, but I have also come to the stage where I want the car to be quite quick. In saying that the MIVEC should still do 13 second quarter mile times.

I need to make my mind up within about 2 days :(
Bugger Spetz... :(
What bearing went? Was is an internal one like a crack jounrnal?

Im was thinking Evo motor, but then $$$ started adding up...
like, having to rewire the enire car to suit.
Having to get it engineered, which may inculde bigger brakes or Evo brakes.... And then your insurance costs heading northward....

I reckon play with what you got. Why get another 6A12 & pull it to pieces when you could just pull the current one to bits - spun bearings can be fixed if its not too bad. If not, grab another motor & go for it (also keep in mind, a half cut maybe your cheapest option for getting another motor.)

If you do get another motor, go and do all those mods you list with the exception of blueprinting & balancing the bottom end. The $ vs Kw pickup for that is negligable... for longevity sure (like 200,000kms...) It would be worth doing.....But certainly get the heads off & ported up & go for flow! After all you already have half those bits dont you?? intake & extractors etc??

If you found yourself a good engine builder & did the running around yourself... I reckon it could be done for 5k.
Top
mrx
Veteran Mechanic
Posts: 1001
Joined: Fri Nov 28, 2003 6:00 pm
Location: FTO Capital of Australia
Contact:
Contact mrx

Post by mrx »

Also don't understand why people are so fixated with 1/4 mile times, but each to their own.

If you have to drive the car every day, then stick with NA.

Plus, isn't the FTO about great looks, handling, 8000+ rpm and the awesome soundtrack to go with it?

For me, the sound of the MIVEC was the seal of the deal.

But like I said, each to their own.
Top
afterburner
Mechanic
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Previously NZ, now Hertfordshire, England

Post by afterburner »

The 6A12TT may be difficult to fit as it is usually mounted around the other way in the Galant/Eterna range, so you may be better off with the 6A13TT.

And as the others have said above, it really depends what you want - and really the decision is to turbo or not to turbo. If so, then the 4G63 is undoubtedly a better base for mods. If not, then obviously the MIVEC engine is your best choice.

What about a 6A13 N/A MIVEC? :P
[url=http://www.atom.net.nz/afterburner/fto/index.htm][img]http://www.atom.net.nz/afterburner/ftologos.jpg[/img][/url]

It's gone :( - now carless...
Top
User avatar
SG
Veteran Mechanic
Posts: 833
Joined: Thu Mar 10, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Perth

Post by SG »

mrx wrote: Plus, isn't the FTO about great looks, handling, 8000+ rpm and the awesome soundtrack to go with it?
hes got a lancer!

i'd go for non-turbo just for the mildly cheaper insurance costs, and mildy cheaper cost to get it done.. and then spend some money on fixing 1st gear wheel spin :)
Top
User avatar
spetz
Oldtimer
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 6:00 pm

Post by spetz »

Pricing doesn't really matter.

The engine will be balanced, rebuilt, blueprinted etc free of charge because of warranty.
But since it's all apart I would pay extra for porting etc but it's the best time to do it.

Fitting the evo engine will cost me $4000... doing the work to the MIVEC about $2000.
I already have brakes etc on it (VR4 brakes) and it will be engineered.


I want a worked NA, but nothing beats that turbo feeling :(
Top
EURO
Oldtimer
Posts: 1346
Joined: Sun Sep 29, 2002 5:00 pm
Location: Melbourne

Post by EURO »

$2000 to get a rebuilt engine????

how so?
Top
MrFT000
Mechanic
Posts: 473
Joined: Mon Aug 23, 2004 5:00 pm

Post by MrFT000 »

damn spetz...
that really sucks.

maybe sell up all together and get something else?
My pic was too big.
Top
User avatar
Battousai
Newbie
Newbie
Posts: 4
Joined: Thu Sep 22, 2005 5:00 pm
Location: Gatton, Queensland

Post by Battousai »

i know this is off topic but on the subject of evo engines does anyone know if the evo 9, 4g63(which has MIVEC) sounds anything at all like the 6A12?
[img]http://tinypic.com/dx0a5l.jpg[/img]
Top
afterburner
Mechanic
Posts: 418
Joined: Tue Nov 16, 2004 6:00 pm
Location: Previously NZ, now Hertfordshire, England

Post by afterburner »

Doubtful - most of the sound of the FTO engine is because of the V6 configuration. Not only is the Evo 9 4G63 not a V6, but it also has a turbo in the exhaust to muffle the sound as well.

Also the 'Mivec' on the Evo 9 4G63 is really only a poor mans version of what is on the FTO motors - its only variable on the inlet camshaft, and not in lift either like the FTO. I would be surprised if it sounds any different to the Evo 8 .... but of course I say this without having heard any yet myself...
[url=http://www.atom.net.nz/afterburner/fto/index.htm][img]http://www.atom.net.nz/afterburner/ftologos.jpg[/img][/url]

It's gone :( - now carless...
Top
User avatar
spetz
Oldtimer
Posts: 2915
Joined: Wed Mar 03, 2004 6:00 pm

Post by spetz »

Yeah the evo 9 wouldn't sound any different to an evo 8.

The engine rebuild isn't costing me anything. The engine is under warranty from an engine conversion I had done.
The engine still runs perfect there is just a vibration from it.

The $2000 I said for the MIVEC is for porting and polishing the heads, intake manifold, fitting extractors etc.
Basically the choice is a rebuilt MIVEC with extra's on it (which I am gonna pay for) or a Evo 7 engine which i will have to pay about $3500 for + intercooler and piping
Top
User avatar
Bennoz
National President
Posts: 23676
Joined: Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:00 pm
Location: Sydney
Contact:
Contact Bennoz

Post by Bennoz »

Do it! Do it! :D
(rebuild the mivec that is)
That list of mods you have for it may even come in under 2k too :wink:
Top
Jase
Grease Monkey
Posts: 224
Joined: Thu Feb 20, 2003 6:00 pm
Location: Gold Coast

Post by Jase »

Hmmm. Not sure which way i'd go. Sure a turbo would be fun but broken bits and pieces aint. I'd prob stay n/a, but then i am getting old.
Top
Post Reply

Return to “Technical | Performance”