New and Used Car Talk Reviews Hot Cars Comparison Automotive Community

The Largest Car Forum in the Philippines



Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 48
  1. Join Date
    Oct 2005
    Posts
    5,465
    #31
    Quote Originally Posted by niky View Post
    The next-generation Lancer seems like it's going to be one size class up on the old Lancer. It looks a lot like the "shark-nosed" Galant, and it will probably be just as big as the older Galant model.
    if Niky, you are referring to the "Shark" nosed Galant. then the next Lancer's gonna big. heck! the current lancer with US ver bumpers almost 174" long. the Shark at 187" is almost as long as the 97 Cefiro, Camry, 99 Accord etc...

    i think it'll stay compact or bigger but still within the sizes of its compact competitors.

  2. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,710
    #32
    The Compact class right now is a growing group. The Focus and Mazda3 are already pushing the size limits of the class, while overall weight has gone up from an average of 1000 kgs about ten years ago to 1200-1300 kgs now.

    A nearly Galant-sized Lancer would be very competitive in such a class, and as long as it looks much like the concept, is bound to win over a few enthusiasts, although the muscular looks might be a bit too old-fashioned (there's that old school thing again ) for a younger generation weaned on tall headroom and bubble-shaped cars.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  3. Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    14
    #33
    yo mga bro alam nyo ba kung saan ako makakakita ng hks gt turbo kit para sa 2006 lancer evo mr

  4. Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    14
    #34
    lancer would take the rs on the dirt road

  5. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,710
    #35
    Try Emperor Motorsports. They carry parts for the Evo.

    RE: "Lancer would take the RS on a dirt road."

    This review was pertaining to the non-turbo Lancer 2.0 GT (135hp), not the Lancer EVO (276hp). While the EVO would beat the RS soundly in every category (except in CD-changer quality and steering wheel trim, I guess), the Lancer GT isn't as good as the EVO.

    And the Lynx RS, being descended from the Mazda 323, shares some of that model's rally genes (from the 323 GTX). The Lynx RS / Mazda Protege was campaigned in rallies in Malaysia, and enjoys some popularity in the US as a autocross/trackday car. It also runs in the SCCA Speed World Challenge, but heavily modified (even compared to the other cars) because the stock engine and transmission aren't up to the pressures of competition... they change engines more than anyone else in the touring car championship!

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  6. Join Date
    Oct 2002
    Posts
    7,205
    #36
    (except in CD-changer quality and steering wheel trim, I guess)
    ^^ hehehe :lol:

  7. Join Date
    Nov 2006
    Posts
    27
    #37
    guys always remeber that 4G63 engine is a lot better than the engine of the lynx RS. their engine is a lot horrible, lynx got a 2.0liter and still the honda b16 engines are eating them and another one they are not as durable as the 4G63..

  8. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,710
    #38
    While it is true that the 4G63 has more potential than the FSDE of the Lynx, in this application, it sucks.

    Take this, both are DOHC iron-blocks, running OBDI era architecture (at least, I assume the 4G63 here is still OBDI, the 2.0 on the base Lancer in the US is a different engine) yet the FSDE makes 142 ps compared to the Lancer's 135 ps, and makes 15 Nm more torque.

    This is because the FSDE, while being a simple engine, has variable intake runners and a tuned ECU that give it back some of the top end punch that both engines lose due to emissions restrictions.

    And the FSDE can reliably hold 250 hp under boost (in Mazdaspeed Protege applications) with stock internals... a far cry from what the SR20 and 4G63 can do with stock internals (300-400+), but not bad, as far as engines go.

    The Honda B16 in a car of similar size and weight, that is to say, the SiR and not an ultra-light and tinny Honda hatchback, produces 160 ps, and while it's much quicker to 100 km/h than the Lynx RS, they have similar in-gear acceleration and top speeds (from a nice long trip to the track, against an IHE modded SiR with my nearly stock RS). The Lynx RS has a punchier midrange, and in a battle from a roll at low rpms, will pull away from the SiR until the VTEC kicks in. Which all means: The SiR may eat the Lynx for lunch on the highway, but the advantage is not as big as you may think. And in traffic, the Lynx has more point and squirt power... although initial tip-in as stock leaves something to be desired, as the cats strangle the engine when you suddenly press on the gas.

    But that's unfair to complain about, as the SiR isn't as strangled by emissions as either the Lynx or the Lancer are, and simply freeing up either the 4G63 or the FSDE with a good intake-exhaust combo (good for 15 hp on the FSDE... 10 hp if you keep a stock muffler like the Civic's) makes them very competitive with the SiR in anything short of an outright drag race (I had an interesting time pacing an S60 T5 the other day... couldn't believe how slow he was... ). And if you think they're slow, a Lynx RS with full IHE can make a real race of it with an SiR with similar mods... one clubmate has lots of kill stories about this...

    Well, it would if the 4G63 were a manual.

    Of course, this is ignoring the fact that the B16 is a very expensive sports engine, and that if you'd sold all three cars today, it would cost 100-200k pesos more than either the Lynx or the Lancer... and this is also ignoring the fact that this isn't the best FSDE there is, considering there's a 170 hp naturally aspirated version and a 170+ hp turbocharged version, which, in the US and Japan, are priced similarly to the 160 hp Civic Si from the same time period. The Lynx and Lancer 2.0 engines are not sports specials. They're regular 2.0 liter engines with no fancy MIVEC or high rpm FSZE trickery. The B16 is a high-strung, highly tuned engine... of course it's better.

    ----

    If I seem a bit defensive (since I'm usually the first to say that my engine sucks... ), it's just that it's irritating when a 4G63 fanboy comes in saying that it's the best thing since sliced bread. Well, of course, the 4G63 turbo engine is great, but in naturally aspirated form, Mitsubishi hasn't performed enough development to keep it up to date. Nissan finally dropped the SR20DE engine because they couldn't keep its power up while still remaining emissions compliant (see the Serena's 135 hp version...) and replaced it with the QR20 and QR25, which don't quite have the turbo-block's potential, but are great as stock. Mazda's FSDE was also finally phased out because they couldn't maintain power and remain compliant, to be replaced by the awesome MZR engine, available in 150 hp 2.0, 170 hp 2.3 and 270 hp turbocharged 2.3.

    Mitsubishi? Having no money, they have to slog on with the 4G63... it used to be a great engine, but unless they put a turbo or at least MIVEC on this one, it just can't keep up anymore.
    Last edited by niky; November 6th, 2006 at 12:20 PM.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

  9. Join Date
    Jan 2006
    Posts
    12,028
    #39
    Hmmm. Learned a few things here. I've always thought that the 4G63 designation referred to the 2.0L turbo like the one in my 1991 Plymouth Laser RS Turbo. I thought the naturally-aspirated 2.0L version in non-turbo Lasers/Eclipses/Talons was a totally different designation...... Learn something new everyday......

  10. Join Date
    Aug 2004
    Posts
    22,710
    #40
    Quote Originally Posted by Jun aka Pekto View Post
    Hmmm. Learned a few things here. I've always thought that the 4G63 designation referred to the 2.0L turbo like the one in my 1991 Plymouth Laser RS Turbo. I thought the naturally-aspirated 2.0L version in non-turbo Lasers/Eclipses/Talons was a totally different designation...... Learn something new everyday......
    Actually, I'm not sure. (Looks up Wikipedia...) Oh... the non-turbo 4G63 was supposedly used on the first generation Eclipse. Later ones used the 4G64 or a Chrysler engine.

    Ang pagbalik ng comeback...

Page 4 of 5 FirstFirst 12345 LastLast
Old School: Lancer 2.0 GT versus Lynx RS 2.0