In the September issue of Car and Driver they test an Audi RS4. In the Counterpoint section Mark Gillies made some interesting comments that certainly made me smile;
"Sure, the RS4 goes like a raped ape. The engine sounds stunning. The brakes and the grip are excellent, and it looks pretty darn wicked in the bargain. If you want a four-place car that scare the living daylights out of your nearest and dearest, it's a cool piece. Except, of course, that it costs almost $70,000. That's 20 grand more than a BMW M3, one of my favorite cars, which is a more involving package with better steering and brake feel and a nicer shifter. If you really want all-wheel drive and four doors and have a need for serious speed, how about a Mitsubishi Lancer EVO MR, which does most things as well, many better, and is half the price of the RS4?"

 

RS4 is cool but is priced way too high, it should be around 55k

 

Thats a pretty sick comparison....

But I have a question....I like the MR but why is it the end all be all of EVOs? Everyone refers to the MR as if its so much better than the others. I researched before I purchased my IX and went with it because it didnt seem that the options were enough of a benefit for $4k more. Does anyone have an answer to this?

 

because of the evo's, it does perform the best... not that the others arnt RIGHT on its tail though..

 

They referenced the MR because if you can afford an RS 4 then no way in hell are you gonna buy a gsr. You gonna buy the MR. In my experience with other evo owners this seems more true than not.

They also usually reference the MR because its 4 grand more expensive than the gsr so its not AS embarassing when it blows away much more expensive car. Imagine if they said a 28k (the rs) car could equal an RS 4, as opposed to a 34 k car (the mr).

I kid you not...this last reason is actually huuuugely important. These magazines depend on ad revenues to survive which means when possible they will water down their criticism of a manufacturer. And the evo vs. rs4 comparo is definitely a criticism of the audi's value.

 

Magazines tend to make comparisons with cars they've tested and have used to gather published data. In this case, it's the MR. Why did they test a MR? Because, it's the car Mitsubishi sent them.

 

it's flattering to see the Evo constantly being compared with cars costing so much more...

it's just a great performance machine for the money.

the MR is Mitsu's best Evo model, so it'll be the car Mitsu want most of the magazines to review on. at stock trim it is the fastest Evo around a track. Not by much, (much less than a sec for the VIII's) but still the quickest.

damn i love my Evo.

 

The MR has a list of standard options (leather on bolsters, fogs, hids, 6spd, etc.) that are closer to the Audi base options.

 

It's even more flattering when they compare it against non-cars, like the dirt bike, that was an interesting read. Also the bobsled, LOL!!!

 

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/148982..._vs_bobsleigh/

 

Sunroof???? Leather?????? u mean on the side of the seats...
The MR does not come with sunroof, that would be too heavy to carry with that aluminum roof .

 

Eh, no, not on the MR...

 

I read that a few days ago and it put a smile on my face.

 

That's what i said

 

I see the spirit of the quote but you'd be a fool to compare the Evo to an RS4. Evo quality and refinement is pure crap compared to the Audi. I can almost guarantee no one cross shops an RS4 and an Evo.