WTB: Evo 1-2-3 Front subframe (K frame)

[EVO-00X]

ASA lists that EVO I came with a Type E Steel and type CP Alloy wheels. Both show as 15 x 6JJ.
Chaser just went into his backyard to check his alloy Evo I wheels for me. Confirming that they are 15 x 6JJ with 46 offset too.
The extra track isnt in the wheels.

 

[EVOCPE]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mitsubishi_Lancer_Evolution

The Evolution II was upgraded in December 1993, and was produced until 1995. It consisted mainly of handling improvements, including minor wheelbase adjustments, larger swaybars, bodywork tweaks including a larger spoiler, and tires that were 10 mm (0.4 in) wider.

http://www.lancerregister.com/mlr_showmodel.php

Modifications in Evolution II included: the use of larger wheels and tires, the wheelbase was extended by moving the front wheel center 10mm forward, and the front and rear tracks widened 15mm and 10mm respectively to accommodate the fatter tires.

Also says that both models came with 15x6.5j Alloy (15x7j Steel)

 

[EVO-00X]

The extra 10mm wheelbase story checks out as per the EVO I-III brochure spec sheets (attached pic)
CD9A 2500mm vs CE9a 2510mm wheel base... that confirms the front wheel castor has definitely moved forward an extra 10mm = CONFIRMED (but how?)

The spec sheets also show that wheel track is also increased between EVO I-III.
Front CD9A 1450mm vs Front CE9A 1465mm
Rear CD9A 1460mm vs Rear CE9A 1470mm
Thats a 15mm front wheel track increase being 7.5mm further out on both sides up front (but how?)

So we have 2 questions, where is the extra 15mm front track and castor coming from? :lol:
Either the K-frame, lower control arms/bushes or hubs.

George, you mentioned that the crossmember bolt holes are spaced out 7.5mm further on each side making a total of 15mm. That equals the amount we're looking for...
Just have to confirm thats the case cause I got 760mm tonight and we'll wait and see what Brian gets with his EII frame due in the mail soon.

Looking at Brian's photos with both Kframes squared up, Im starting to think of backpedalling now :lol: but in a good way! I'm keen to blow this mythbuster just like everybody else.
Those arms do look longer (wheel track) and look like they may even angle further forward for more castor (wheel base).
What do you guys reckon? (see pics) Or is it a camera trick?

 

[EVOCPE]

Either way rob, doesn't that prove it is the control arms?

 

[EVO-00X]

Could be... the purpose of this exercise is to dispel fact vs fiction, based on the evidence/variables presented before us :lol:
Its been something thats been discussed on and off for years - it would be good to finally put it to rest.
'Looks like' doesnt necessarily mean 'true' unless its measured and confirmed to be fact. I think we've all heard all sorts of myths over the years :lol:

We know from pics and measurements that we have all taken that there are slight variations in kframe diamaters between 750-760mm... they could be manufactured this way, or they could have displayed/bent from impact.
We also know that the CE9A arms look like they protrude further forward for castor, and also look like they extend wider for increased track... but there's still conjecture due to people's 'actual' meaurements that claim them to be the same width.
The photos of the KFrames Brian took are great! As illustrated above, they certainly look like they extend forward and outward more by photograph.

Brian if you dont mind to please double check the E2 Kframe when it turns up to see if the dimension of it is 750-760mm. Then take meaurement using the centre of the lower control arm ball joint (underneath) as reference point.
example: put tape measure from centre of hole in kframe and measure to centre of ball joint on the underside of the arm. If you can do this for both the CE9A and CD9A kframes with arms connected that'll pretty much conclude a result. Trying to establish the difference in length between these two points and the ball joint centre will be the clencher...

If it is the arms, then the reason would be due to the pic below

 

[mrcyborg]

couple of years ago now, but i did measure the control arms altogether, gsr, evo 1 and evo 3. gsr and evo were the same except the rear bush, and gsr having the swaybar link setup on it. but otherwise the same. put against the cast evo 2 3 unit you could clearly see the extra track, but did also seem to sit further forward which would give the extra castor and extra length of the wheel base.

just for referance the rvr control arm was about the same width as the evo 2 and 3, but sat way forward which would give crazy castor, i did not a year or so ago back when that gun metal grey import drift evo was for sale that it had listed it was using rvr front control arms.

 

[EVO-00X]

Thats pretty interesting Simon . I know I've contemplated it when I saw my Nimbus control arms, but it sounds like it can be done if that drift evo used RVR front lower control arms... B)
I wonder how much it changes the front dynamics... maybe wirth a suss another day :lol:

 

[4piknup]

more caster (pushing front wheels forward) will give an increase in neg camber when wheels are turned (ie good). what it allows, is when front tyres are straight ahead you can reduce neg camber so improving traction and straight line braking also reducing tyre wear as not riding on inside corners of tyres. but when turning, say right, the left wheel will get neg camber and the right will get pos camber allowing the tyres to lean into the corner.
the reason drifters like heaps of caster is that the self centering effect is more pronounced, also increases straight line stability.