They actually added more steel plates in some spots too.
I think where the suspension meets the car is one place.

 

Engine is same 2.0 with EVO's having lightweight but stronger parts - Not the same engine! Both are iron block/AL head, so I'll go even weight
Turbo and all the plumbings (75 lbs)
Intercooler (40 lbs)
Intercooler sprayer parts (neg)
Chassis welds (100 lbs for chassis reinforcement)
4WD system (center/rear differential) (250 lbs)
Heavier wheels & Tires (40 lbs)
Much bigger brakes/rotors (20 lbs)
HID ballasts.... (neg)
Slightly bigger car with all the fender flares... (neg)
EVO having lighter weight seats (Recaros) (-10 lbs)
EVO having lighter hood/door/trunk?? (-10 lbs)

Your list, I estimate 505 lbs. There's a slew of additional mounting brackets, as well. The chassis reinforcements might be even more.

 

The cylinder head is much larger on the evo, omg the same, nope not even close twin vs single cam. One of my former students dropped by to see my evo and he was in his "02" OZ rally. We decided it an exercise in futility to find much the same on the cars. It really an apples to oranges coparison since the entire drive train is different as is the suspension the body panels the wheels, brakes the list is long here. The 50% increase in ridgidity is more than welds as stated. If you adjust out the aluminum front and suspension parts the actual differences are well over 600 lbs.

Don't feel foolish with you question it is a good one. My unfortunate and slightly gullible student was told by the salesman who sold him the OZ that it had an evo engine sans FI, lol. The evo wasn't slated yet for the US so I guess the salesman felt safe.



Remember that the evo has a little "Lancer" under the evolution trim on the trunk lid. The only other places Lancer is to be found are on the instrument cluster where there should have been a boost gauge and on the floor mats. This car seems far less a Lancer than the Eclipse is a Gallant. Heck it better be for double the price. BTW I have tried to cost out the differences and it seems we have a real bargain here.

 

weight wit stock rims too?.. Evos got 17s.. And regular lancers got 15s..

 

Hey ewoevo and neilscully, zeus is on the right path for the added weight in the body. Mitsu uses thicker sheets of steel and even extra sheets of steel in key locations to increase rigidity. I work in the body weld department at an automobile factory, spot welds are used to join these sheets together, they fuse the metal together with extreme heat, there is no material added what so ever whether it is one weld or a thousand, so more spot welds does not equal more weight, just rigidity.

 

the EVO exhaust is probably a little heavier as well, includung the turbo manifold...

 

The dramatic weight difference between the EVO and regular Lancer is due to added performance throughout the life span of the EVO series.

When Mitsu develop EVO I, they want to create a lightweight, agile car to replace the existing Galant VR-4 in the WRC races. This took the goods (4G63 +AWD) from the VR-4 and “slapped” it into the Lancer chassis (CD9A) to create a fast and lightweight car. Mission completed? NO. Many complain that the engine is much “faster” than the chassis can handle.

What did they do? They lengthen the wheelbase to enhance handling and at the same time, revise the engine to increase the output for 10 more horses.

Over the years, the same cycle keep going over and over again. More performance from the engine? Then add more stuff to help handling (AYC, ACD and chassis reinforcements) and stopping (larger Brembo brakes)…the end result is a slightly faster car (compared to pervious model) with more weight. In the end, the EVO is WAY heavier than the regular Lancer, which it originally starting from....

If you put all the EVO’s weight on a table with their output, you will know what I mean.

 

What you say is basically true, except the Evo I chassis was reinforced when compared to the regular Lancer of the time and the suspension is different. I wouldn't say the engine was too much for the chassis either. The handling doesn't compare to the newer Evos, but I don't think the power has much to do with it.

 

Mitsubishi list the EVO at 3263lb, has anyone weighed their car with the driver and without the drive to see what their car weighed?

 

Already mentioned that..

 

Guys... I know better that they have different engines... but I
assume that the weight of the two engines would be similar
since the displacement is nearly the same.

(going to edit my original post)

 

There are many different types of "16G's" Its almost as ambiguous to just say a Mitsubishi has a 6G72 engine. The turbo in the Evolution is a "Big 16G" twinscroll turbo, while the Neon's is a small or regular 16G.

 

But isn't the 16 in 16G some kind of a index number that shows
how much air (hp potential) the turbo can push?

I'm new to this... sorry..

 

I think the "16" is just a family name for a group of turbos.
I got this off of the DSMTalk forum.

at 15psi a 16g should do 505 cfm's
and a big16g should do 550.

But those are the generic types available from MHI (Mitsubishi Heavy Industries) that DSM people tend to use. It does not necessarily mean anything compared to the twinscroll Evo turbo, or the one prepared for Dodge to use in the SRT (if it is or isn't different from a standard 16G.)

 

The evo is heavier than the regular Lancer because of its four wheel drive and there is 200 more spots welded in the evo.