I would like to hear from Track junkies that have tracked the IX. Since The rear springs have been changed how did this affect the Handling on the Track?

 

The springs have been changed so the Evo 9's rear ride height is lowered 5mm. The Mitsu engineers talked about this on BMI. The reason is so the car relies on the chassis and suspension more. Professional drives in races like the Super Taikyu gave them the advice. The reason is AYC, although it helps the car at hte limits, does not give a natural feel to the car. It's electronic and not mechanical, so the response of the car's handling dynamics is not linear. Lowering the rear by 5 mm lessens the use of the AYC.

AYC's is an active diff, meaning that it will use sensor readings to intrude. That's why many drivers like Tsuchiya said that to get the most out of a car with AYC, you need to know how to drive it. This is the reason why many drivers prefer the Evo 8MR RS and the Evo 9GT, it has a mechanical rear LSD. The handling is much more linear in feel and response.

Cliff notes: AYC works well and does help increase the car limits, but a driver needs to know how to utilize it and anticipate its actions.

 

According to CAPS the rear springs are the same for the US-spec versions. Theoretically, handling should be the same between the two models as most (if not all) components are the same between the VIII and IX.

 

How does lowering the rear lessen the use of AYC? Unless you bring some proof I'm calling BS on your chassis/suspension info.

Why lower the car (which doesn't make sense yet) when they can just adjust the intrusiveness of the AYC system?

 

Ive seen the BMI video he is talking about, and that is exactly what they said, now how that works im not sure. But id imagine lowering the rear gives ther ear more grip, as opposed to the *** happyness of the Viii's thus making the car rely more on the chassis/suspension than the electronic controls?

 

It reduces lift of the inside rear wheel, which reduces differences in grip between the two rear wheels and therefore reduces the use of AYC.

-Paul

 

interesting......thanx for the info

 

good point but useless since usdm models dont have s-ayc.. nor the jdm rear springs apparently.

 

Try watching Best Motoring Evo IX The Next Evolution...

 

i don't fully agree with this appart from the fact the us spec evo 9 doesn't have ayc or super ayc, i laymens terms ayc measures the amount of yaw and deturmines how much correction is needed base where you want to go.

 

alot of it i do agree with though

 

No AYC on any EVO in the US period. We have ACD only.

They are both very close but the 05 and 06 feels more like a RWD than 03 and 04.

 

I prefer to get info from better sources than Best Motoring.

Rear wheel lift when? Corner Exit, Entry? Lets do something better than just regurgitating what someone said on a TV show.

It usually takes more than just lowering rear ride height to reduce lift. Rear lift could be reduced by simply increasing front spring rates while preserving the travel in the rear. Lowering the rear will change the rear roll center, but nothing dramatic enough to matter. Unless of course they're not telling the whole story and dumbing it down(most likely) and changed other things like some arm lengths and mounting points.

I'm not doubting there is some truth to why they lowered it, but lets do better than what we got here as an explanation. Just lowering the rear is not the answer to less AYC intrusion.

 

The inside rear wheel will lift during hard cornering. you can see this at the Streets of willow going thru the skidpad section of the track. Volkswagons were notorious for this (in the 80's) the GTI"s were fun to watch lifting that rear wheel on every corner.

Since the USDM does not have AYC I wondered if the US cars had the lower stiffer rears installed. I looked at the IX and the rear seems noticably lower?

 

What is CAPS? and why does the IX sit lower in the rear if the springs are the same?