OOOOK, it seems like you are more fixated on gleefully pointing out how many people are such truly sucka$$ drivers rather than whether the Evo is "realistically" a 13.0 car.

Here's the question then: Do you own an Evo? If so, can you turn 13.0s consistently? If not, then when people ask you how fast Evos are, are you going to say it's a "13.0" car, or will you say it's a "13.whatever you got" car? You come across to me like you think you are a great driver, so I would certainly expect some great times from you (and will congratulate you genuinely if you get them). But if you get 13.5s and still run around claiming the Evo is a 13.0 car, you will look like a retard (not to mention having pre-condemned yourself to be a "suck *** driver", to use your words).

This has nothing to do with the "mind", but with the "real life proof" of what 99% of most Evo owners will realistically do at the drag strip. If 99% of Evo drivers are "suck ***" and realistically pull 13.5+s in the quarter, then that's what most of them will consider the Evo to be (i.e. a mid/high 13 second car). Most non-n00b drag racers agree that a guy who runs around claiming his car is a 13.0 second car when he can only pull mid/high 13s is full of good ole 100% USDA bullsh*t.

 

Plain and simple if your car can pull consistant 13.0 runs then ur car is a 13.0 sec car, if you run one run of 13.0 and 4 13.4/13.5 runs then ur car is not a 13.0 car.....

Think about it, you run once and win, then get called out again and loose the second time, then get called out a 3rd time to settle things and loose a 3rd time are u ganna be the real winner becasue hey I got a faster time the first time.... Not exactly how racing goes, consistancy is the key. It's like sport compact said (i believe they are the ones who posted the 24 hours ov evo article) They managed ONE 13.3 run but never could back it up again. Ever run was mid 13's after that, consistanly.

I have no question the evo is capable of 13.3 stock and a "good" driver should run 13.3 runs but c'mon 13.0, heck take out the spare and ur car should run 12's....

 

You guys seem to be forgetting that the MT times were "corrected times". It means that its probably not what they got and they never got 13.08 to begin with. They got somethiing else and then adjusted it for sea level and all the other stuff and got 13.08 and probably some miscalculations too. Also you need to take into account that most cars in the same comparason aren't running showroom stock. This would mean that there's a probability that the Evo isn't either.

So this isn't exactly apples to apples comparason.....

 

That's a good point NomisR. Besides, I have NEVER placed any faith on lame "corrected" numbers...that is just vague and nebulous BS. If the car didn't actually run the stated time and speed through the traps, then it just didn't happen, plain and simple. If you are "correcting" your time/speed for what it should do at sea level, then stop it...instead, take the friggin' car to Houston at HIR and run the damn thing at sea level to get the actual real life time slip for crying out loud!

Another good point. To me, stock means "showroom" stock, as if it rolled off the showroom floor (and maybe had the 1000 break-in miles) and that's it, period. This does NOT include drag strip tricks like lowered tire pressures, removing spare tires, disconnecting front sway bars, removing air filters from the intake box, smothering the engine bay with 10 bags of ice for 2 hours, etc.

 

Reality check. There is no way they got a 109mph trap speed out of a stock EVO. That is complete bull and everyone knows it. Why is it I've seen several EVO's at the track and they are running around 98-101mph trap speeds. Then out of the blue MT runs a 109mph trap speed. Trap speed is an indication of how much HP the car is making. The 109mph trap speed would indicate the car is making close to 90hp more than the other (average) EVO's I've been seeing at the track.

The car is definately a ringer running more boost than stock or the track equipment/timers were way off. My only other guess would be that the the track was down hill and their was a 50mph tail wind. Thats the only way an EVO will every run 109mph trap speed stock.

Secondly.

Why is it other mags - such as Car and Driver hit 130mph nearly 4 seconds faster in the STi? That a huge difference. They also said the STi was clearly faster in a straigh line. The Pro driver even mentioned the STi had more power and was faster in a straight line.

 

trap speed was incorrect, it is 105 and not 109

 

Frankly, I haven't seen anyone pull a spectacular time with the Evo just yet.

In my book, if you are running 104mph in the 1/4, you should be running a 12.8 with a good driver behind the wheel.

106mph? 12.6 in the 1/4mi.

114mph? 11.8 in the 1/4mi.

I have personally run the first 2 times I mentioned. A friend of mine has run an 11.8@114mph with a 16G turbo in his Eclipse.

 

Yes, exactly. Of course, it's up to you. If you want to claim that your car is faster than what you can deliver, that's up to you. Some people call that lying. If I owned a 911 and could only deliver 12.5s, I sure as hell wouldn't be spouting that it's an 11.9 second car only to have somebody call me out and make me look like a complete moron. Instead, I'd tell them my personal best (12.5). I suppose I could point out that technically, some really good racer somewhere else in the world once drove the 911 to an 11.9, but do you really think they would give a crap?

WTF?!? That's quite a stretch of the interpretation. Sure, it's a 911 turbo. If they can't rip it to the best recorded 911 Turbo time but they walk around claiming they can, then they deserve the dumb yuppie reputation that follows.

Yay, we agree 100% on this! I know this firsthand as I owned a 1999 30th Anniversary Trans Am and turned a best of 13.5 @ 105. When people asked me how fast it was, I told them (13.5), not some BS claim of 12.9 like HTP magazine claimed in 1998.

OK, I don't know anymore if we are debating or agreeing, lol! To me, "FASTEST vs FASTEST" comparisons are meaningless, since neither you nor 99% of the other people out there will ever be able to achieve it. "Average vs Average" is more meaningful since this is more likely what you will encounter in the next lane (be it stoplight or strip).

If that's the best time you have turned, then yes. However, if you turned a better time than that (say 13.9), then you know firsthand that it IS capable of 13.9s and you can consistently backup your claims.

You know, this really comes down to a technicality. Do you consider a a valid representation of a car's "time" to be:

A. The fastest ever recorded time that some super experienced racer guy got somewhere in the world with all the right conditions and possibly some unknown tricks or tweaks, or

B. The times typically turned by a vast majority of the owners and magazines and the time you will most likely achieve if you take it to the track.

Personally, I think Option B is much more realistic and less full of BS when talking to other people.

 

damn arguing with u was nice....glad we agree on everything