The Top DSM Community on the Web

For 1990-1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse, Eagle Talon, Plymouth Laser, and Galant VR-4 Owners. Log in to remove most ads.

Register Log in
Please Support Morrison Fabrications
Please Support Fuel Injector Clinic

Lancer Evolution III Intake Manifold

This site may earn a commission from merchant
affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.

Jim, way to come out of the woodwork and represent NEDSM :thumb:
 
I'm going to be in the market for another of these intakes soon, what is the availability like these days?
 
ive read thru this whole write up.. unless i missed the topic of the mdp sensor on top of the 2g IM.

is there a way that you dont need to run that sensor and can ecmlink remove the code?

sorry if it was said before and i didnt catch it thanks
 
Would it be easier to use a GM map sensor or MDP style map sensor? The intake is going to the machine shop this week to have 1/8 methanol nozzle fittings added in each runner anyway so this can be done while its there.
 
Alright guys. I just installed my evo 3 manifold and tomorrow I'm hoping to put the 1g throttle body on. All the right ups I've looked through was using to 1g TB with EGR. Anyone have good close up pictures or a link on how to run it without EGR?
 
I don't know why people are going crazy over this manifold. A JMF SMIM outperforms, and outflows this any day of the week and twice on sunday. I have had both.
 
A JMF manifold requires moving the brake fluid reservoir, relocating the battery/running a smaller battery, and in some cases modifying the UICP which is all additional to the price of the JMF. Which, in most cases is already more expensive... Besides that, some guys like the stock look under the hood but would like something that outperforms the stock 2g IM, so the Evo III IM is the answer.

I have (2) intake manifolds that I swap out, a BJ SMIM and a true Evo III IM with a plate welded to the back to run the additional sensors for SD. I lose ~300rpm (to 30psi) going from the Evo III IM to the SMIM but average 4lbs/m more on the top end. Of course I haven't done any fair back to back comparison's so I don't go advertise the data but that's what my car's showing. If I were to ever AutoX my car I'd definitely switch back to the Evo IM but drag racing I'm never below 5500 so it doesn't matter how fast it spools.
 
mean4g said:
I don't know why people are going crazy over this manifold. A JMF SMIM outperforms, and outflows this any day of the week and twice on sunday. I have had both.
Click to expand...
What you're lacking here is context. That's a very ignorant statement because you're assuming that high-RPM flow is all that's important. That's not the case at all. I've also had both and I'd take the Evo 3 in my personal case. There are many setups that would benefit from a huge SMIM but others that wouldn't get my gain from one. Running a huge SMIM with an Evo 3 16G is just plain dumb. Why? Because the 16G's powerband falls off drastically after 6500RPM or so... which just happens to be where SMIMs begin to show their gains. However, the Evo 3 manifold would give that same E316G car nice gains throughout the entire useable powerband.

In my case, the Evo 3 manifold is a far superior manifold to any SMIM. I run an automatic trans with a mid-sized turbo (3582HTA) and I don't use nitrous to stall up the converter. Therefore, I need as much low-end torque as possible to stall that turbo up quickly. The increased air velocity created by the 2G head and the smaller plenum and longer runners of the Evo 3 manifold creates the low-end and mid-range torque I need. It would take significantly longer to stall my turbo up with a huge SMIM and when race day comes, every precious second counts on the starting line for an automatic trans car.

The SMIMs on the market sacrifice low-end and mid-range torque for increased flow at high-RPM. The giant plenums and short runners of a SMIM are not conducive to my particular setup. Now, if I was using nitrous to stall up my converter, then yes, I'd run some brand of SMIM because the low-end and mid-range torque I used to need isn't necessary anymore and I could see gains in the high RPMs.

Next time, don't make blanket statements without context...
 
SonySlave said:
What you're lacking here is context. That's a very ignorant statement because you're assuming that high-RPM flow is all that's important. That's not the case at all. I've also had both and I'd take the Evo 3 in my personal case. There are many setups that would benefit from a huge SMIM but others that wouldn't get my gain from one. Running a huge SMIM with an Evo 3 16G is just plain dumb. Why? Because the 16G's powerband falls off drastically after 6500RPM or so... which just happens to be where SMIMs begin to show their gains. However, the Evo 3 manifold would give that same E316G car nice gains throughout the entire useable powerband.

In my case, the Evo 3 manifold is a far superior manifold to any SMIM. I run an automatic trans with a mid-sized turbo (3582HTA) and I don't use nitrous to stall up the converter. Therefore, I need as much low-end torque as possible to stall that turbo up quickly. The increased air velocity created by the 2G head and the smaller plenum and longer runners of the Evo 3 manifold creates the low-end and mid-range torque I need. It would take significantly longer to stall my turbo up with a huge SMIM and when race day comes, every precious second counts on the starting line for an automatic trans car.

The SMIMs on the market sacrifice low-end and mid-range torque for increased flow at high-RPM. The giant plenums and short runners of a SMIM are not conducive to my particular setup. Now, if I was using nitrous to stall up my converter, then yes, I'd run some brand of SMIM because the low-end and mid-range torque I used to need isn't necessary anymore and I could see gains in the high RPMs.

Next time, don't make blanket statements without context...
Click to expand...


not ALL JMF's sacrifice significant low end and midrange for higher end airflow. The JMF street manifold is a good compromise and outflows the Evo 3 manifold. I did not have any noticeable loss of low/midrange, and increased airflow above 6K even on the 16g (for the short time I had it on there). It did slightly shift the power band higher as well as long as you can hold boost in the higher RPM band. Maybe a re-worked/ported/bench flowed Evo 3 IM might be competitive....who knows. As far as your low/midrange is concerned...maybe you should have built a true twin scroll setup.

next time...you can keep your ignorant comment to yourself.

gofer said:
A JMF manifold requires moving the brake fluid reservoir, relocating the battery/running a smaller battery, and in some cases modifying the UICP which is all additional to the price of the JMF. Which, in most cases is already more expensive... Besides that, some guys like the stock look under the hood but would like something that outperforms the stock 2g IM, so the Evo III IM is the answer.

I have (2) intake manifolds that I swap out, a BJ SMIM and a true Evo III IM with a plate welded to the back to run the additional sensors for SD. I lose ~300rpm (to 30psi) going from the Evo III IM to the SMIM but average 4lbs/m more on the top end. Of course I haven't done any fair back to back comparison's so I don't go advertise the data but that's what my car's showing. If I were to ever AutoX my car I'd definitely switch back to the Evo IM but drag racing I'm never below 5500 so it doesn't matter how fast it spools.
Click to expand...

I can't remember losing any noticeable spool going to the street SMIM...Maybe 100ish... I too flowed significantly more on the top end. the Street version (if memory serves me correct as it was several years ago), should have no serious fitment issues either with the exception of running a smaller battery. Hell they even fit on an evo 1-3 and their bay is much much tighter.
 
Last edited:
I don't see how this EVO3 thread got off topic and started talking about drag racing smim's. Oh... yah I do. :/

An aftermarket smim is not going to be anywhere as cost effective as an evo3 intake manifold. I got my manifold for nearly free (I think it was in trade for a part years ago). JMF manifolds are not cheap.... and you can play the $xyz dollars is "not cheap" card if you want but when you compare to the cost of an oem evo3 manifold the cost doesn't constitute the "performance gain".

Why not try starting the pissing match about 1g intake port design vs. 2g intake port design instead? It's a much better "debate" to have... of course not in this thread.
 
a tremendous amount of intake manifold testing was done on the evo 8 platform. mostly from dave buschar. his personal car runs a ported 8 manifold. he doesnt have a budget to conform to. the results of dyno tests dont lie. he makes over 750whp dynojet. he doesnt have a sheet metal intake but prefers the powerband the ported stocker provides. there are likely 20 different after market manifolds for the evo. dave tested them all. there are only a handful for dsm. surely there are some better designed evo ones.

my personal car went from 425 to 460 from simple plenum porting on the evo 3. didnt touch the runners. powerband was better everywhere with better spool. its an awesome manifold for the coin.
my opinion is sheet metal are for high rpm 2.0 liter track cars who only care about peak power.
 
Street Surgeon said:
Care to share some more info on this plenum porting you speak of?
Click to expand...
I think the only bit I used was the one on the extension. its very important the edges are still like the leading edge of airplane wing. I was very surprised how big of a difference it made. like putting cams in for the first time. I cut same amount from each runner. I figured if they came that way from factory it should stay that way. But i think there are even bigger gains if the cuts taper larger for the deeper runners. I have seen pictures of very successful manifolds done this way including map performance EF3
http://www.maperformance.com/images/D/map_EVO-IM-R3c.jpg
You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.
 
Last edited:
I sold my JMF to fund my Evo3 manifold. My manifold cost more than two JMF manifolds. It looks stock, fits like stock, and performs better than the JMF on my setup. Manifolds are not one size fits all.
 
94awdcoupe said:
I think the only bit I used was the one on the extension. its very important the edges are still like the leading edge of airplane wing. I was very surprised how big of a difference it made. like putting cams in for the first time. I cut same amount from each runner. I figured if they came that way from factory it should stay that way. But i think there are even bigger gains if the cuts taper larger for the deeper runners. I have seen pictures of very successful manifolds done this way including map performance EF3
http://www.maperformance.com/images/D/map_EVO-IM-R3c.jpg
You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.

You must be logged in to view this image or video.
Click to expand...

It's easier if you just cut the plenum apart and weld it back together.
 
94awdcoupe said:
dont know about that. just did another one tonight and it took about two hours. came out better as well.
Click to expand...

I've spent a lot of time working with Wilson over the years. There isn't 40hp in what your doing in those pics. Altering the plenum size and runner length may find 40hp over a stocker, but a barrel drum stuck in the plenum will not. I will capture some pics of mine when I have it apart next time.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

DSMunknown
Lancer Evolution 8/9/10 Fuel Pumps
Replies
16
Views
11K
toofast82
toofast82
Evo III manifold
Replies
1
Views
470
L2RTSiAWD
L2RTSiAWD
EVO III Manifold???
Replies
6
Views
569
L2RTSiAWD
L2RTSiAWD
95eclipser
2G EVO III (3) Intake Manifold w/ stock Ports Vs Curt Brown Ported Evo III Comparison??
2
Replies
29
Views
12K
ishnish
ishnish
Sinclair159
Evo III Exhaust Manifold
Replies
7
Views
1K
OneFastEclipse
Support Vendors who Support the DSM Community
Boosted Fabrication ECM Tuning ExtremePSI Fuel Injector Clinic Innovation Products Jacks Transmissions JNZ Tuning Kiggly Racing Morrison Fabrications MyMitsubishiStore.com RixRacing RockAuto RTM Racing STM Tuned

Latest posts

Build Thread Updates

Vendor Updates

Latest Classifieds

Back
Top