I may be a newbie on these forums here, but I fail to understand why people insist on a $5k price difference between the MR and the GSR. It's not, if you consider all the items standard on the MR that are options on the GSR!

Let's see, starting with a $4500 MSRP difference, just for fun:
- HID lights ($800)
- fog lights ($200) ?? not sure here, but seems reasonable
- gauge package ($500)
- interior trim bits ($200)
- installation for above items ??

So that's about $1700 deducted from the $4500 difference in MSRP's.

That leaves $2800 for the following items:
- upgraded gearbox (6sp vs 5sp, better linkage)
- upgraded wheels (forged, lighter)
- vortex generator (gimmick? who knows)
- upgraded suspension (Bilsteins)
- upgraded roof (aluminum)

I am considering an MR and I calculated that in order to duplicate some of the must-have (for me) MR features, I would have to buy a SSL GSR and spend maybe 1 extra grand for the Bilsteins and maybe another extra grand for wheels. I could probably save myself around $500 by swapping the leather seats for regular ones - so I'd still have to spend $35k, gaining a sunroof and Infinity audio but loosing the 6sp, vortex and alu roof.

So for me personally it seems like a wash from a purchase point of view. But I do believe the MR will hold value better than a GSR, so I think I'll stick with the MR, if anything. At least unless GSRs go for at least $2k under MSRP (and MRs go for MSRP), in which case...

Just my opinion, YMMV.

BTW, what with all this talk about $400 over invoice and all, does anybody actually know the invoice prices? (thanks)

adc
03 330

 

Thats kind of how I weighed out the GSR versus MR in my mind.
If I was goin with the GSR I was goin SSL. In the end I went MR.
The extra money I can handle........no leather or sunroof and upgraded
stereo in my mind are made up for by the bits on the MR. IMHO.

 

I am fairly certain that ACD can send more then 50% of the power to the rear wheels. I have read a few times in magazines, and I think a Mitsubishi brochure, that tarmac mode is 40/60 (front/rear). A magazine I read today with a test on the STI with DCCD and the Evolution VIII with ACD said that DCCD can split 35/65 (f/r) and ACD can split 30/70 (f/r). The writer said that under power the Evolution VIII had more power oversteer available than the STI, so even if the figures are wrong this is what he felt when he drove it. Also I thought that the AWD systems in both cars could send most of the power to the individual wheel that has the most traction, what ever end of the car it is on.

Aston

 

Not to stir up more discussion about the weight savings and center of gravity (c.g) but the lighter weight wheels will cause the c.g. to be higher, however the decrease in rolling resistance due to the weight savings is worth the c.g. impact. I know a bit about weight and balance of cars and planes and I can tell you that 3mm is negligible and is noise in the overall scheme of things. Did anyone factor in the driver and his height and weight and fuel c.g. as you burn fuel? That is just an added selling point to make the MR more appealing and to show the customer that more engineering thought was put into this car to improve performance. You can lose a few pounds and/or lower your seat and have the same if not better effect on c.g.

Joe250 has a lot of good points and I agree with him on many things and will reiterate his point that he is not knocking the MR just comparing its worth. I agree with others that the additional bells and whistles of the MR are worth the $4500 price delta but ultimately it comes down to you, the buyer.

Since I have a minimal driving history with performance cars I would probably not notice the benefits of the MR so at this point in my life (26 years old) I’d rather have the money (with tax and mark up it may be more than a $4500) in my pocket for mortgage, aftermarket parts, driving school, stocks or just a measly 2% money market account so I can save for EVO model XXX FQ650 (gross exaggeration, not a new rumor).

 

I finally got to see the Best Motoring video where they take a JDM Evo MR and add 8.8 lbs, to the roof. They test the car before and after on a autocross course. In the video you can clearly see that the MR with the added roof weight is much less composed.

I'd also like to bring up something I failed to mention in previous discussions. Why would Mitsubishi go through the trouble of a) engineering this in the first place if they didn't feel it was worth the difference in improved handling over the base car and b) go through the expense of not only the increased production costs, but the engineereing expense of mating together aluminum and steel, two metals not known for compatibility? Answer: because it was worth it? It's not just about the 8.8 lbs removed from the car, it is where it was removed from.

 

It is all about marketing and making the sale, and that is what keeps companies alive (strange since Mitsubishi is hurting in the car industry). All it does is add more appeal to the MR and add another selling point. You obviously have a lot of background in driving and reviewing cars but how much business background do you have as far as owning and managing a business or a corporation?

And I did not say it wasn't worth, all I said was it is negligible. I believe what Mitsubishi is touting just don't think 95% of MR owners will appreciate or notice it. You can visually see that the car was "much less composed"...that smells like a pile of B&$#S%@T, no offense.

Incorporating aluminum into an existing steel design is not a huge engineering feat nor costly, it is done all the time in the aerospace industry and even the bicycle industry not to mention mating other advanced materials like titanium and composites.

 

You should really watch the video before calling B.S.

So you're saying Mitsubishi went to all this trouble and engineering for market value and street appeal? Sorry, but the little bit of business sense I have says, that doesn't make sense, especially given Mitsu's current financial situation.

Funny, at least one MR owner has already come to me and said I was correct in my vehicle assesment, but you can't please everybody, so I'm sure there are others that will say different.

Or you could just say that we agree to disagree on this point. No worries...

 

How was the weight added? Was it spread out evenly across the roof or was a large lump placed in one spot? I'm also quite skeptical of the BM videos when it comes to something like this. Having lived in Japan for a year, I can say that the media over there, in all its forms, is stupifyingly pro-Japan. They aren't ones to criticize their countrymen. If MMC says they improved the car, then BM will prove it to us.

Another thing you may have heard about is Japan's consumerism. They put us to shame here in the US. Their economy is built on the belief that everyone should buy the latest and greatest products every few years. They don't hang on to old cars, electronics, even houses. Perfectly working appliances just 2 year old? You'll find them laying in the street on trash days. (I know because I saw it happen constantly.) Industry adds new bells and whistles every year or even develops whole new technologies that answer questions no one was even asking, and the Japanese lap it up.

So it doesn't surprise me that MMC has changed a number of items yielding minimal improvement to vehicle performance. They want their engineers constantly developing new stuff. They want to keep giving people reasons to buy new (hehe - worked on me even!), and they are always making things better, even if only slightly.

But why would MMC go through the trouble to develop an aluminum roof? I'll answer that question with another question. Why would MMC go through the trouble of designing, engineering, testing, and manufacturing the vortex generators? They wouldn't go through all that trouble unless they made a huge difference, right? According to Mitsubishi's own technical literature, here's the big payoff:

"...a 0.006 reduction in both the drag coefficient and lift coefficient.."

Source: http://www.mitsubishi-motors.com/cor...004/16E_03.pdf

Wow! A .006 reduction! Personally, I wouldn't get out of bed in the morning to engineer a .006 improvement to anything. However, that is not the way engineering works. Although sometimes huge leaps forward are made at once, most progress is made with small, continual improvements. So this tiny reduction in drag and lift doesn't mean much now, but if they keep finding these year after year, eventually you get a nice slippery, fuel-efficient car that sticks to the road.

But again, my point is not whether or not these changes have made an improvement. My point is how much impact with they have on real-world drivers. And then that leads to asking how much are these improvements worth?

I had to decide between the no-sunroof GSR and the MR. $5,000+ difference at the time I was shopping. What was it going to be like driving the MR that would be better and worth the extra $$$? Roof? Probably wouldn't feel it. Wheels? I could probably feel a slight difference, but I can get a lighter set of wheels for less money going aftermarket. Suspension? Didn't sound like a huge difference (I too read Edmunds.com's review of the MR), but again for less money I could go aftermarket. Vortex generators? Nope. 6-speed? Might be nice, but would it really be that much better than the 5? Not to me. No HID's? I like my HID's but I don't buy cars because of their headlights. That is just sad IMO.

So again, I evaluated the 2 cars and took money into account. I still feel that the MR is not 5 grand better, faster, or better looking, although it certainly is a great car. Others can come to any conclusion they want. It's their money.

Joe
www.joe250.com

 

Like a said another selling point to reel you in. And you answered your own question, considering Mitsu's current financial situation why would they spend all that extra engineering cost you talked about to sell only a limited production vehicle. I will reiterate that it does not involve a lot of "trouble and engineering" to incorporate the aluminum roof so that is why it was done.

I don't disagree with your vehicle assessment just don't agree that you feel the decrease in c.g. And like I said before, the lighter wheels probably negate the effect of the lighter roof since they bring the horizontal c.g. up. How much does that vortex generator weigh, maybe a 1-2 lbs.? Subtract that from the 8.8 lb. savings. But like I said before this is all lost in the noise.

 

I agree with Joe50 and again you see another selling point (the vortex generators) that has a negligible impact in the grand scheme of things.

Mitsubishi is trying to sell to everyone so why not tout these engineering improvements and maybe make a sale to a not so savvy buyer.

Those extra items help justify spending the extra money on the MR. Some may not see the added value of the 6 speed tranny, lighter wheels and suspension but if your throw in all the extra bells and whistles it may convince them it's all worth the extra $4500.

 

If you ask me, the main point of the MR is that it's a great car for those (like myself) who would like to keep their Evo basically stock. The GSR would have the modifier's edge, given that not only is it cheaper, but it has room for growth.

 

True true, but like Joe250 I am not disagreeing that the MR is a great car, I just wish someone would hand me the $5000 difference and then my mind would be made up. Pushing $40,000 w/ tax, title, etc. is a lot in my mind even though performance vs dollar for this car makes it worth every penny.

Maybe if I wasn't living in an area where a decent house with a decent size property is pushing half a million and my taxes weren't $10,000 a year than maybe I would splurge for the MR.

 

8.8lbs/3285lbs= 0.002678 % of the car's weight.

If you can feel the difference you must be calibrated like a scale.

 

Got one yesterday from an o3 and all I can say about this statement is yes, yes, and yes.

 

What about the sodium filled valves? The hollow fibers in the carpet? The inverted struts to reduce unsprung weight?

Those are just three of the innovations in the '03 Evolution. As in, each of them by themselves probably don't make that much of a difference, but the car is cumulative, they are constantly trying to tweak it to make it better with what they have. I totally agree with the above statement about the Japanese always trying to make things better, always wanting something new - its one of the reasons their products and goods and services outdo ours in many ways.

But, I see where you are coming from - I just don't agree with it anymore. I used to feel the same way about houshold cleaners and detergents and stuff. Everytime some company claims their stuff is 33% brighter, or gets your floors cleaner then brand X, I figured it was all just a marketing ploy. Then I got an insight into the amount of money companies like Johnson and Johnson spend to keep engineers and chemists on staff just to dream up stuff like that, to tweak their product for that extra edge. And then there's all the consumer groups just waiting with the trial lawyers on retainer to bring class action lawsuits if they lie and mislead consumers by making those false claims.

And that's just for a friggin bottle of Mr. Clean! You want to trivialize the Evo as just being marketing hype? Blasphemy.