I know there aren't many MIVEC stories on here considering this is based on the 420A (and I have a Talon ESi), but does anyone know more information on it?

To all of the kids that don't know what MIVEC is, its is Mitsubishi's attempt of VTEC (that's Hondas/Acuras) or Variable Valve Timing Lift and Control...

So why would we care or why would it help us?...
If you look at the MIVEC engines, like the 1.6L I4 (found in the Mirage Cyborg R and Mirage Asti) which produces 175hp and the 2.0 V6 (found in the FTO) which produces over 200hp (with 0-100 7 second sprints, bone stock), you would notice that they are real competitors...

With numbers like this, we could "beat" most HonDUH boys, and the domestic cars, while still being under the 2000cc classes at races...

So anyways, does any one know how to do conversion from non-VVT to a VVT system?

Thanks to all ahead of time, and sorry for making this post soo long.

MIVEC=Mitsubishi=Japanese
420A=Chrysler=American

I know that...
I'm just saying, is there a VVT for a 420A?

no

you may know what MIVEC is, but you are definitley lost and confused......very lost and confused. Mitsu is doing away with the variable valve timing and lift control. Actually there gearing away from Honda's idea of it. Their new valve timing control work differently than any other makes. At low speed the engine will actually run on 2 cylinders which makes the car very gas effeicient. When it's time to cruise all 4 cylinders go at it and kicks out the needed horses. But Mitsu had no intentions of bringing it over here, from what I read, they don't really believe in it. They're builing more displacement engines and leaving it up to the aftermarket industry to do the power mods. Which to me is very smart, considering that real Honda enthusiasts is turning their back on straight up Vtec set up and going with hybrid set up and then using force induction. Which is a non vtec bottom end mated with a vtec head and pistons and rods (LS/vtec conversions). When Honda introduced the Vtec engines it's main purpose was to pass emissions and save gas, the extra power was just an incentive to them. They didn't really have any idea that the young market was gonna chew it up like bubble gum. For the last month I've been trying to find a way to control the valve timing and lift, without cam gears after reading the many different systems that these other automakers use. In the end, I'll pick my turbocharged 420A over any kind of valve timing and lift shit.....plain and simple...all that stuff is just too overrated. No Replacement for Displacement.

it's funny that someone would praise "no replacement for displacment" and turbo charging their car at the same time.. those are very contradictory. but anyway. yeah, no varible cam stuff of any kind for the 420a engine.

oh.. and VTEC stands for "Varible, Timing, Electronic, Control" ;)

hmm mivec is outdated now. It was better than vtec but all this new VVT, VVTLI, IVTEC and stuff have eclipsed it... Mitsu shoulda just brought the FTO here instead of making that 3G piece of crap.

well in order to get vtec in the 420a we would need a different rocker arm assembly with a third rocker arm but there are none available for our cars. and im not sure if they would fit. and actually VTEC stands for Variable Vlve Timing Lift Electronicaly Controlled :)


"Proud to be, a 2gnt" (was)


-mitsuman
95 gs
Hrc stg 2(not for long)
NER customer

Ditto on the definition of Vtec. Me turbocharging my car is not the same as Vtec I'm making use of the displacement that's already there with some force induction. Honda is a rival to that. They try any technology they can get their hands on to get a small displacement engine to punch out those extra horses....but where's the torque. Bigger displacement means the torque will be there along with the horses. That's what makes our engine so nice. The increase in horsepower and torque stays relevant instead of being extremely far from each other.

>The increase
>in horsepower and torque stays relevant instead of being
>extremely far from each other.

Here's an interesting quote from Big Brent about hp/torque differences. I found it in a recent all-motor/turbo poll:

"...but torque aint what its all about and I hate to keep bringing this up but F1 cars only have a peak of maybe 300lb ft of torque even though they make 900+hp..."


95 Eclipse RS : 5 speed
Gude cams : test pipe : AFX UDP : ram air : Thrush glasspack : Dual air horns : Kenwood KDC 5000 : AutoCommand remote start
incomming - lower strut bars

it's cause you don't need TQ when your motor can run past 12K RPMS. you let the high end HP do all the work since your car will NEVER be down in the lower rpms. but with a realistic street motor that redlines and 6.5-7.5K rpms, you need TQ because you can't just ride the HP, cause at those lower RPMS your motor still needs TQ to make that HP, instead of just using the engines inertia/rotational speed to make the power. A more fiting example of what you might want to compare your engine to would be NASCAR cars, IMO. they redline at about 9K rpm, make 800HP but also make very high TQ i'm sure, although I don't know their actual numbers. either that or go down to the Ford Zetec series, which uses standard 2.0L zetec motors (like in my zx2) and they outperform (based on laptime) cars with more then 3 times the HP. if you are interested in what i'm talking about I can link to the site that talks about it.

:D Wow, someone actaully quoted me on something that was posted many weeks ago, I feel so special. Breezio, I think this discussion is dealing with small motors making power, not huge NASCAR motors which is why he brought up the F1 numbers. And isnt the Ford ZETEC series in open wheel cars that weigh next to nothing, if you are comparing them to street cars with 300+hp than I can see why, but I will bet you my left eye that your car would not win against an S2000 with 153lb ft of torque, ohh and 240hp which is less than 3 times your car. I do believe that even with 20 more lb ft and 100 more hp that it does 0-60 in 3 secs less and does the 1/4 in the low 14's, and you cant pin all of that performance gain to RWD or slightly lighter or slightly bigger tires. When it comes down to it, if managed correctly Tq is not as big an issue as its made out to be.

Correct me if i'm wrong but, i think you are talking about the second version of MIVEC right? The one with modulated- displacement. I read that in "Super Street".

I think Breezio is just exampling off of the NASCARS, as of being more simular to us...how many 420a's you see running around slammin 12K RPMS... and the NASCAR ranking in at the 9K.....wait here is a corny example of the example. What if ya have a bigger tire on your bike, and try to stop...it take longer to stop than a smaller tire. Example-inertia...just like if you get a lightened flywheel...


Life is a bitch. Slap it around a little.


HRC stage 1



email me at Anthonyl469@aol.com




"When you reach real ability you will be able to become one with the enemy. Entering his heart you will see that he is not your enemy after all." -Tjusii

Without reading all the information already posted I would like to clarify something.

VTEC, MIVEC, VVTi, i-VTEC, blah blah blah is for midrange and low end, not high end. That is a misconception about it. You can make the same power as a VTEC car by just using a large cam. The difference is without VTEC your low end will suffer. That is it. Do not fret not having it. Just get cams.

Exactly. When say a B16a switches over to the "big" cam, its at near race car specs, something around 290. You definitely wouldnt want to drive around with that cam engaged all the time. If they werent equipped with VTEC, their low end would suffer worse than it already does. Actually, with the "big" cam engaged all the time, you'd probably have to sit at 2k+rpms just to idle. No low end at all.

...somehthing to remember is that max acceleration occurs at peak TQ and max speed occurs at peak HP so the two should be used to create a usable range. So optimally cars should shift at peak HP so that they drop at peak TQ, then they accelerate to peak HP and switch gears and land on peak TQ again. A good way to put it is like this. The only way to make power is through the multiplication of TQ through gears. So VTEC (and other similarly euqipped engines), have short gears to work tith this limited TQ. The S2000 doesn't have overdrive and neither did all the 1st Gen M cars from BMW in North America. the created the trade off of speed to economy. By making do with the limited power they were able to compete with bigger more TQ producing cars. This explains why a TQ monster like the 1G 4.6L Ford Modular engine powered Mustangs were only clocking 0-60 in 6.5s and why the New RSX Type S is in the neighborhood of 6-6.3 with a measly 140+ lbs of TQ. When the TQ drops off your momentum is maintaned by HP and your gear. The manufacturer decides to compromise the gear for speed and mileage and assigns it to you. When the gears runs out near HP dropoff and redline it usually falls back towards TQ to repeat the cycle. Make No mistake though prolly 0-30mph was all mustang when the RSX plays catchup to beat it at 60mph. TQ is the key to acceleration but if it can't perform for long(low HP in otherwords), it will eventully lose to the HP champ. This has gotten long but here is another good example that. The Viper does 0-60 in 4.1s with 450HP and 490lbs of torque. The Ferrari flag car the Berlinetta 550 Maranello manages that same feat with almost 300lbs more weight and 71 less lbs of TQ, but the gears are better matched to the 485HP and 419lbs of TQ to get there with the same urgency. Anyway there are several factors but a big engine with high rpm figures will accomplish the same thing as VTEC and their smaller engines. What's nice is that bigger engines with less cylinder head trickery costs less money to make. So we get the benefit of TQ and moderte power all with a good redline. This explains why a BS 127HP VTEC 1.6L all aluminum civic motor costs just as much as a 2L 420 engine. Anyway you could buy both for about 400-500 dollars in working condition and, obviously, the 2gnt engine makes both more power and TQ and NO variable head trickery.

Props to Skrilla for clarifying all that info..
He knows so much, I'm serious...

I think he's some type of alien :wary

But back to the MIVEC and non-MIVEC thing..
I know that we don't have a Mitsu motor..

But..
The Turboed 46G3, with a 2.0L makes 210 hp

While the 1.6L makes about 175hp and the 2.0L V6 makes 200hp Naturally Aspirated...

I just gotta say, nice way to step back Mitsubishi!