Hi everyone I know I dont post here to often but since I am still getting blog questions I think the more this is out there in Forum last the more questions that will be answered. On a side note, this is strictly an informational post and not meant to advance Vendor interests.




1. EVOSOUL: Your 2.0L Intake seems to produce a solid 9.23 HP, was this achieved on a Cali PZEV Spec Lancer (143HP)? If so what is the expected/projected gain on a FED Spec Lancer (152HP)?



Yes, the gains were achieved on a PZEV spec Lancer. The Gains you will achieve on the FED spec Lancer will be very similar if not more than the PZEV, due to the fact that the PZEV spec Lancer had an additional Catalytic converter to meet California’s emission standards.



2. EVOSOUL: What was the focus of your 2008+ Lancer 2.0L Intake? Looking at your Dyno Performance sheet, it seems that Peak Horsepower top of your agenda, were there any compromises you had to make to get that massive 9hp peak gain? (High vs low end or maybe HP vs. TQ )



Our primary focus when building any intake system is to make the most possible horsepower gains throughout the entire RPM range. We consider any drop of horsepower or torque below the stock base line to be unacceptable and will keep tuning until we draw out the maximum potential of the vehicle. With the Lancer as with any vehicle we design for, nothing is ever compromised.



3. EVOSOUL: Since the release of your COLD AIR INTAKE, Mitsubishi has now released a 2.4L engine variant. Do you believe the Intake sold for the 2.0L will suffice or would you consider making another intake for the 2.4L exclusively?



We just finished performing a battery of tests on the new 2.4L engine. The 2.4L ECU’s fuel & ignition maps is totally different from the 2.0L’s ECU. The intake system for the 2.0L will not work with the 2.4L due to the 2.4L engine requiring more air. Using our patented M.R. Technology and Air Fusion design process we were able to produce the desire HP/TQ gains and safe air/fuel ratio’s that the factory ECU would accept. The new cold air intake for the Lancer 2.4L GTS will be ready for release shortly.



4. EVOSOUL: The fact that not many problems have been reported with your 2008+ Lancer intake speaks volumes. Many other Intake companies such as FUJITA have been plagued with CEL issues, Were there any difficulties or hurdles that you had to overcome for this Lancer project?

(IMG:http://www.evosoul.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/mai-lynn-300x288.jpg)

There are always difficulties when designing an intake system for late model vehicles. Today’s factory ECU are getting smarter and we have to work in conjunction with it or it will either reject it (throw a CEL) or just adapt to the modification and adjust its long term fuel trims to make it run like factory. We closely monitor the factor ECU’s performance when designing an intake system. Using our M.R. Technology and Air Fusion design process allows us to stabilize and make sure the short/long term fuel trims stay within a given percentage.



5. EVOSOUL: You have an intake for the EVO X which also yields great results. More recently Mitsubishi has released a RalliArt Version that features the same powerplant as the EVO X, are there any plans to cover the Ralliart. *Note, RalliArt version has the battery under the hood instead of the trunk like the EVO. Can anything be done?



We do have plans to design an intake system specifically for the Ralliart. We are aware that the Ralliart has the battery under the hood and we are very innovative when it comes to design difficulties. We have a very talented design team here at Injen and they are equipped with some of the best prototyping equipment available like a 3D rapid printer, CNC milling machine, CNC mandrel bender, etcetera, etcetera. I’m sure this is a task they’re more than willing to take on.



6. EVOSOUL: Your MR Technology has raised the bar for Intake Technology in terms of performance. But are there any draw backs to running Rich?



M.R. Technology is used to control air volume and velocity at strategic points on the intake tube, that in conjunction with our newest design process, Air Fusion, allows us to make the possible gains we do from newer more advanced vehicles without getting CEL’s. The factory tends to run their vehicles on the richer side of the scale, which robs power and decreases fuel economy. Using M.R. Technology and Air Fusion we work in conjunction with the factory ECU and tune for our own ideal fuel curve.



6b. EVOSOUL : To take the last question one step further, The hallmark feature of your past intakes is that you will increase your fuel economy. Will your MR technology impact that fuel efficiency gain? Either under aggressive or cruising conditions.



Individual driving habits will have a significant effect on fuel efficiency. Most consumers purchase Injen products for increased horsepower and torque. However, many of our consumers report enjoying an increase in miles per gallon. Actual results will vary depending on your vehicle, your driving habits and applied loads on the engine. Less restrictive intakes such as an Injen air intake can provide more efficient combustion. But if you are like most performance enthusiasts and take advantage of the additional horsepower by driving harder, you will not see much of an increase in MPG, if any at all.



7. EVOSOUL: When dealing with Cold Air Intakes, one of the top questions is…. “Are Cold Air Intakes safe” “ I hear stories of Hydrolock everywhere, what is it, and will it happen to me?”


(IMG:http://www.evosoul.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/mai-lynn-2-300x239.jpg)
Hydrolock occurs when a motor ingests an absorbent amount of water, then when the piston in a motor goes up in it’s compression stage and because water isn’t very compressible, something tends to bend or break. Under normal driving conditions this is usually not a problem however, in harsh rains or flooding if the filter becomes submerged in water the engine may ingest water. If possible, it is highly recommend avoiding deep puddles or flooded conditions. We design most of our cold air intake to sit inside the fender and filters are placed 12′-14′ above ground. So for a person to hydrolock their motor they would’ve had to try. You may significantly reduce the risk hydrolock by purchasing Injen Technology is Hydro-Shield pre-filter. Hydro-Shields are manufactured with a hydrophobic process creating shield against water. The Hydro-Shields also shield against debris as small as .005′ increasing the length of time your filter performs at maximum horsepower (Please note that this item is water repellent, not water proof).



8. EVOSOUL: Its very common to hear different things from Dealerships, some say it will void your warranty, others are completely fine with it. Which is it? are INJEN intakes warranty compliant



The Magnusson-Moss Warranty - Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act of 1975 protects consumers from such fraudulent activity by new car dealers. Under this Act, aftermarket equipment that improves performance does not void a vehicle manufacturer’s original warranty, unless the warranty clearly states the addition of aftermarket equipment automatically voids your vehicle’s warranty or if it can be proven that the aftermarket device is the direct cause of the failure. The easiest way to check this is to look in your owner’s manual under, “what is not covered”. Under the Magnusson-Moss Act a dealer must prove in writing, not just vocalize, that the aftermarket equipment in question directly caused the need for repairs before they can deny warranty coverage. If they cannot prove such claims-or offer an explanation- it is your legal right to demand compliance with the warranty. The Federal Trade Commission (202.326.3128) administers the Magnusson-Moss Act and monitors compliance with warranty law.



9. EVOSOUL: The majority of INJEN fans for the lancer had their hearts broken when it was announced that the INJEN Cat back exhaust system was PZEV only, are there any plans to expand this to the FED spec?



We were aware that the Injen Cat back system only fit the Cali PZEV vehicles and we have made all necessary changes to accommodate all emission vehicles. The part number to cover all vehicles is SES1835TT-1

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Thank you INJEN, for continuing to tighten your game!

Here is a sneak peek at the 2.4L version coming down the pipe
(IMG:http://www.evosoul.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/09_lancer_24l-small.jpg)





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

AEMs Interview

Lancer Specific Questions

Answered by AEM : Engineering Division.





1. EVOSOUL: Your Intake seems to produce a solid 5.3 HP and 5.3 TQ gain, was this achieved on a Cali PZEV Spec Lancer? If so what is the expected gain on a FED Spec Lancer?



The development of this intake was done with a Cali PZEV Spec vehicle. Since the FED Spec has fewer cats then the PZEV Spec model, we would expect a increased rate of exhaust flow relative to the PZEV Spec. That would translate to a potential increase in volumetric flow on the intake side. The factory ECU setting would see the larger volume of air and compensate within the fuel limits to maintain proper air fuel ratios. Overall, we would expect to see increased horsepower and torque relative to the PZEV Spec.



2. EVOSOUL: What was the focus of your 2008+ Lancer 2.0L Intake? Looking at your Dyno Performance sheet, it seems that Peak Horsepower wasn’t at the top of your agenda.



The focus of the 2008+ Lancer 2.0L Intake was usable horsepower and torque. We realized that this version of the Lancer was relatively heavy compared to it’s previous generation, and tuning the intake to gain at the higher region of the powerband didn’t seem practical. Instead, we focused on the peak torque regions of the powerband. The net effect would allow end users to feel the gains through each gear based on typical shift patterns.



3. EVOSOUL: Since your release of your COLD AIR INTAKE, Mitsubishi has now released a 2.4L engine variant. Do you believe the Intake sold for the 2.0L will suffice or would you consider making another intake for the 2.4L exclusively?



Every intake is tuned differently. We do not believe in selling an intake for a different application just because it fits. The 2.4L engine application would be of interest to us, but we cannot say exactly when we will release it. Keep posted on our website for updates.

4. EVOSOUL: Your industry rival “INJEN” was out early with an intake featuring their MR Technology, what sets your intake apparent from theirs?

(IMG:http://www.evosoul.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2009/04/untitled-2-300x199.jpg)

I am not too familiar with Injen’s MR Technology. However, our intakes are always tuned for the best calibration as possible. AEM takes into account of all variables, not just horsepower and torque. We believe in providing a high quality product that performs at a reasonable price. Our reputation is built on this and acknowledged by consumers around the world.



5. EVOSOUL: While INJEN has recently pushed their MR technology, you have been using your V2 Intake with great success on other cars. Will we be seeing a V2 Version in the near future?



The V2 series indeed was a great success. At this time, we do not see any plans of a V2 Version for the Lancer application.



6. EVOSOUL: Many Lancer fans were broken hearted to hear that the AEM intake was for the 5 Speed manual only. Are there any plans for a CVT version in the near future?



At this time, the CVT version is undecided. Stay posted.



7. EVOSOUL: Where there any difficulties or hurdles to overcome for this Lancer project?



There were a few difficulties in the Lancer project, but nothing severe. It was simply a matter of optimizing space and coming up with innovate uses for materials to achieve our design objectives.



8. EVOSOUL: Besides Intakes are there any other projects in the works for the 2008+ Lancer?



At this time, other projects for the Lancer are potentially in the pipeline.





~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Thank you AEM for taking the time to answer our questions.

www.tolancer.com

www.evosoul.com (personal blog)

Great stuff EvoSoul... much appreciated.

Man, thanks alot. Especially for validating my point I raised in a post a while ago about the current 2.0L intakes not working correctly on the 2.4L due to more air required. I spoke with AEM and K&N and they all said the same thing. 2.0L intake not made for the 2.4L. When I posted the info I got, some didn't believe me. Until injen comes out with the 2.4l version the RRM SRI is the only intake designed for the 2.4. Thanks for the info, good read.

I personally believe that other intakes you might be able to get away with it. But everyone has to understand the INJEN and AEM intakes are tuned intakes, a rapid departure from conventional designs. This is more so with the INJEN case because its MR technology manipulates the MAF sensor. If you change the engine then those tunes become

1. rendered useless
2. reduced performance
3. possibly run too rich or to lean

The position of the Manufacturer is, they make a product for a specific use if you use it for something else they cant be held responsible. People take the attitude that its just an intake... one guy even used the phrase "its just ant intake, its not rocket science" and to be honest... I disagree it is rocket science, its a whole new level of performance we are talking about here. Anyone who has used new INJEN system with MR technology or AEMs older V2 CAI know that its just not the same thing.

The Toronto Lancer Club was fortunate enough to test the AEM Intake for the EVO X and were blown away by the results and for sure you can tell it wasn't just some simple intake slapped on. Very advanced.

Either way alot of companies not just AEM have pioneered new ways of tuning intakes ... but one thing is for sure... its a new age of performance (IMG:style_emoticons/default/smile.gif)

Well, I do see a bigger potential difference in applications for a SRI versus a CAI. An SRI is basically just an equal diameter (to the TB) pipe with a filter, and a CAI has to have it's piping molested to fit around basic components. This would create variations in air flow velocity and volume after the MAF which could cause an "issue". Hence, an SRI would have more available applications, but idling on warmer days -- man, I don't like those numbers the intake temperature sensor is feeding me (IMG:style_emoticons/default/ohmy.gif) Maybe I'll modify it, add some PVC, cut a hole in the hood and pipe it out that.

An independent dyno would prove to settle some arguments, as long as the increases are outside the standard margin of error and deviation -- a feat not easily accomplishable on this motor without some form of FI.

would have to be a usa car. The canadian version of the Lancer is tampered with. aka the design of the ECU is different. Very different