You may remember a fun little hatchback called the Fiat Panda 100HP. All it took was a hundred horsepower to turn a ho-hum supermini into what European editors knew and loved as one of their favorite driving machines. That was a little overshadowed by the Fiat 500 that offers the same powertrain, if not all the same fun, but the Panda put things into perspective. Especially considering now how one tuner has taken an earlier Fiat Coupe and squeezed a whopping 1,000 horsepower out of it. That's ten times as much.

So how'd they do it? Well, for starters they scrapped the stock engine and shoehorned in the twin-turbo V6 from the Mitsubishi 300GT VR-4. Advanced though it was for its time, with its 24 valves and dual overhead cams, the Diamond Star engine never produced more than 300 horsepower in stock form. So the tuner performed some undisclosed magic on it and boosted the output up over three times its stock figure.

While they were at it, they also squeezed the Mitsu's advanced all-wheel-drive, four-wheel-steering system in there. Because as bonkers as 1,000 horsepower is by any account, trying to keep that much twist on the straight and narrow when it's just driving the front wheels would be a nightmare. This, on the other hand, is clearly someone's dream come true. Check it out in the trio of videos after the jump.







I'm reporting this comment as:

Reported comments and users are reviewed by Autoblog staff 24 hours a day, seven days a week to determine whether they violate Community Guideline. Accounts are penalized for Community Guidelines violations and serious or repeated violations can lead to account termination.


    • 1 Second Ago
  • 43 Comments
      Lachmund
      • 3 Years Ago
      definately looks like russian engineering.
      MachDelta
      • 3 Years Ago
      All the pros of the GTO (3000GT/Stealth), minus the weight penalty? Sonofabitch. That is INSANE.
      TwinTurbo3oooGT
      • 3 Years Ago
      1. Thats 3000GT VR-4, not 300GT 2. The engine did, in fact, produce 320hp in the 94-99 models. Research plz. Lol
        TwinTurbo3oooGT
        • 3 Years Ago
        @TwinTurbo3oooGT
        3. Diamond-star is a term indicating DSM, which the 3000GT, AND it's 6G72 engine, are not. They are 100% Mitsubishi.
      EB110Americana
      • 3 Years Ago
      "...from the Mitsubishi 300GT VR-4" 3000GT. You forgot an extra zero in there.
      sechovicz
      • 3 Years Ago
      Mozhete vy eto na moy F-150 Lariat zdelat'? Turbokompressory installirovat'? Ochen khorosho rabotali. Bravo! Ivan Sechovicz iz Bostona....
      lawdogg
      • 3 Years Ago
      Editor, please correct errors in the article: 3000GT not 300GT; It is not a Diamond Star engine; They were rated at 320hp 94-99.
      Tourian
      • 3 Years Ago
      It is not a "Diamond-Star" engine as Chrysler had nothing to do with designing it and it was made in Japan along with the rest of the car (and the Stealths). It is a Mitsubishi motor. Diamond-Star is not a synonym for all things Mitsubishi. Also, the later versions of the car came with 320hp from the factory.
      Georg
      • 3 Years Ago
      a Polo Mk I with a 1047 wheel hp from 1.8l 16V GTI engine and the AWD system from a Audi TT is in my eyes more impressive.... http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7y10C-fvnfQ
        rty
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Georg
        WTF?! 1s to 60?
        Kris
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Georg
        I kinda like this one more http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QKpBaXvG7j0
      • 3 Years Ago
      [blocked]
      Jon Norman
      • 3 Years Ago
      I'm getting 650 RWHP out of my Procharged SRT8. Can't go higher than that without making the handling unpredictable. If The russians could do this to my car, I'd lend it to them. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4JCDX6m_jjk
        NissanGTR
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Jon Norman
        The SRT8 is unpredictable stock with its lounge chair suspension.
      AcidTonic
      • 3 Years Ago
      Just google "1000 horsepower Evo" and you'll find pages of 1000hp+ AWD goodness. They have those cars easily running 7's and 8's in the quarter mile which is outstanding from 2.0 to 2.4 liters with a manual transmission and full-time AWD. But I keep forgetting Autoblog hates Evo's but they love it when someone makes big power from a V6 with AWD. *Then* it's cool and suddenly everyone is interested in "how they did it". Easy, a big ass turbo and 30+ pounds of boost. Hell with just a turbo swap to an FP Black and a fuel system upgrade, a completely stock 2.0 I4 on the Evo can easily put out 550-650 at the wheels. The displacement really doesn't matter. You just need a motor that can seriously breathe, and then you put a big ass turbo on it. Quite simple really. At 21psi that 2.0 is breathing 4.5 liters of air on the stock turbo. At 30+ PSI you can breath over 6-8 liters worth of air. You don't need a big motor when you can make a small one breathe the same amount of air.
        Kevlar
        • 3 Years Ago
        @AcidTonic
        You clearly missed the part where said boosted twin-turbo V6 with AWD setup was swapped into a tiny little Fiat that normally has a FWD 1.6L I-4. Stop being an Evo fanboy and appreciate the incredible fabrication work on display here. Furthermore, the degree of ease which you associate with building a 1000+ HP car makes it PAINFULLY obvious that you have never done so yourself. It really ISN'T as "simple" as you make it out to be. Things start breaking fast when you triple or quadruple a car's power output. "Easily running 7's and 8's"? To my knowledge, there is only ONE Evo that has broken the 7's, and it's a '95 Evo III, and basically a full-on unstreetable drag car (APC's in Australia). There are less than half a dozen Evo's in the 8's as well, and even THOSE are full-on gutted-out drag cars (I know at least one is not a manual transmission, either). There is nothing "easy" about it. Running an 11 or even 10-second quarter mile in an Evo is -relatively "easy" (if you have the money). 9's and below is a completely different game. 4.5 liters of air? You clearly are not an engineer. A 2.0 liter engine is always breathing 2.0 liters of air (for every two crank rotations). That is a mechanical property of the engine. What changes is the DENSITY of the air going into it, and thus the total mass. Mass flow goes up. There's also a little thing called "volumetric efficiency." Due to losses, valve overlap, valve timing, etc, you're never going to get 100% filling of the combustion chamber with the air available immediately upstream of the engine. Anything less than complete filling means that the air that does get in is going to expand to fill the combustion chamber. Sure, you don't need a big motor when you can force the same MASS of air into a smaller engine, but there are practical limits to just how much you can get in (valve size, intake runner geometry, and so forth), as well as how much you can get OUT of the engine. There are also material limits that come into play at such power levels. More power means higher peak cylinder pressures. Higher peak cylinder pressures means greater load on the cylinder wall, piston, rod, crank, etc. None of those can be made infinitely strong. A stronger cylinder is inherently harder to cool. A stronger piston, rod, or crank is inherently heavier. As those parts become heavier in order to withstand the pressures generated, you approach a point where the forces due to their accelerations (piston/rod acceleration) become too great for the material to withstand. Make it lighter, for less accelerative forces, and you make it weaker. Go get an engineering degree and design and build a 7-second Evo. Until then, please shut it, and keep the Evo fanboyism to yourself.
          erjhe
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Kevlar
          He's actually somewhat right about the CFM figures. When you measure the airflow at the inlet of the system (the turbo) is is drawing in a higher flow rate of air at atmospheric pressure than it would at lower or no boost. However, as you made clear, it's too open to interpretation. Is it at the intake of the engine or at the intake of the turbo? This is why the mass flow is taken to account. At the turbo? At the engine? Doesn't matter, it's still the same mass of air. :)
          AP1_S2K
          • 3 Years Ago
          @Kevlar
          yes, the car is very impressive since it's a Frankenstein especially with the Lambo brake calipers.
      Jason
      • 3 Years Ago
      Does he really have to dump the clutch with a thousand HP?
        RGT881
        • 3 Years Ago
        @Jason
        More importantly, will it last a thousand years?
    • Load More Comments