Head to Head H2H Ep10, EVO IX RS Vs. EVO X
Aug 7, 2008, 02:46 PM
#76
Newbie
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Denver
Posts: 89
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason the X is slower is because the engine is so tuned badly from the factory. This is obvious from the 50-90 hp gains from engine management software alone (ecutek, z-chip). An extra 20hp to the stock tune would have made a world of difference in the performance numbers when comparing a stock IX to a stock X. Any advantage the IX has in power is lost the second you start tuning.
And let's face it, the track results from the X are phenomenal. You can do 12's with basic bolt-ons, can do 10's in the 1/4 mile with the stock internals, and people are breaking road course records already. And its been out 6 months.
And realistically, in terms of weight, even the IX is still a pig when compared to the previous gens. If weight were the end-all, then the lotus would dominate the gt-r.
Let's face it, the extra hp in the X doesn't quite offset the extra weight it gained. But it's pretty damn close and its more than made up for once you start tuning.
And let's face it, the track results from the X are phenomenal. You can do 12's with basic bolt-ons, can do 10's in the 1/4 mile with the stock internals, and people are breaking road course records already. And its been out 6 months.
And realistically, in terms of weight, even the IX is still a pig when compared to the previous gens. If weight were the end-all, then the lotus would dominate the gt-r.
Let's face it, the extra hp in the X doesn't quite offset the extra weight it gained. But it's pretty damn close and its more than made up for once you start tuning.
Aug 7, 2008, 04:13 PM
#77
Evolved Member
The only reason the X is slower is because the engine is so tuned badly from the factory. This is obvious from the 50-90 hp gains from engine management software alone (ecutek, z-chip). An extra 20hp to the stock tune would have made a world of difference in the performance numbers when comparing a stock IX to a stock X. Any advantage the IX has in power is lost the second you start tuning.
And let's face it, the track results from the X are phenomenal. You can do 12's with basic bolt-ons, can do 10's in the 1/4 mile with the stock internals, and people are breaking road course records already. And its been out 6 months.
And realistically, in terms of weight, even the IX is still a pig when compared to the previous gens. If weight were the end-all, then the lotus would dominate the gt-r.
Let's face it, the extra hp in the X doesn't quite offset the extra weight it gained. But it's pretty damn close and its more than made up for once you start tuning.
And let's face it, the track results from the X are phenomenal. You can do 12's with basic bolt-ons, can do 10's in the 1/4 mile with the stock internals, and people are breaking road course records already. And its been out 6 months.
And realistically, in terms of weight, even the IX is still a pig when compared to the previous gens. If weight were the end-all, then the lotus would dominate the gt-r.
Let's face it, the extra hp in the X doesn't quite offset the extra weight it gained. But it's pretty damn close and its more than made up for once you start tuning.
Aug 7, 2008, 04:59 PM
#78
I love all EVOs. I'm not a fan of the look of the 10 but I hope that thing becomes a track beast.
I have yet to see it break any road course records. Modded to modded I don't think the 10 is gonna be leaps and bounds better than any other.
Its already a better daily driver but thats not what most of us are looking for. Only time will tell what the best car will be.
I have yet to see it break any road course records. Modded to modded I don't think the 10 is gonna be leaps and bounds better than any other.
Its already a better daily driver but thats not what most of us are looking for. Only time will tell what the best car will be.
Aug 7, 2008, 05:02 PM
#79
Bone stock X with tune only no boost controller etc, bone stock
make on dynojet approx. 310 whp. wich is easy 340 crank hp, and you are way in the safe zone still/10 air fual ratio all the way/....
How does it sounds for you, when we tell you the factory tune is super rich it is actually hurt a car?
Aug 7, 2008, 05:13 PM
#81
The only reason the X is slower is because the engine is so tuned badly from the factory. This is obvious from the 50-90 hp gains from engine management software alone (ecutek, z-chip). An extra 20hp to the stock tune would have made a world of difference in the performance numbers when comparing a stock IX to a stock X. Any advantage the IX has in power is lost the second you start tuning.
And let's face it, the track results from the X are phenomenal. You can do 12's with basic bolt-ons, can do 10's in the 1/4 mile with the stock internals, and people are breaking road course records already. And its been out 6 months.
And realistically, in terms of weight, even the IX is still a pig when compared to the previous gens. If weight were the end-all, then the lotus would dominate the gt-r.
Let's face it, the extra hp in the X doesn't quite offset the extra weight it gained. But it's pretty damn close and its more than made up for once you start tuning.
And let's face it, the track results from the X are phenomenal. You can do 12's with basic bolt-ons, can do 10's in the 1/4 mile with the stock internals, and people are breaking road course records already. And its been out 6 months.
And realistically, in terms of weight, even the IX is still a pig when compared to the previous gens. If weight were the end-all, then the lotus would dominate the gt-r.
Let's face it, the extra hp in the X doesn't quite offset the extra weight it gained. But it's pretty damn close and its more than made up for once you start tuning.
Aug 7, 2008, 05:35 PM
#82
Evolved Member
well , sorry i have to say this but the tune on the car is almost everything.
Bone stock X with tune only no boost controller etc, bone stock
make on dynojet approx. 310 whp. wich is easy 340 crank hp, and you are way in the safe zone still/10 air fual ratio all the way/....
How does it sounds for you, when we tell you the factory tune is super rich it is actually hurt a car?
Bone stock X with tune only no boost controller etc, bone stock
make on dynojet approx. 310 whp. wich is easy 340 crank hp, and you are way in the safe zone still/10 air fual ratio all the way/....
How does it sounds for you, when we tell you the factory tune is super rich it is actually hurt a car?
The point was that the guy I had quoted was blaming the X's slower acceleration times (compared to the U.S.-spec CT9As) on the engine. While a better tune definitely would've yielded more power (which is pretty obvious and applies to so many cars as I already pointed out, though the 4B11 is already rated higher in factory trim than the outgoing 4G63), the main factor was the weight, which that poster virtually disregarded.
I'll put it into perspective. Today's GT-R has 480 hp (factory rating) and weighs around 3800 pounds. If the next GT-R has 500 hp but weighs 4500 pounds and struggles to do better than 4.0 seconds to 60 mph, would you blame the slower acceleration on it not having enough power? No, it's the huge weight gain.
Aug 7, 2008, 05:58 PM
#85
Evolved Member
Yeah, that would be cool. Still, one of the best tests was when Motor Trend did a legit comparison between the VIII, RS and MR. It would've been neat to have seen a similar comparison for the IX, RS, MR, SSL, SE and MR SE (though the last one could be excluded since it's nearly identical to the MR in every way).
Aug 7, 2008, 06:11 PM
#86
Yeah, that would be cool. Still, one of the best tests was when Motor Trend did a legit comparison between the VIII, RS and MR. It would've been neat to have seen a similar comparison for the IX, RS, MR, SSL, SE and MR SE (though the last one could be excluded since it's nearly identical to the MR in every way).
Aug 7, 2008, 08:18 PM
#87
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Posts: 1,076
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason the X is slower is because the engine is so tuned badly from the factory. This is obvious from the 50-90 hp gains from engine management software alone (ecutek, z-chip). An extra 20hp to the stock tune would have made a world of difference in the performance numbers when comparing a stock IX to a stock X. Any advantage the IX has in power is lost the second you start tuning.
And let's face it, the track results from the X are phenomenal. You can do 12's with basic bolt-ons, can do 10's in the 1/4 mile with the stock internals, and people are breaking road course records already. And its been out 6 months.
And realistically, in terms of weight, even the IX is still a pig when compared to the previous gens. If weight were the end-all, then the lotus would dominate the gt-r.
Let's face it, the extra hp in the X doesn't quite offset the extra weight it gained. But it's pretty damn close and its more than made up for once you start tuning.
And let's face it, the track results from the X are phenomenal. You can do 12's with basic bolt-ons, can do 10's in the 1/4 mile with the stock internals, and people are breaking road course records already. And its been out 6 months.
And realistically, in terms of weight, even the IX is still a pig when compared to the previous gens. If weight were the end-all, then the lotus would dominate the gt-r.
Let's face it, the extra hp in the X doesn't quite offset the extra weight it gained. But it's pretty damn close and its more than made up for once you start tuning.
Each gen of Evos are only slightly heavier than the prev while Mitsu adds more hp
and technologies. X got 300lbs while getting just 2hp gain.
Given X's small 2hp gain, the only reason X kept up with IX is the amazing AYC
in the S-AWC.. add AYC to IX then the result might just be different (JDM IX outran
X in those BestMotoring videos). Sometimes I wonder why Mitsu held off the
AYC in USDM VIII and IX... maybe for a good reason.
So imho, X is pretty good now.. it should be amazing with a 300lb diet.
How about that X RS, Mitsu?
Who needs power anything when you're chasing down that 911...
Aug 7, 2008, 11:28 PM
#88
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: Marlborough, MA
Posts: 1,118
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The only reason the X is slower is because the engine is so tuned badly from the factory. This is obvious from the 50-90 hp gains from engine management software alone (ecutek, z-chip). An extra 20hp to the stock tune would have made a world of difference in the performance numbers when comparing a stock IX to a stock X. Any advantage the IX has in power is lost the second you start tuning.
And let's face it, the track results from the X are phenomenal. You can do 12's with basic bolt-ons, can do 10's in the 1/4 mile with the stock internals, and people are breaking road course records already. And its been out 6 months.
And realistically, in terms of weight, even the IX is still a pig when compared to the previous gens. If weight were the end-all, then the lotus would dominate the gt-r.
Let's face it, the extra hp in the X doesn't quite offset the extra weight it gained. But it's pretty damn close and its more than made up for once you start tuning.
And let's face it, the track results from the X are phenomenal. You can do 12's with basic bolt-ons, can do 10's in the 1/4 mile with the stock internals, and people are breaking road course records already. And its been out 6 months.
And realistically, in terms of weight, even the IX is still a pig when compared to the previous gens. If weight were the end-all, then the lotus would dominate the gt-r.
Let's face it, the extra hp in the X doesn't quite offset the extra weight it gained. But it's pretty damn close and its more than made up for once you start tuning.
12's with basic bolt ons? Ooooh, thats special. NOT. I was running CONSISTANT 12.8's (there is a thread in the drag racing section with my time slips to) while my MR was TOTALLY 100% stock w/ street tires and sh!tty 60' times. So that is irrelevent. Sorry, had to point that out because it pissed me off.
Next, I don't care what you say or do, the X was a step in the wrong direction for the Evo. It looks fat, it is fat, its like mitsu tried to build the car to attract mid life crisis guys. screw that. I'm keeping my IX. And I'll laugh when a X trys to take me only to be disapointed like the STi's, honduhs and whatever else gets a good view of my tail lights on a daily basis.
Lets hope and pray mitsu takes a better approach with the XI otherwise when I buy my second Evo it's going to be another IX.
Aug 8, 2008, 05:55 AM
#90
no other factory evo gained before that much hp with only tune. Not even close.
that is not beacuse the X is "better" , just a simply fact , the Mitsubishi over riched the tune, beyond quality running.
Side note:
the TME comes out with aprox 330 bhp. So its and upgraded VI already and that is why it got the hype. Think like the AMG.
So the fair comparision would be the VI vs X same model and trim level.
Or the TME vs the X FQ330 if its exist . But i think they have a FQ 320-340-360.
that is not beacuse the X is "better" , just a simply fact , the Mitsubishi over riched the tune, beyond quality running.
Side note:
the TME comes out with aprox 330 bhp. So its and upgraded VI already and that is why it got the hype. Think like the AMG.
So the fair comparision would be the VI vs X same model and trim level.
Or the TME vs the X FQ330 if its exist . But i think they have a FQ 320-340-360.