Rallycars.com apparently dislikes the entire evolution VII/VIII platform in general, but especially the AYC and ACD.... Just some food for thought...


Mitsubishi states that the Evolution VII chassis is 50% more rigid than that of the Evolution VI. Given the 50kg weight rise that's the least Mitsubishi engineers could do. Chassis rigidity is the number one factor in any car's handling abilities and the Mitsubishi numbers are more than encouraging regarding their latest creation. Previous Evo versions already displayed extremely reinforced and rigid bodies but this time the increase in the car's size required a redesign of chassis reinforcements and the numerous new welding points were accompanied by partly seam welded steel sheets just like in full works race cars.
The new car's transmission is were most of the changes took place. The fully equipped GSR/RS-2 version sports a TorSen front and an Active Yaw Control rear differential as previously but the center differential is now an "active" ACD differential that varies its locking characteristic according to inputs from accelerometers and other sensors. One typical "active" strategy it applies is to stiffen its locking when the car starts negotiating a corner (the braking phase) allowing for maximum deceleration, loosen the locking to negotiate the turn-in phase, stiffen a bit mid-corner allowing more torque to the rear in order to turn more easily and stiffen even more while exiting the corner to provide them maximum grip and acceleration. Note that similar locking characteristic can be reached through purely mechanical differentials such as the TorSen or a more classic disc-based LSD. We here at rallycars.com are very unfriendly to whatever is electronic and is used as a commercial argument quoting abilities to "help" a car's handling. We feel there's nothing a car can do on its own that its driver can't. We find that the ACD differential has set the Evolution VII to standards that undermine its character and the driver's feel of the car. The single advantage of the ACD differential is the fact that it disconnects the rear axle when the hand brake is pulled. Further proof of the ACD differential's counter performance is the fact that it is replaced by a classic disc-based LSD in GroupN guise.

 

USDM Evo VIIIs don't have have any of that bull****...don't need it...

 

however it is all that bull ****, that put the FQ300 Evo 8, second only to the Zonda in a road coarse comparison with every production car ever made, according to TopGear. There is nothing wrong with technology, especially when it makes your car perform leaps and bounds ahead of the rest of the commercial market. Some people just want to live in a barn with candles, and make frequent visits to the out house...

 

To augment what Nova said I think the US Evolution vs STi comparison is a good example of how AYC and ACD are unecessary.

Despite all the electronic advantages of the STi, the Evo is consistently coming up the winner as more of a driver's car. I can't speak from experience, but I tend to agree with the mechanical over electronic argument and that the more control you put in the hands of a computer, the less the driver matters...which takes a bit of the fun out of driving.

EDIT: RTW, I don't think their argument is bathroom vs outhouse so much as it is "why make something electronic when you can have the same result with a mechanical device". Perhaps I'm reading it wrong.

 

I'd be afraid to let the computer handle something like that due to lack of consistency. You'll never be 100% assured that it'll handle exactly the same in every corner when tracking it. When tracking the car CONSISTENCY is KEY.

 

My old man used to say: "Don't fix it if it aint broken."
Yeah, he was old.

 

yeah, i agree...the fq was faster than the murcielago...what more proof can one want that the technology works!!!!! it's unreal that a $30k car out-performs an exotic like the lambo.

 

You'd be surprised at how much a modern airplane (not to mention space craft) leaves up to a computer.....exactly in order to acheive consistency's impossible for a human to match.

I'd love to see a back to back test of US vs. JDM Evo.

 

you gotta be joking right? computers and consistency go hand and hand,, Manual LCD's taking wear and changing over time otherwise w/o driver notification (wich the electronic can do) is what i would be afraid of.

 

ummm how many zondas and lambos do we see on off road courses? it's rally cars.com right? it's just like how how ABS is crappy to have off road. then again .. i thought that the super AYC, and the ACD where supposed to help more in situations like snow and gravel. oh well .. don't have the diffs or have the diffs .. i personally would rather have a cool toy.

 

You started off well, but you need to change the second half of your statement.
I think the US Evolution vs STI comparison is a good example of how the STI's DCCD doesn't outperform the Evo's mechanical system. You can't logically make the conclusion that AYC and ACD are unnecessary. The STI doesn't have them. You're assuming that DCCD does all the duties of ACD and AYC (which it doesn't), and that an Evo VIII with those systems performs no better than a US STI. That's clearly an unsubstantiated claim to make. We've all seen the reviews of the US STI and US Evo, and while the Evo's mechanicals deliver amazing handling, the STI's DCCD obviously doesn't make much difference in results. What I would love to see are tests between the US Evo and the Evo VIII the rest of the world gets! We need solid repeatable numbers to make some conclusions about ACD and AYC. I hope there's a magazine or two out there that will do this kind of test.

 

That would be cool, but if they brought over an FQ300 or something, would the go through the trouble of modding the USDM car up to match the horsepower output, or dumbing the FQ down? It would only make since if both cars had dyno proven exactly (within like 2-4hp) the same power. And I doubt many magazines would undertake the hassle.

 

Isn't it ironic that most people, say, a year ago, thought the USDM EVO would be the one with the active diff and the USDM STi wouldn't (a' la the JDM EVO and STi 7)? It turned out exactly opposite! And yet, the EVO still kicks butt.

I will say it totally gives the lie to the theory that the EVO VII was only better than the STi (talking JDM here) because of the active diffs. It really, obviously, always was the chassis, it seems to me.

So the point is, active diffs or not, EVOs kick butt. Now they just need to figure out how to lose 200 - 300 lbs.

 

I wasn't trying to say it (technically speaking) outperformed the STi, I was trying to say it wasn't what made or broke the driving experience. I also didn't mean to imply that DCCD was identical to AYC/ACD, but the primary function of the electronically controlled diff remains the same and it was the most appropriate juxtaposition I could think of at the time. I hope that clears up any misconceptions with my first post.

And yes, I agree on the J-spec vs US Spec Evo comparison. It would be great to see how Mistubishi does vs itself.

 

Computers are not very good with the unknown or us fuzzy type people.... Kinda blows the consistancy out of the water, yes consistant response, but inconsistant environment.