get the ix rs. new is always better than used...

 

Yeah...

 

except in the case of pamela anderson...

 

How do you like your RS?? Its bothering me I cant decide between the IX or VIII RS or the VIII MR....

 

Well cancel that! The dealership with the MR just called and said they "Couldnt let it go for that price anymore." I wanna laugh. What a poor petty excuse...

 

I love it...check the reviews people have done on here and I think you'll see happy campers for just about every IX owner RS, Standard, and MR...

 

question... my dad drives and 05 sti and he wants to know if its possible to get it tuned along with all of the other evo owners that are interested in this thread?

(edited)... nevermind, wrong thread, sorry

 

Its all good...Kind of off subject but just curious: Is it true that the X will no longer have the 4G63 and be a lot more money!?!?

 

Yep. As far as I know, the IX is the final 4G63.

 

so whats gonna replace it?

 

Its a secret!! I can tell you, but I will have to kill you!!

I don't know actually. They haven't published yet. The engine on the concept X
is always covered.

 

That will be a sad time if thats true.

 

Did you bother to look at the link to the article I posted on page 1 of this thread? That would at least help you decide between the VIII RS and MR. For the street or the track the lack of ABS in the RS IS a factor that shouldn't be overlooked. Creature comforts are another. The main reason for the RS is for race teams who are going to strip that car anyway or if the lower price helps you afford an Evo. I think we proved that in stock form it's slower around a track, but faster down the strip due to its lighter weight. So it's a trade-off between what you feel you will use the car for. The IX is better than either of those. Warrtalon only mentions the power difference on the IX, but their are minor improvements to many areas of the car, including the interior, handling, aero, etc.

 

True...Leaning towards a IX now...

 

I don't think you proved anything...big "T" Truths are problematic at best...

"... in science there is no 'knowledge', in the sense in which Plato and Aristotle understood the word, in the sense which implies finality; in science, we never have sufficient reason for the belief that we have attained the truth. ... This view means, furthermore, that we have no proofs in science (excepting, of course, pure mathematics and logic). In the empirical sciences, which alone can furnish us with information about the world we live in, proofs do not occur, if we mean by 'proof' an argument which establishes once and for ever the truth of a theory."

Sir Karl Popper, The Problem of Induction, 1953

All you did in that article was show what three vehicles did on that particular day(or days)...