So, whats the deal with all theses people blowing there transfer cases? 6000k clutch drop or weak parts to begin with?

 

it takes 4 slicks, 1 act2600, and a few 7krpm launches at the track to find the weakest link...the tc


for those that don't know TRE, you should, they're in kalamzoo, MI for all you in the midwest, not that far of a drive from chi. I'd reccommend them to anyone. They do amazing work, and will be going through my evo trans once I get a little downtime, worth every penny.

 

The dealership I bought my car at said that I could mod my evo and keep my warranty granted that the mod did not cause the specific malfunction that may arise from its use.
That sounds like a shared responsibility. I mod at my own risk.

 

That, or doing donuts on pavement with a stock car.

 

With many warranty cases in general, Mitsubishi has taken that the burden of proof of a mod. not causing a failure, is on the customer.

Being pessimistic about this, by the time a lawyer may be involved enough to help force warranty coverage, the legal fees and time may have already exceeded the amount of putting together a new, or uprated mechanical component. Many people opt for that. Our own MSM_2K has done that. He put together a much more mechanically sound EVO motor, and I think Mitsubishi is banking on that fact and in his case resolving it as slow as I've ever seen a case like this done. Luckly MSM also has the foritude and resources to keep some pressure on Mitsubishi.

What appals me is Mitsubishi doesn't even take an active stance in saying, "we can't prove, nor disprove that your mod helped cause a failure, but we'd like to both come out winners" and then offer a situation where the bill is split 1/2. Or Mitsu. pays for the parts, and the consumer, the labor.

In all, I see a lack of goodwill on MMNA's part towards North American EVO owners. Fortunately at least my dealership has some good techs. and I'm always treated with good information and knowledge when a concern does come to my mind. I feel that my dealership is the exception, and not the rule. I know if something does come up with my EVO, the dealership could be forced to take MMNA's, at times, unfounded conclusions concerning a warranty coverage.

This is pure opinion and speculation, but MMNA doesn't really understand the EVO. This is shown by the lack of knowledge of their sales people to the selection of Ralliart parts here in the US. One good example is getting some mudflaps. I can purchase door sills, vortex generators, other lights, and wheels, to name a few items, but using the EVO as a "swiss army knife" / utilitarian vehicle, because it DOES have four doors, and IS the size of a sedan, and HAS AWD, I can't throw on a set of flaps to bounce up a dirt road with my mountainbike and go biking. Another item is a towing hitch. Not for taking the family camper, but putting on a bike rack or something of that nature.

The utilitarian potential of the EVO is limited NOT by the aftermarket here in the US, its limited by MMNA. I hope MMNA's takes that step ahead and doesn't let the EVO become yet another Eclipse development. That is where the EVO could grow to become a big / fat "image" car.

Thank you,

jcnel.

 

Okay, but it isn't a swiss army knife, it isn't designed or marketed for those activities. You need the ground clearance of an Outlander or Endeavor AWD to do those things. The Evo is designed for maximum performance on pavement - it even says so in your manual. You are expecting too much or have bought the wrong vehicle. We don't sell trailer hitches for any of our cars that aren't designed to tow. I do realiaze people make bike racks designed to work with trailer hitches, but you have to go to UHaul or something for that. Mitsubishi isn't going to market a trailer hitch as a bike rack only for a car that few people would buy that for. The Eclipse is very mainstream and is by no means an image car.

 

I don't care what the mainstream, or book has said what I can or cannot do with the EVO. I don't care what the EVO has or hasn't been marketed for. You help prove the point that the EVO could get marketed and eventually designed to be an "image" only vehicle.

Did you purchase an EVO, GP?

Facts:
1.) The EVO HAS 4 doors, and a trunk.
2.) The EVO HAS a long travel suspension.
3.) The EVO HAS All-Wheel Drive.
4.) The EVO HAS a rally heiritage, and was designed as such. Last time I checked ... rally means DIRT and lots of it.
5.) I LOVE MY EVO!

I don't NEED a lot of ground clearance to go down MOST dirt roads. I did it in my FWD Geo Prism and I'll do it in my EVO, and the EVO is just as capable of doing that as a lot of SUVs out there.

As far as design on an EVO for a trailer hitch. Look at the back bumper mount (crossbeam) of an EVO versus a Ralliart, versus a regular lancer. They can get towing hitchs, and the EVO is just the same structure to do so. In fact Vishnu tuning put a hitch on theirs and towed some pretty heavy stuff for 6000 freekin' miles and RACED on pavement with their hitch mount out the back. Don't tell me that a hitch can't be put on it. You want to talk clutches? Look at the amount of clutches burnt up just in regular usage (~10k mile range) ... The EVOs clutch design was a design flaw from the start, that's a given that I'll change when I tow something 300+lbs.

Look at the Subaru side of things. The WRX STi is the SAME chassis as the Impreza (including Forester) and you can get towing hitches right and left for it. (BTW I owned a Subaru WRX also, and put a nice DrawTite hitch on it.)

Again, Mitsubishi isn't marketing the EVO for the number of people that COULD buy it.

If I wanted a pure performance car to play street games on ... I'd take my money and spend it on a used E36 BMW M3, and put a supercharger on it. As the EVO stands ... its one heck of a $20k sedan, and the best $10k worth of "big-smile" performance.

Cheers,

jcnel.

 

I won't. And I didn't. You asked why Mitsubishi doesn't offer one as an accessory so you can stick a bike rack on it. I said Mitsubishi doesn't offer trailer hitches for any vehicle that they don't reccomend you tow with. I said you'd have to go to uhaul or something to get one so you can put your rack on it. Vishnu can tow whatever they want, they don't have a warranty on their car and they know it. Who cares what they do, what does that have to do with anything?

I don't care if the Evo has a rally heritage and is "meant" for going off road. The whole crux of the argument is that the Evo could be designed to do a lot of things, rallying, road racing, drag racing - whatever, But Mitsubishi won't warrantee the car if you do those things, that's why they say keep it on the pavement, don't mod it and don't tow with it if you want them to warranty it. I would let a dealer know you intend only to carry a bike with one though before I put a hitch on it though.

One minute you say you just want to drive up a dusty bike trail that your old FWD could do, then you want to talk about Rallying. The two are not the same and you know that, stop trying to confuse the issue. Nobody cares if you go to your local state park or camp ground and have a Miller Lite moment with a few friends, but the minute you enter and compete in the Pikes Peak Rally, your warranty is done.

And no I don't own an Evo, what does that have to do with anything?
You opinion, but I disagree. Just because Subaru did "this" with the WRX, doesn't mean Mitsubishi should do "that" with the Evo. The Evo is supposed to be a cut above the garden variety WRX. People say Subarus are marketed towards lesbians too, should MMNA be seeking that market for the Evo?
What does your personal choice have to do with anything? A used German sedan with another several thousand dollars invested in it with no powertrain warranty versus a new sedan with one. That's great, I guess but I don't see your point.
Again, I don't know what this image you speak of is. If Porsches, Vettes, Vipers, etc are "image" only cars because they do what they do best on pavement - yet the Evo undercuts the mall by being half their price in some cases then I think that is a great image. I'm satisified by the fact that I could get four adults in it and it has a useful trunk, why is that not enough utility? YMMV. Now by image, maybe you mean something that isn't useful at all, like the SRT-10 I drove in another thread? It has poor towing capacity and poor bed capacity, yet it has a 500hp engine. Is that what you mean? I think the Evo is far more useful then that.

 

i would like to know why no one's has gone to court against bring along the broshure they give you and open it up and in big letters "GO FORTH AND MODIFY" the comercial they put out show them racing in the 1/4 mile that is call miss representaion in my book. granted a lot of us dont have $$$ to got to court.

back in the ford put out the cobra mustang not sure what year and claimed high
horse power #'s and people dyno'd there car's and they where not even close
thats why american manufacturess claim a #'s but the car really put's out more power case in point the z06 vette say's 400 i know someone who dyno'd a z06 stock put out 406 to the wheel's. im wondering if we are just say ahh F*&k it
i cant win....
just mt .02 cents

 

I have heard the same thing. Also Subaru and Dodge are doing the same thing. This is typical with Mitsu. Just look at how they handled the crankwalk in the GSX and GST. I will prob. never buy another Mitsu. You spend 35k on the vehicle and they say you race it to every warranty issue. "My radio knob fell off!!", Mitsu, "Owe well I ran the ecu on your vehicle and it shows the knob fell off at 7k rpm. I am sorry your Tranny is not covered if anything happenes to it". This is crap and bull****!!!

 

Tre: Team Rip Engineering. They Are The Bomb With Trannies. Shifts Like Butter!!

 

With reference to GPTourer, this is turning into a "you said, I said" argument. From a simple seach and reading other of your posts, you enjoy debating many things. Thank you for your opinion. I have said what I have said and I'll let it stand for what its worth.

In resume:
My Opinion: MMNA has an unacceptable warranty policy with the EVO.
My 2nd Opinion: MMNA does not understand the EVO enough to take it forward in the market as quickly as probably they, or other people would like.

If its still here, with new models are coming out each year, I suppose, in situ, that's a step forward rather than a step backwards.

Thank you,

jcnel.

P.S. Team Rip, from all the reports I've had (one report locally), does do really good work.

 

Not to be too critical/off topic, but I had a '02 Z06, and spent a number of years with it and on the z06vette.com forum. I did not nor did any posts that I saw show any #'s close to 400. The car is marketed as 405 hp, as per its badge on the side of the car, but most of what I have seen is ~350's to 360's to the wheels.

 

Actually its a simple matter of you not understanding what I said in the first place. I do enjoy a good debate, especially when its something I feel so passionately about. That's what forums are for.

My opinion:

1. Mitsubishi's warranty on the Evo is better then any in the world. They do not tolerate modifications or competition use like every other manufacturer on the planet. They want you to enjoy the car to "go forth and conquer" and mod to your hearts content and beat the competition, but you do so on your own volition and they won't foot your repair bill. See the aforementioned article in this months SCC, they sum it up quite nicely.

2. Mitsubishi understands the market for the Evo perfectly. It is *not* a mass market car. Doing things like raising the ride height, swapping the Advans for mud and snow rated Bridgestone Duelers, removing the complex differentials and replacing it with a driveline more suitable for towing jetskis or kayaks and marketing it as a "lifestyle" Mountain Dew ad vehicle would compromise its handling and performance that has earned it Autmobile car of the year and SCC Compact Car of the year two years in a row. There's a reason they only make ~5000 of them a year.

It'll be here as long as they can profit from it and it will continue to Evolve as the world's best performance car for its price.

 

If you use 15% driveline lose as a figure, you'd get 402.4 to 414 using your 350-360 rear wheel horsepower figure, so what's so wrong with that? Manufacturers don't base engine horsepower on to-the-wheel horsepower, it's based on the flywheel horsepower. I don't see an issue with those numbers. Enlighten me, if I am missing something here.