FTO AUSTRALIA

G_A_V wrote:

EURO wrote:just a question...

Obviously a turbo upgrade would give you a LOT more power... but in general would increasing your power through engine mods or having a bigger engine be a better idea for a FWD car like an FTO rather then turboing (to avoid torque steer?)

I'm not sure if that makes sense, but with a turbo that generally gives you a sudden kick, would that exagerate the torque steer more then a more liner power curve that might be generated through a bigger engine, or the other mods listed...

Something like the ALFA GT which has 300nm of torque, 176 KW and is front wheel drive - would this have problems with torque steer at that power? or if more power was given to it with mods?

A bigger engine means more torque down low, which means even more torque steering, the best way to avoid torque steering is to have the power increased smoothly across the rev range which is what mitsu have done for us.
With a larger capacity not only are you going to have lots of torque down low giving you lots of torque steering down low, but also the longer stroke will mean lower redline, giving again a less smother delivery of power.
with the alfa im sure it prob has an lsd, which decreases torque steering to a certain extent, also i guess the car was developed with those power figures in mind, so other modifcations would of been made to the gearbox, drivetrain, and even the steering.

Smoothly across the rev range? If anything the FTO is the opposite. Damn lazy at low rpms. What does extra CC have to do with the stroke? Why not bore it out? How does lower red line decrease smoothness of power delivery?

You cant hind the fact the Mitsubishi 2.0 is 2000CC's. In performance terms its not a lot. Dont get me wrong the FTO does great for being a too litre but having such small capacity without force induction come with its drawbacks. Good examples is S2000 and Celica. Both dogs down low.

If torque steer bothers you, i guess a RWD platform would be the better option.

Tuning for a specific fuel octane rating is not the only answer to address reliability... once you push the limits of the hardware beyond its intended boundaries, something else will give way, somehow. It's like WRXs - it eats clutches and when you upgrade the clutch, it kills the gearbox - when you upgrade the gearbox you start breaking driveshafts and if you upgrade that too, the diffs blow so on and so forth - it never ends!

why do you think WRX gearboxes break? Not that they are weak its because AWD puts massive abuse on the drive train period. Imagine dumping the clutch of a WRX at high rpm. All that power out of no where pushed through the tranny drive shafts and diff in a split second, 4 wheel grip meaning no play in power, so no wheel spin which puts more strain on drive train etc. Big power + 4WD is always a bad mix, not because of inferior technology but because 4WD cars are able to launch at redline and beause of that advatange drivers abuse it.

payaya wrote: Smoothly across the rev range? If anything the FTO is the opposite. Damn lazy at low rpms. What does extra CC have to do with the stroke? Why not bore it out? How does lower red line decrease smoothness of power delivery?

You cant hind the fact the Mitsubishi 2.0 is 2000CC's. In performance terms its not a lot. Dont get me wrong the FTO does great for being a too litre but having such small capacity without force induction come with its drawbacks. Good examples is S2000 and Celica. Both dogs down low.

If torque steer bothers you, i guess a RWD platform would be the better option.

What I mean is power is delivered smoothly, not the instant boost of a turbo, or vtech for that matter
I was thinking in terms of comparing stroke between different engines, not boring it out.
What I ment by a lower redline, is you have less rpm to deliver the power.
what would be smoother 50-100kw from 1-5k rpms or 50-100kw from 1-8k rpms

Once thing also whilest you mentioned other cars with the same problem of little torque down low, i think that its perfect for the track, you may get poor quater mile times, but on the track you are sitting right in the middle of the power band around most corners

G_A_V wrote:

payaya wrote: Smoothly across the rev range? If anything the FTO is the opposite. Damn lazy at low rpms. What does extra CC have to do with the stroke? Why not bore it out? How does lower red line decrease smoothness of power delivery?

You cant hind the fact the Mitsubishi 2.0 is 2000CC's. In performance terms its not a lot. Dont get me wrong the FTO does great for being a too litre but having such small capacity without force induction come with its drawbacks. Good examples is S2000 and Celica. Both dogs down low.

If torque steer bothers you, i guess a RWD platform would be the better option.

What I mean is power is delivered smoothly, not the instant boost of a turbo, or vtech for that matter
I was thinking in terms of comparing stroke between different engines, not boring it out.
What I ment by a lower redline, is you have less rpm to deliver the power.
what would be smoother 50-100kw from 1-5k rpms or 50-100kw from 1-8k rpms

Once thing also whilest you mentioned other cars with the same problem of little torque down low, i think that its perfect for the track, you may get poor quater mile times, but on the track you are sitting right in the middle of the power band around most corners

Well I'm guessing you mean linear not smoothly? Your really generalising a lot of factors here. Each engine has its own characteristics. You cant say increasing CC's requires a stroke as its not always the case. Your example of 50-100KWs, i can see where your coming from. Usually engines with a more linear power curve are the ones that dont rev high. EG Boss 5.4L V8 i believe it has over 400NM or torque just off idle. I think around the rang of 1500rpm. Produces peak torque somewhere around 3-5000 rpm and slowly drops off. So im guessing the power curve of the Boss V8 is a lot more flatter than an FTOs. From memory the FTO has a stroke of around 70 somethnig mm? Considering its only 2000CC it really has to rev to get power out the thing. Its common knowledge that small capacity usually are lazy off the line. So 50-100kws from 1-5k rpms i would chose over 1-8 50-100kws. Even known no car produces peak power for such a long time. The 1-5k would produce as smooth power as linear but do everything quicker. So every engine does its own thing, its like saying a V6 is better than a I6 and vice versa.

If mitsubishi were allowed more CC's eg 3.0L they would have increased stroke lowered the red line. Have a fatter torque curve and have more juice off the line. If this engine had cutout of say 7000, i firmly believe i would take the 3.0L instead. Mitsubishi had 2000CC's to create a powerful engine and the only way is either Forced induction or HIGH RPM.They sacrificed low end grunt. All the power is up high. EG GTO produces peak power at 6000 and peak torque at 2500 rpm! FTO produces peak pwer at 7000 RPM so you a less than a second at full power before gear change. 6000 for high torque.

Engines should product peak power and torque asap but not drop off too much while hitting high rpm. Afterall we drive out cars right? Give me all the power you can muster i'll adapt. I'll gradually feed power in, instead of having to floor it and have a hyuandai keep up with you to 30 km/h

Maybe its just me. I love my FTO if your in the market to modify the car for track etc, in all honesty you have chose the wrong car. I dont see the point of spending thousands on an engine which the amount of gain would be tiny. There is only so much you can extract out of a 2 litre. Pick a RWD with a decent engine say a Supra, and you already have a very quick car thats more purposely built for the racetrack. thats my opinion anyway.

I can see another car in the cars for sale section soon

Please boris, your not selling your car........

payaya wrote:

why do you think WRX gearboxes break? Not that they are weak its because AWD puts massive abuse on the drive train period. Imagine dumping the clutch of a WRX at high rpm. All that power out of no where pushed through the tranny drive shafts and diff in a split second, 4 wheel grip meaning no play in power, so no wheel spin which puts more strain on drive train etc. Big power + 4WD is always a bad mix, not because of inferior technology but because 4WD cars are able to launch at redline and beause of that advatange drivers abuse it.

Wrx's gboxes are weak, when you compare them to Evos

payaya wrote: why do you think WRX gearboxes break? Not that they are weak its because AWD puts massive abuse on the drive train period. Imagine dumping the clutch of a WRX at high rpm. All that power out of no where pushed through the tranny drive shafts and diff in a split second, 4 wheel grip meaning no play in power, so no wheel spin which puts more strain on drive train etc. Big power + 4WD is always a bad mix, not because of inferior technology but because 4WD cars are able to launch at redline and beause of that advatange drivers abuse it.

at the end of the day, the gearbox is the fuse between the engine and the drivetrain that drives the wheels.

i know what you are saying ok, but forget the Evos - let's just compare the stock WRX gearboxes vs the stock STi 6-spd, launch the bastards at 6500-7000rpm, guess which one breaks first...?

i rest my case (anyway, this is getting off topic lol)

and boring the cylinders alone won't give you substantial increase in displacement alone... boring it out too much will cause issues with the strength of the cylinder walls / block itself, that is why you have longer stroke to achieve higher CC per cylinder.

comes to think about it, i'm still disappointed at FTO with 200hp and no torque, 100+kw atw ha ... i wish there are some real mod that can bring the torque up

pisses me off when there's a turbo car next to me . . .

For a 2 litre it is pretty toruey...
But I know what you mean, it does not feel like a 150kw car

That depends on what you are comparing it with. If you're comparing with a 150kw turbo car, then no it probably won't because of their completely different power/torque curves. In reality, it shouldn't be compared with turbo cars at all, but I guess it is really inevitable.

It seems that some people have maybe unrealistic expectations for the FTO. Personally I love the car and think it has a good amount of grunt - and I'm coming from a twin turbo car. Adding more power to the FTO is/would be great, but eventually you are going to have to make compromises. A 3.0L 6G series engine would be great for power, but would ruin the balance and handling - fine if you want to win the Traffic Light GP, but not good if you enjoy the twisty stuff. Turbo conversions, as mentioned, can result in torque steer and serious traction issues.

Basically, as has been mentioned in this thread already, if you're expecting big grunt you've bought the wrong car. Go and get something turbocharged. But personally I love the all round package.

On the weekend I went for a cruise with the local MIVEC club (www.mivec.co.nz) and spent an hour chasing little Mivec 1600cc Mirages around some hills near here and had an awesome time. A couple of them were fairly capable cars but I managed to hang onto them - the scary thing is that I don't think I would have been able to stick with them in twin turbo 4WD Galant VR-4 I had previously...

Why what's wrong with with VR-4???

Also afterburner, keep in mind a lot of people want a quick car without a turbo, or a huge V8

the FTO is a quick car but not in a straight line. Why do people always keep on putting a cars worth by straight line performance?? I have an MR2 Turbo as well as my FTO and it launchs and goes harder than most other turbo cars, but, thats not makes it the great car that it is. The handling is what puts it in the league of Japanese Supercars not its straight line performance.

Here here ... couldn't agree more.

FTOluv wrote:the FTO is a quick car but not in a straight line. Why do people always keep on putting a cars worth by straight line performance?? I have an MR2 Turbo as well as my FTO and it launchs and goes harder than most other turbo cars, but, thats not makes it the great car that it is. The handling is what puts it in the league of Japanese Supercars not its straight line performance.

Unfortunatley a lot of people care about how quick their cars are down the quarter or more importantly at the traffic lights. We have all done a runner from a green light, hell it can be fun but it really means jack if your faster in a straight line, handling is what i'm all about and there is nothing funnier being able to pass people on corners with ease simply because your car can handle better.

Now i'm aware that there are much better handling cars out there than the FTO however as a complete package it had what i wanted. Some people seem to lose sight of that once they get blasted by a turbo car at the lights

if people are looking for cheap thrills they should buy a 180sx (2ltr turbo version), Silvia (2ltr turbo version) or even a FULLY SCHICK VL Turbo B R O !

I got the car for the overall package, handling + speed + looks + low fuel costs all in a sports car!

But as slither says, getting done at the lights is what makes FTO owners change their minds about why they got the car. They feel crap getting beaten and so in their futile little minds they swear to never be beaten at the lights again! and so begins the infatuation with KW and TORQUE and 1/4 MILE times.

Yet, in reality there is no other way to show people what it can do. example when someone gets into the car, do you take them for a ride around the streets or straight to calder so they can see your laps times Even then they will be lost at lap times but have instant recognition of you tell them you did a supra at the lights!!! and the majority of people, soon as you pull up at the lights. they expect it do hammer anyone beside you. NO matter the power they can feel through the car, the rush when you gun a corner at speed... whatever you do, at the end of the day all this is deadened considerably when there is another car pulling ahead at a triffic light drag.

That there children is the sad truth, people are petty, and although their are many many car lovers, only a very small number know how do judge a car for more then a traffic light dash.

Go and ask a youngster why a particular car is good, he will tell you its good or sh*t, depending on one time when his mate or someone he saw beat some other car at the lights. and that is as far as their CAR LOVE extends. its an ego thing, nothing more. and hense why ford and holden print KW figures on the car, now THAT!!!! is pathetic, yet smart marketing... see how it works.

Class dismissed!

spetz wrote:Why what's wrong with with VR-4???

Also afterburner, keep in mind a lot of people want a quick car without a turbo, or a huge V8

Nothing was wrong with it - it ran low 13sec 1/4 miles with minimal mods. But it was nowhere near as nimble or as sweet handling as the FTO is in the twisty stuff.

And wanting a quick car is fine, but its when those same people expect V8 or turbo equalling performance from their N/A 2 litre, they're probably going to be disappointed (well not without a lot of mods which will in the end compromise other parts of the package).

Straights are for fast cars.

Corners are for fast drivers.

Canberra is a city of roundabouts.....when I take people for drives I head to the nearest set of roundies.....needless to say they are impressed when I can over take not one but two cars using the inside lane.

I think though a good handling car has to be quick too.
And although I think FTO's go ok they could be quicker.

But I guess it depends what quick is to everyone. I have a friend that thinks my car goes very quick, and even though he knows damn well it can't compete against turbo's etc. But I feel that it's quite slow (at least slow for me). Even though it is quicker than a lot of "quick" cars out there.

BTW, Bucket you gotta take me for a spin. With all honesty I've been in FTO's hammering around corners and did not think their handling was anything special... just better than average.