kyoo

iTrader: (29)

New thread! Don't close!

I never thought it was fair how the X vs. IX thread was over on the X side, and then we'd always get complaints about how we're over there, so let's see how this goes.
This is a genuine analysis of facts and figures. If I were a mod I would delete every stupid "My IX/VIII (X) is better than your X (IX/VIII)" comment that I KNOW will eventually pop up.

I wanted to analyze some of the strengths and weaknesses between the two chassissssz. The C4ZA is a fantastic chassis. I don't think anyone can argue with that, a little heavy, but it's not something I ever doubted.
I think that the fact that it's doing so well gives CT9A guys a good example or model for analyzing some of the weaknesses of the USDM CT9A, and also working with our strengths to exploit as much of an advantage with that as we can, and compiling those into a comprehensive list of things that do and do not work for the CT9A chassis.

Basically, I want to use the X chassis as a lesson for what does and doesn't work for increasing speed, and how we can apply those lessons to the CT9A chassis.

I don't think this is a thread that X guys should be offended or threatened by at all. I'm praising the car's ability to haul around the track, even with it's added mass.
The reason I chose the X is, beside the obvious rivalry, that in terms of modded cars, I can't think of any other USDM cars that are giving the IX a run for it's money.

Disadvantage #1 - Suspension Geometry/ Dated Suspension
Inherently, the CT9A has some set up problems. I think a lot of these can be fixed with a Whiteline or whatever else geometry kit - GTWorx sells a package containing the Roll Center Kit, BumpSteer Kit, Front Control Arm Bushings and Rear Trailing Arm Bushings.
Anyone else have anything to add for fixing the geometry?

Disadvantage #2 - Weaker Chassis
Although some amount of bracing can help, along with a roll cage etc., I don't think there's much we can do in this department to my knowledge that will make huge significant leaps. However, I'm sure every little bit will help.

Disadvantage #3 - Smaller wheel wells
Another disadvantage I'm not sure much can be done about, aside from some ridiculous fender rolling that I don't think the majority of CT9A drivers will be interested in doing. However, I would typically think that the widest wheels/tires we can fit, the better?

Disadvantage #4 - Dated differentials
I think this is kind of a toss up. I think there are two questions to ask: First, if the car is faster due to advanced differentials, does that mean it is actually the faster car, or just the easier car to drive? Second, do the differentials actually aid the driver to the point that they are worth the weight?
Whatever the answer, it seems to be benefiting X drivers. There's really no way to quantify this advantage, because we do not have a X available that does not include the s-ayc to compare to one that does. However, I think for more advanced drivers/motorsport competitions, evos have always ran with a mechanical rear lsd.
Some of the tools available to us here in the USA are the Cusco rear LSD, and the Cusco 40/60 Center Differential. However, I think the best option is the Tre Rear Differential, which I believe you can contact username Gears about. From what I can see, it will do everything the Cusco rear LSD, for MUCH cheaper. This is a MUST have for road racers to fix some of the CT9A's inherent understeer. This is NOT to say that an oversteering Evolution will be faster through the corners. What we're looking for here is neutrality on corner exit, which can be provided well enough with a 1 way or 1.5 way tre rear diff.
In terms of the 40/60 diff, I'm a little more weary of in terms of it's actual benefits. If someone can actually quantify it with a before and after, I'd love to see the results. Again, simply oversteering/rear power bias is not the way to greater speed.

Disadvantage #5 - Worse weight distribution
The C4ZA has better weight distribution, and I think this can be overlooked as "not being a big deal." I don't want to get into it, but it does matter. Forward to back bias doesn't matter quite as much as where exactly the mass is located on the car IMO though (i.e., mid engined cars).
One of the biggest factors will be getting a small battery kit, which can be purchased from anywhere, but I'll go ahead and recommend Buschur or AMS. Removing the A/C will also be a big help, though I've mixed feelings about going in that direction, for various reasons I'm looking at keeping the car as streetable as possible.
There are various other parts in the engine bay that can also be replaced with lighter parts, so you guys can look into those for yourself! lol

If there are any other disadvantages, please post! I'm too tired to think of any more.

Advantage #1 - Weight
Obviously, this is our biggest, and probably close to one of our only advantages. However, this is probably one of the biggest factors for increasing speed on the track. A lot of people thought that a lot of the increased weight from the added safety features in the X, but I think this was later proved to be untrue. Also, unless you're stripping the car down for complete track usage, I think this is unwise.
There are various things you can do, and personally I will be doing as many as I can while keeping the car streetable. It affects every facet of performance driving, and it should be exploited to the best of any car's ability.
Much of your weight savings will also come from simply swapping your stock parts for modded parts - i.e., exhaust system etc. Looking through, some of Buschur's parts are particularly light compared to stock.


..Yea that's all I could think of in terms of advantages. I'd love more feedback from you guys. One thing I'd note though, is that though this analysis is away from typical power mods and suspension mods (because you can just match those up and up and up for both cars), it would be particularly beneficial for serious road racers to consider investing in a fully built motor, one that produces power/revs to 8.5 or 9k. Because of improved motor design, The X motor, with it's superior design, holds power up top a bit better, which can be matched by a built engine that will produce a fantastic powerband up top.

To be honest, I love this rivalry. I enjoy it as I've always enjoyed STi rivalries. Sure, feelings may get hurt at times, but I think it's such a great motivation for us to improve our cars and abilities. I didn't think there was any reason for the old thread to be closed, except for all of the trash talk going on. Aside from these advantages and disadvantages, I think it's important to keep in mind the tried and true methods for fastest times, especially in road racing. The goal in that case is to minimize the amount of time spent in the straights, not necessarily in the corners. However, corner exit speed is what determines much of what your speed in the straights. Let's keep those in mind while we further explore advantages/disadvantages, and how they can be exploited or remedied!

I hope this thread doesn't turn into a **** fest and gets closed

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

I think you covered the basics.

I do really think , everything stayed a same in the Evo history. Which car get a better set up or driver will win.
Most amazing part is the X chassis got so much extra crap of metal its not even funny , beside the reinforcements. But In the Homologation FIA paper work they show you how easy to remove them. The whole body is ,when you see it in totaly naked is very obvious why is heavier.
Also every little thing adds up
-like unreal rear crash beam... Why is that so heavy?
The spare tire is 40 lb /no wonder every where else the X comes with inflation kit pump and and quick fix/
The rear seat, have metal bars ... vs VIII IX
the airbags are not heavy but it have 7 of them ...
etc.

The bright side is you can remove this item fast and clean.

The CT9A is an awesome car overall. Period.
The biggest advantage is see on the CT9A is the tested proven tuning methods vs the CZ4A.
Which is comes from pure racing times.
Not to mention the after market back up for that.
The CZ4A is not even close to it , yet.

I think when it comes to chassis , the CZ4A is a better chassis and not just by numbers . Only thing i do not like is a little taller then the CT9A.
Also if you look the shape of it , then it is understandable why have a better aerodynamics also.
The most obvious is the front windshield position, when you are park each other with the IX and the X you can notice it very easy.
Just as an example.

Kurt

iTrader: (1)

I have no problem with this thread provided it stays civil and on topic.

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

Ah yea. Well I didn't mention the extra metal you can take off partly because I don't think that anyone that's not an expert should really be messing with the car chassis in the sense of removing any metal, and like I said, I wanted to kind of roll with whatever most people would be comfortable in terms of removing.

I didn't mention the aerodynamics because while the coefficient drag is slightly better for the X, you still have to multiply it by the entire front surface area, which is larger for the X.

Thanks for the input! I think a lot of the weight that the X has gained is all very "useful" weight. I might remove the crash beam, but personally I'd probably leave the rest in there. Especially with so much weight from just those two things contributing in the back, I'd bet removing it changes the weight distribution closer to 60/40.
In any case, I think yea, there's a lot of weight to be lost on the X. But the IX (for the most part, for most drivers who aren't stripping their cars all the way out) will always be probably around 200 lbs or so lighter, if you go with all the more reasonable weight saving mods.

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

Yeas there is a trade off. the CT9A chassis is lighter not as tall, but narrower and have a lot more torsion vs the CZ4A.

For drag racing the CT9A is better since only thing you need is a light car.
Mean while for Rally or road race probably until you dont cage a car the CZ4A would be a better choice.

[edited]

So when you actually race , yes 100- 200lbs is a lot, but as you see there is lot more in the racing then lbs.
Very important to understand that You cant judge the car by only they weights.

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

Rallying is muchhhhh different from your typical road racing.
This thread isn't really X vs IX, Rob. Of course there is trade off between a stiffer, heavier chassis vs. a weaker, lighter one. But you will reach a point where, physically speaking, 50 lbs of extra stiffness will not be worth the increase in weight it provides etc. Not saying X has reached that, or that we know where that point is, and also depends on material etc etc etc etc.

The question I'm asking here in this thread is how can we apply lessons learned from the X to the IX, apart from things that are physically impossible.
I didn't only judge a car by it's weight. I listed about 5 advantages up top that the X has.
Again, not a X vs. IX thread, I won't let it turn into what the last one became.

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

nope i did not say this IX vs X. ONLY reason i put it there , to understand and see the LB is not a only factor in the chassis in handling.

Absolutely i do not want to go there.

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

the fact is there are many structural stiffening after market parts out there you can buy to make a car stiffer.
Like braces etc. Cusco -Tanabe etc sell them.

If you see where they stiffening the car and you watch the CZ4A body /naked/ then you will see the Evo guys watching and learning. Those points and the B pillar etc is much stiffer in the CZ4A.
You can make the CT9A just as stiff or even stiffer then a CZ4A , but it will add weights to the car .

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

Thanks for the input with that! I wish there could be a test done, with one IX, where you add a chassis stiffener, take track times, add a stiffener, take times, to be able to estimate where the trade off is.

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

i dont thinkn if you stiffen up the chassis with the right point with the right material is a trade off.
Your lap time should improve.
But you suspension needs to be adjusted to the new more ridgier body. You want to going around as much as you can on four wheels. So no tripod. Looks cool etc , but you want the tires on the ground.

4Trouble

Neutral:

In the end, it all depends on how much money is put in and the regulations (or lack of). If chassis, engine and transmissions are allowed to be modified or replaced, there will be no answer. Just look at LeMans GT1 and GT2 cars, or the GT500 and GT300 class of super taikyu. I mean they have absolutely no problem turning 3500-4000lbs cars into a 2400-2500lbs, even with all that restrictions, as long as enough money is put in.

For CZ4A:

But to speak regarding real life situation where we can't just focus on one or two aspects. People who buy evo are looking for cars that would cost them around 30-40k, and generally don't spend more than the car value on mods. If you are trying to make the fastest thing on track on the days you visit, you may be better of building a real racing go-kart, you can build a pretty damn fast one at the cost of evo's base price. People buy evo for many reasons, and could include combinations of; driving pleasure, speed, ownership and pride, value, practicality, safety, looks, hobby (such as project cars), commuting, entering some race event, and so on. Quite a lot of the categories, the CZ4A wins without any dispute. I'm sure Mitsu knew the CZ4A and its 4B11 is going to be a worthy successor, they have been doing especially bad past 3-4 years and they just don't have the resources to gamble on their main marketing car (and the halo car perhaps)by testing parts they are unsure of, they would just build what they know would work.

The evo is gaining size & weight while barely adding any power. There are two main reasons for this; #1 it is based on Lancer (although it is technically a Galant now), and #2 it was to compete in the group A and group N rallies.
Mitsubishi's biggest money making cars are Lancer, Galant and Pajero, if you don't count their commercial trucks. If they don't make the cars bigger, safer and with more feature, Lancer would have died out long time ago. I mean even with all the add-ons, it is still struggling against Civics, Fits, Elantras, Mazda3s etc. If you want to blame on this, blame on lazy people who keep demanding more room, comfort and features. Its a viscious circle where if one car becomes bloated, other cars would need to be bloated as well in order to do well during crashes, and to be able to compete marketwise with the features to match up. And in order not to lose performance or meet the increasing demand, they'll need bigger engine, and bigger drivetrain and suspension to keep up.
Also since it needs to be built to be able to enter the races, it would be absolutely pointless to make much more power than 300 stock. All the extra development is better off spent on maximizing car's potential running with 300hp and the durability running on it.

I agree with Rob on the aerodynamics. Although the CT9A is significantly smaller if you consider by volume (not by length x width x height, which is 4490mm x 1770mm x 1450mm for CT9A and 4495mm x 1810mm x 1480mm for CZ9A btw), the CT9A has edges like bricks, especially the windscreen as Rob mentioned, as well as the roof edges on the sides.

Note that CT9A hasn't changed much since the introduction in 2001, only thing I can think of are engine head (MIVEC), mild size and flow increase of the turbo, minor durability improvement of the tranny, 225 tires to 235, minor updates on bumpers and wing for cooling and very little increase in downforce. Overall, the updates haven't really improved lap times, thus it is a very old car compared to CZ4A.

Aftermarket support maybe on CT9A's side for now due to long R&D period, but many shops have already stopped developing new parts for CT9A even if they still sell the ones that are already developed, which means in the long run the advantage would be greater for CZ4A. Also, the trend of being able to juice out more power with same or less mod has been the key of the hype, which always won over the weight controvery, look at evo IV and evo VII for example.

I really hate to say this but I think CT9A is a bit overrated than what it is. I am in no way saying that the car can't live up to its hype, but I just think the hype created from FQ-400 is just too much more than what it should have been. It was a heck of a luck of Ralliart UK deciding to release a very limited number of the cars, reviewed by many magazines and have 0-60mph time listed as 3.5sec whether it is true or not (kids love~ 0-60 times), then get reviewed by Top Gear and compared with a Murcielago in a rather puny track and had the times recorded. To many kids, 3.5sec > 3.8sec, faster lap = always faster car (disregarding the size and the layout of the track). Sure Ralliart guys are heck of mechanics, but at the time of their development, Buschur and AMS already had almost the same parts available as stage 1 to 3, then only needed to throw in a front alcon brake kit to match the car. Same reliability, same driveability, more power, for less money, also just as well known within the United States.

IMO for looks CZ4A wins. It has only been a year and a half since the release and people are already becoming comfortable with it, not that it wasn't that controversial to begin with. It won't be long until CT9A starts to look dated to a lot of people. The CP9A did not have much 'flaws' and already looks dated due to the headlights and the size of the car, CT9A is going to age even quicker with such big and odd cowl shape and low waistline, the cars of its generation had, and current vehicles still do have pretty narrow windows and high waistline. The rear wheel arch is also too small. There are many angles the CT9A looks mean and good but those minor bad looks are really going to hit hard in terms of aging. So far only repetitive complaint on CZ4A design is the rear, where the tailights don't really match up with the size and the shape of the trunk.



For CT9A (based on your questions):

Disadvantage #1 - Can't help you much on that, but given that both the same suspension design (MacPherson front and Multilink rear) and similar proportions, it shouldn't be too difficult evening out minor flaws.

Disadvantage #2 - Not really an issue, don't forget, quite a lot of reinforcement is also done for the purpose of safety as well as coping the extra size and weight gained. Tsukuba lap battles is actually a good place to find an example, since you see a lot of CP9A and CT9A's run with stock or almost stock chassis but heavy modification elsewhere. Faster ones from both run around 55 second range. Also if you see magazine video tests on CP9A, CT9A and CZ4A, it is difficult to spot the variaton of chassis flex and body rolls between the models.

Disadvantage #3 - The biggest wheel/tire people usually fit in both cars are 18x11 and 285/30, other than that generally people in CZ4A run one size wider. The front wheel well on CT9A are gigantic enough, only issue is the rear, which rolling/shaving solves the problem, and you wouldn't need a wide body panel unless you go 275 or wider.

Disadvantage #4 - Differentials are mitigation device rather than improvement device. Skilled driver can match or even better the lap than without (due to the minor weight advtange without). In the long run though, the differentials will pay off, I don't know any NBA player who has ever averaged 100% field goal percentage in their career, unless there was some nameless player who played couple games for few minutes, took two shots and both got in. AYC is the third differential, USDM CT9A's and JDM RS's do have two differentials. JDM RS came with 1.5 way rear LSD for several generations now. AYC is not needed, and generally on tracks people don't prefer it especially with S-AWC due to confusion they may cause once in awhile.

Disadvantage #5 - It is so minor it wouldn't even matter. Compare a Gallardo against an X, why can an X go around corners as fast as or even faster than a Gallardo when it is heavier, has worse weight distribution and higher center of gravity? 60/40 vs I believe it was something like 45/55 for Gallardo, which is even more optimal than a 50/50. Both cars are AWD and are built for speed.

Weight is clearly an advantage between the two. If you compare an VII/VIII/IX RS vs X RS, it is 220lbs difference. They will both lose about the same from exhaust and pipings, battery. As far as I know, the X RS don't have the heavy rear seats. Rear crash bar may be one of the only few things that you can remove to close the difference gap.

Oh my god, I think I'm writing a book or something. Sorry for such a long post and things being everywhere, but I was just trying to write down whatever that came up in my mind. Feel free for corrections, disagreements, flames and so on, I am sure I may be wrong at least some place in such long writing

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

I can't agree on you with the aero there.. It's pure math I'd have to say, Cd takes into account edges and stuff I thought? x the surfaces area, and that gives you the drag?
I would think a lot of people disagree with you about the chassis thing. I always thought of the X's stiffer chassis as a huge advantage, and I think most people would agree. If you can source the magazine video tests where they actually test and show the variation of chassis flex, I'll look into it. Not saying I don't believe you, but stiffer chassis is pretty standard in terms of increasing a car's performance. Or maybe what you're saying is that evo's have been stiffened well enough to a point where this is not an issue anymore? i.e., the car can not be put into a physical situation where the chassis can be flexed significantly, so adding more chassis stiffening is going to be negligible?

That's how I felt about the differentials as well. Thanks, that's a good term for it - mitigation. I really have to wonder if it just makes the car easier to drive - I think we can all admit that you can drive a car that's easier to drive at least 1 or 2 seconds quicker on an appropriate track.

I mention the wheel wells because I think MOST people with CT9A's run a maximum of around 9 inches, and I think the X's potential to hold a wider wheel without too much fender rolling will be greater.

To clarify, the list was really just me trying to pinpoint every fixable and/or unfixable advantage that the X has over the IX to see if the ability of the X is really something that can not be matched by the IX. I'd much appreciate any additions to the list, otherwise I mean.. I don't see where the X has been making its undisputed claims of the better road racing car.

I'd almost like to play the same kind of game with the STi here, (maybe the older one, I hear the new one's chassis is much weaker?)

:In addition, in terms of aftermarket performance parts, I think the accumulation of knowledge of what works and what doesn't (i.e., larger flow, bigger turbo, free flowing, lighter weight, and on and on) is for the most part known. It's not the application of a different theory or anything; it's the application of the same theory to a different car, and all you need thereafter is the development and tweaking of the parts designed for the car. So, as I've stated before, I don't feel that well designed, effective parts being released quickly is something that should be surprising from here on after, nor the general abilities of the engine to be that much greater (as in no major discoveries which hold huge gains).
If you look at the 4g63, you see that the engine has been out for near 20 years now? Yet through all the tweaking and fixing etc etc., it is still the 4g63 today. The major improvements to the engine have been from application of knowledge we already own - forged, stronger parts, more boost etc etc etc..

whew.

GPTourer

Great analysis. But for the point above, is this really a disadvantage or a feature? If the base chassis is all that is being compared, then the newer car wins because it is stiffer, all you have to do then is decide how much power you are going to add and choose what setup you want it to be. A stock over the counter Evo has to be safe, has to be road worthy, meet regs and so on and so forth, whereas a time attack version doesn't. So I don't quite follow how we can talk about what a car sitting at a dealership has on it (AYC, weight from airbags, etc) as pros and cons when we are ultimately talking about what can be done with the cars when they are tuned to their maximum. AYC, and ABS, and EBD and so on or so the average guy doesn't kill himself. All they need is time, and you'll see X's that are faster then all Evos before it. There may not be 1000+whp 7 sec drag X's, but people can still buy a 1G DSM if they want to (try) to do that.

kyoo

iTrader: (29)

I'm really trying to stay away from that kind of speculative opinion that most people are holding at the moment, and replace them with quantitative facts. If you have data on what specs of the X will make it the fastest (streetable) Evo of all time, I'd love to see it. Because I believe that record belongs unanimously to the Evo 6. Bring the data please!
We talk about street cars because 99.9% of evo owners are not going to be building cyber evo's and HKS time attack evos

If you have data about the X other than what I've mentioned here, I'm really analyzing what can and can not be matched, and how much that is "worth" in terms of speed compared to an increase in weight. Thanks for the input!

GPTourer

Oh, I'm sorry.

Okay, so we're comparing the first CZ4A to the best CT9A. How does an X compare to an '03 Evo? Or a '00 VII? Maybe we'll have to wait until we've seen the best/ultimate/last/FQ version of the CZ4A to pass judgment of its worth.