Talon Open Light

I know:

Heavy
Cramped
Bad Sight lines.
Slow (weak motor)

But:
Can a STRONG NA motor be built or acquired on the cheap?
What is minimum possible fighting weight?
Lots of archived racing parts hiding in garages, etc.


Discuss?

---

Owner, Driver, Head Mechanic, and Janitor at Tower City Race Team, headquartered near L'Anse. Michigan.
Driver / CoDriver in Rally America, NASARallySport, ARA, AMS, UPMDA, Champ Off Road

https://www.facebook.com/TowerCityRaceTeam/
https://www.instagram.com/towercityraceteam/

Factory MIVEC 2.4L engines are available from the newer Lancers, but that'd require an evo or 2nd gen transmission swap since the motors & transmissions switched places in 1995 or so.

I know that there are 2.1 de-stroker kits out there that drag guys rev up over 10,000rpm, but that's apples & oranges in terms of the reliability you'd be looking for.

Dave

Quote
Dante
I know:

Heavy
Cramped
Bad Sight lines.
Slow (weak motor)

But:
Can a STRONG NA motor be built or acquired on the cheap?
What is minimum possible fighting weight?
Lots of archived racing parts hiding in garages, etc.


Discuss?

It's a good motor with good combustion chamber shape and big valves.
With enough comp it'll make power AND pull.

Can't do much with the weight. Or weight distribution.

That model box is strong but effectively alternate ratio for the box to fill the cavernous gaps, and final drive shorter than who knows what will cost $6000 plus post and work.

So while the motor could easily be made nice n.a, you got 3.58 final drive ratio and bag gaps in the gearset.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

I always thought the Ol Irish Evo IV's would make the best OL mitsubishi candidates. They come up for sale from time to time really cheap and really used.

Dave

Quote
john vanlandingham


It's a good motor with good combustion chamber shape and big valves.
With enough comp it'll make power AND pull.

So, are you saying shave the head, switch the slugs, or both?


Thanks for the feedback.

---

Owner, Driver, Head Mechanic, and Janitor at Tower City Race Team, headquartered near L'Anse. Michigan.
Driver / CoDriver in Rally America, NASARallySport, ARA, AMS, UPMDA, Champ Off Road

https://www.facebook.com/TowerCityRaceTeam/
https://www.instagram.com/towercityraceteam/

Quote
Dante
So, are you saying shave the head, switch the slugs, or both?

Thanks for the feedback.

I run 11:1 on my 2.3L 4g63 stroker...and 30psi on corn fuel. Guessing if you were building a balls out money is no object build you'd need to go with some high compression pistons.

From memory I don't think you'll be able to get very far with shaving the head on the old motors as CR was somewhere in the high 7.x or low 8.x range from the factory on the turbo models. Not a clue what they were on the N/A ones, but at 135hp from a 2.0L, I'd guess not very high.

Dave

Quote
Dante

Quote
john vanlandingham


It's a good motor with good combustion chamber shape and big valves.
With enough comp it'll make power AND pull.

So, are you saying shave the head, switch the slugs, or both?


Thanks for the feedback.

Custom forged pistons.
REAL CAMS, something like the nice one:


And since you mentioned it, there are heads out there with ports far more realistically sized for a n.a. motor than those monster ports on the earlier heads. Those things flow like a million CFM@28" but cannot have very nice port velocity on a mundane n.a. head and that will guarantee a problem making torque.

But the car will be worthless with the stock box ratios and the sky high final drive ratios... Even with turbos some of us in n.a. cars could beat nearly every one in the whole US with little bitty 1730cc motors in a light properly geared ancient 35 year old car.
In all motors we want to make as much torque as we can---and that is fairly limited by a) fuel which limits b) compression, and that limits cam selection, but the gearbox and final drive limits everything.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

Quote
john vanlandingham
But the car will be worthless with the stock box ratios and the sky high final drive ratios...

I freely admit to not knowing much about DSMs - but since they share the same engine as the Lancer Evos, it seems like it might not be too terrible to swap the Evo drivetrain (which, from what I understand, has "options" for gearing and final drives).

But...
wikipedia says the 1st gen Eclipse weighed ~2900 lbs in AWD trim.
wiki says 2nd gen was as heavy as 3200 w/ AWD.
evo 8 is in the 2900-3100 range.

Since those are curb weights, I'd guess you're probably able to drop similar amounts of weight from both. (Now that I think about it, if you want nuts on the evo [CF rear doors?], you could probably drop more there...)

The lightest weight AWD mitsu you can do is taking a US spec mid 90s Mirage and add AWD...similar to the Evo 1-4.

I had thought about doing one of the late 80s colt hatchbacks, but was told that they're actually heavier than the mirage (when comparing FWD to FWD weights).

My evo in 'nearly rally trim' is 2950 with steel doors and glass all around and only a partially pared down wiring harness. We didn't go completely nuts on cutting things out of the car, but we did pull some misc. brackets out of there. Keep in mind I've got an FIA T45 cage which is just 105 lbs, so if anyone's trying to do an 'inexpensive' OL build, they're probably going to be another 50 lbs more than where I'm at. Fiberglass rear doors would pretty quickly drop another 60 lbs over a mildly gutted door.

Dave

i have a galant GSX. a 1990 version of the Galant VR4 but just no turbo, same 4g63 engine and the like though. I have considered playing around with it for an OL car, or just to learn the awd driving better, but it spacious compared to a talon, and better viewing out the windshield.

Quote
Gravity Fed
i have a galant GSX. a 1990 version of the Galant VR4 but just no turbo, same 4g63 engine and the like though. I have considered playing around with it for an OL car, or just to learn the awd driving better, but it spacious compared to a talon, and better viewing out the windshield.

Galant is a tank though...or at least that what they feel like stock. I had two VR-4s a few years back. They were predictable and if you hucked them into the corners they were alot of fun. I don't remember my Eclipse being nearly as fun to drive.

Not that its a Mitsu, but thinking about lightweight cars for OL, I'm surprised nobody's thought about doing a GTX with a high revving 2.3. I know that parts for them is the really difficult thing, and transmission is an issue, but with a lower torque motor, maybe that's not such a big problem. You can easily have one prepped and ready to go in the 25xx lbs range, and with some lightweight body parts, I wouldn't be surprised if 24xx was doable.

Dave

the rarity is the biggest turn off for me. Same reason i wouldnt run an Isuzu Impulse RS. Sure you might find geo storms, the stuff that goes vroom might as well not exist.

Quote
Aaron Luptak

Quote
john vanlandingham
But the car will be worthless with the stock box ratios and the sky high final drive ratios...

I freely admit to not knowing much about DSMs - but since they share the same engine as the Lancer Evos, it seems like it might not be too terrible to swap the Evo drivetrain (which, from what I understand, has "options" for gearing and final drives).

But...
wikipedia says the 1st gen Eclipse weighed ~2900 lbs in AWD trim.
wiki says 2nd gen was as heavy as 3200 w/ AWD.
evo 8 is in the 2900-3100 range.

Since those are curb weights, I'd guess you're probably able to drop similar amounts of weight from both. (Now that I think about it, if you want nuts on the evo [CF rear doors?], you could probably drop more there...)

The thing is going to be heavy. As turbo cars the Ecliped got away with it pretty good. In the 40mm restrictor days 385 bhp was the norm and they went good. Gaylants came in at 3100 lbs for rally cars or 1500kg.

The EVOs did have some OK gearsets in the box and sorta short final drive like 4.37, not bad, in fact they were nearly perfect----for a turbo car with a turbo motor that made massive good ft/lbs..

N.a. is another story.

---

John Vanlandingham
Sleezattle, WA, USA

Vive le Prole-le-ralliat

www.rallyrace.net/jvab
CALL +1 206 431-9696
Remember! Pacific Standard Time
is 3 hours behind Eastern Standard Time.

'so what it seems to me then, the entire class is pretty limited UNLESS someone doesn't spend a far amount of money. Is there are any all wheel car that would actually be a "good" candidate for Open Light?
I suppose Subaru might have the largest variety of gearing. But an entire field of subarus is somewhat boring.

I'm an ex dsmer that got converted to rwd volvo...

I would never ever build a NA talon for rally.... I'm not that tall at 6' but even with one of the best cage (for a dsm) I kept hitting my helmet on the roof bar. Was not so bad at first, gets really annoying on a long bumpy stage. Interior room is really a problem.

The 4g63 is not build for NA use. The turbo ones have 7.8:1 compression (the first gen 90-94) and I think 8.2:1 (or maybe 8.5) for the second gen (95-99). I know the 420A (non turbo engine in 95 up) is 9.6 stock and that's the highest. But that engine is much closer to a dodge neon engine than a 4g63. Would not be an easy fit in a first gen dsm.

Also like John said, the transmission has some big holes in the gearing even with the turbo... I can't even imagine running a non-turbo engine with it. First is nice, second too, but if I remember right there is a big gap shifting into 3rd and 4th. Don't even think about using 5th... I'm not sure an NA engine will have enough to bring you to that kind of speed (4th was good till 210km/h if memory is right), maybe going down a looooooooooooong steep hill.

As for what would be a nice OL car, I'd be curious to look at a suzuki SX4 (Do you have them in the USA?) I have a friend who has one as a daily driver and be seeing him go through snow and ice it seem like a very capable "little" car. But I never looked at the gearing or any suspension option (I'm quite sure John could handle that part though).

---

Francois