CT9A vs. CZ4A - Analysis of Advantages and Disadvantages
Feb 13, 2009, 02:14 PM
#16
Oh, I'm sorry. and no, we can compare with the 03 viii if you'd like, since it was the first evo in America..
Differences between the viii and ix? cosmetics, turbo, and mivec, nothing that can't be fixed, and upgraded cams make any advantage from mivec negligible. Suspension changes? none.
We don't have to wait. We can say, given what's available to us at this moment, what can we do? I'd like to look at the 7 but like I said it wasn't available in America, and it has the AYC which no 8 or 9 USDM does.
An argument like waiting for the last version of the car is as pointless as saying well we can't compare two cars because one is from 2006 and one is from 2008.
Also, I'm not sure what you were saying before.. You commented on the differentials comment - Did you feel the X's differentials are worth the added weight or were you agreeing with 4Trouble?
In any case, the most the CT9A cars can do to combat that is to upgrade the rear diff with the Tre or the Cusco, and/or add the Cusco center diff - unless you have other ideas.
The reason I made this thread is so that we can compile our data to make a list of what our car's weaknesses are in comparison to an obvious rival, and see what we can do to cover those losses, while exploiting our advantages in setting up a typical road racing car.
Not "eventually the x will be the best," or "ix's suck" or "x's are too heavy" etc.
I didn't mean any offense or condescending or anything. The point of this thread is very different from the pissing contest/insecurity relief thread that the other X vs. IX was.
Thanks!
Last edited by kyoo; Feb 13, 2009 at 02:34 PM.
Feb 13, 2009, 02:55 PM
#17
Evolving Member
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 372
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Dont mean to start a fight but you are trying to remain subjective on a very non subjective topic when talking about rigidity.
Trying to compare two cars abilities to perform at their best, but only to a point. Where is that point? Streetcar/Non-streetcar? The line on that topic alone is fuzzy enough to need a thread of its own.
All Im saying is you are trying to use numbers, facts, and hard data which is admirable but you are trying to use it in very difficult areas. For example chassis rigidity vs. weight. It would be very costly for an individual to be able to quantify this. One would have to build some kind of fixture, apply some torsional load to a cars frame, and recorded how much it yields. Then stiffen it up using parts, or lighten it by removing components/replacing with Aftermarket and re test. I am not even sure a machine like this exists but its really the only way to get answers to your questions.
Even if you were to run a skidpad, record, add parts and better the skidpad results it doesnt necessarily mean there is less chassis flex. The best way to test this realistically is probably using CAE(computer aided engineering) software.
Comparing engine performance is much easier to quantify as lots of testing is done, weight in it of itself is easy enough to test as well.
I digress, I think what you are trying to do is a good thing I just dont see how you will succeed in doing it.
Trying to compare two cars abilities to perform at their best, but only to a point. Where is that point? Streetcar/Non-streetcar? The line on that topic alone is fuzzy enough to need a thread of its own.
All Im saying is you are trying to use numbers, facts, and hard data which is admirable but you are trying to use it in very difficult areas. For example chassis rigidity vs. weight. It would be very costly for an individual to be able to quantify this. One would have to build some kind of fixture, apply some torsional load to a cars frame, and recorded how much it yields. Then stiffen it up using parts, or lighten it by removing components/replacing with Aftermarket and re test. I am not even sure a machine like this exists but its really the only way to get answers to your questions.
Even if you were to run a skidpad, record, add parts and better the skidpad results it doesnt necessarily mean there is less chassis flex. The best way to test this realistically is probably using CAE(computer aided engineering) software.
Comparing engine performance is much easier to quantify as lots of testing is done, weight in it of itself is easy enough to test as well.
I digress, I think what you are trying to do is a good thing I just dont see how you will succeed in doing it.
Last edited by ripnbst; Feb 13, 2009 at 03:17 PM.
Feb 13, 2009, 10:49 PM
#18
Dont mean to start a fight but you are trying to remain subjective on a very non subjective topic when talking about rigidity.
Trying to compare two cars abilities to perform at their best, but only to a point. Where is that point? Streetcar/Non-streetcar? The line on that topic alone is fuzzy enough to need a thread of its own.
All Im saying is you are trying to use numbers, facts, and hard data which is admirable but you are trying to use it in very difficult areas. For example chassis rigidity vs. weight. It would be very costly for an individual to be able to quantify this. One would have to build some kind of fixture, apply some torsional load to a cars frame, and recorded how much it yields. Then stiffen it up using parts, or lighten it by removing components/replacing with Aftermarket and re test. I am not even sure a machine like this exists but its really the only way to get answers to your questions.
Even if you were to run a skidpad, record, add parts and better the skidpad results it doesnt necessarily mean there is less chassis flex. The best way to test this realistically is probably using CAE(computer aided engineering) software.
Comparing engine performance is much easier to quantify as lots of testing is done, weight in it of itself is easy enough to test as well.
I digress, I think what you are trying to do is a good thing I just dont see how you will succeed in doing it.
Trying to compare two cars abilities to perform at their best, but only to a point. Where is that point? Streetcar/Non-streetcar? The line on that topic alone is fuzzy enough to need a thread of its own.
All Im saying is you are trying to use numbers, facts, and hard data which is admirable but you are trying to use it in very difficult areas. For example chassis rigidity vs. weight. It would be very costly for an individual to be able to quantify this. One would have to build some kind of fixture, apply some torsional load to a cars frame, and recorded how much it yields. Then stiffen it up using parts, or lighten it by removing components/replacing with Aftermarket and re test. I am not even sure a machine like this exists but its really the only way to get answers to your questions.
Even if you were to run a skidpad, record, add parts and better the skidpad results it doesnt necessarily mean there is less chassis flex. The best way to test this realistically is probably using CAE(computer aided engineering) software.
Comparing engine performance is much easier to quantify as lots of testing is done, weight in it of itself is easy enough to test as well.
I digress, I think what you are trying to do is a good thing I just dont see how you will succeed in doing it.
I guess those things cover really take care of what we're looking at in terms of improving the CT9A chassis?
Feb 13, 2009, 10:55 PM
#19
Evolved Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
When they measure drag coefficiency, they only measure the front, the rounding of side roof edge would affect the front, since it cuts the edges of the overall area (height x width), but what I am saying is that it also benefits when the car is turning as well, when the air will flow onto the car from angle, and this is not measured.
Like how you questioned, pretty much all generations of evo's are stiff enough. Even when they do build cars, they don't add any more than a welded roll cage, and a lot of them use shields at the bottom of the car for aerodynamics reason rather than braces for stiffening. If chassis rigidity was so important and if CP9A and CT9A weren't stiff enough, wouldn't the race cars have a lot of pyramid shaped space frames welded all over inside the cabin and trunks? Or they would just rebuilt the car out of solid block of iron using a mold that has shape for space for engine, components and driver?
Like how ripnbst brought up, this discussion has too many variables it won't have an answer. Fastest 'street' car but chassis modification is allowed, that means you can make all CF/magnesium alloy chassis? Can you even completely reshape to lower the car and improve aerodynamics? If the car cannot be modified to HKS, Cyber evo level, what are the restrictions? Unless you set some rules like what can be modded and what cannot be modded, the list of theories would be endless.
Also, what do you mean fast, when you are drag racing? Highway racing? When you take it for auto-x and road race? People use general 'guesstimate' of 10whp to 20whp = 100lbs depending on whether it is used for drag or laps, so on a street car, 200lbs isn't going to affect much, you just need to find a way to juice out 30-40 more whp. But if you live in a very hilly area with tons of twistly hairpin bends and extreme elevations, the importance of weight goes up exponentially.
ABS has quite a bit more impact on performance than AYC with current technology, as I am sure there won't be people that are able to slam on their brakes, instantly feel the lock, then pump the brake up to 10 times in a second to ease out the lock.
The VII was pretty eventless, other than Best Motoring creating a video of VII 'beating' a 360 Modena, then people claiming evo's are faster than 360s. They also created VII GT-A a year after the release, which was the first auto for evo.
I do like how you are trying to have a quantitative CT9A vs CZ4A performance discussion, but without any variables set, the thread will eventually get hi-jacked by trolls when the admins stop doing maintenance on it. CD9A/CE9A vs CN9A/CP9A got pretty much shut up after evo IV to VI dominated rallies, but even then, no one would completely summarize claiming it to be true at all cases. There are still many heavily modded I-III that would compete neck to neck with any of the newer evo's with heavy mods, whether it be auto-x, drag or road racing, just like how there are still many monster E30 M3's that would give modded E92 M3's a run for the money.
Like how you questioned, pretty much all generations of evo's are stiff enough. Even when they do build cars, they don't add any more than a welded roll cage, and a lot of them use shields at the bottom of the car for aerodynamics reason rather than braces for stiffening. If chassis rigidity was so important and if CP9A and CT9A weren't stiff enough, wouldn't the race cars have a lot of pyramid shaped space frames welded all over inside the cabin and trunks? Or they would just rebuilt the car out of solid block of iron using a mold that has shape for space for engine, components and driver?
Like how ripnbst brought up, this discussion has too many variables it won't have an answer. Fastest 'street' car but chassis modification is allowed, that means you can make all CF/magnesium alloy chassis? Can you even completely reshape to lower the car and improve aerodynamics? If the car cannot be modified to HKS, Cyber evo level, what are the restrictions? Unless you set some rules like what can be modded and what cannot be modded, the list of theories would be endless.
Also, what do you mean fast, when you are drag racing? Highway racing? When you take it for auto-x and road race? People use general 'guesstimate' of 10whp to 20whp = 100lbs depending on whether it is used for drag or laps, so on a street car, 200lbs isn't going to affect much, you just need to find a way to juice out 30-40 more whp. But if you live in a very hilly area with tons of twistly hairpin bends and extreme elevations, the importance of weight goes up exponentially.
ABS has quite a bit more impact on performance than AYC with current technology, as I am sure there won't be people that are able to slam on their brakes, instantly feel the lock, then pump the brake up to 10 times in a second to ease out the lock.
The VII was pretty eventless, other than Best Motoring creating a video of VII 'beating' a 360 Modena, then people claiming evo's are faster than 360s. They also created VII GT-A a year after the release, which was the first auto for evo.
I do like how you are trying to have a quantitative CT9A vs CZ4A performance discussion, but without any variables set, the thread will eventually get hi-jacked by trolls when the admins stop doing maintenance on it. CD9A/CE9A vs CN9A/CP9A got pretty much shut up after evo IV to VI dominated rallies, but even then, no one would completely summarize claiming it to be true at all cases. There are still many heavily modded I-III that would compete neck to neck with any of the newer evo's with heavy mods, whether it be auto-x, drag or road racing, just like how there are still many monster E30 M3's that would give modded E92 M3's a run for the money.
Feb 14, 2009, 06:45 AM
#20
When they measure drag coefficiency, they only measure the front, the rounding of side roof edge would affect the front, since it cuts the edges of the overall area (height x width), but what I am saying is that it also benefits when the car is turning as well, when the air will flow onto the car from angle, and this is not measured.
Like how you questioned, pretty much all generations of evo's are stiff enough. Even when they do build cars, they don't add any more than a welded roll cage, and a lot of them use shields at the bottom of the car for aerodynamics reason rather than braces for stiffening. If chassis rigidity was so important and if CP9A and CT9A weren't stiff enough, wouldn't the race cars have a lot of pyramid shaped space frames welded all over inside the cabin and trunks? Or they would just rebuilt the car out of solid block of iron using a mold that has shape for space for engine, components and driver?
Like how ripnbst brought up, this discussion has too many variables it won't have an answer. Fastest 'street' car but chassis modification is allowed, that means you can make all CF/magnesium alloy chassis? Can you even completely reshape to lower the car and improve aerodynamics? If the car cannot be modified to HKS, Cyber evo level, what are the restrictions? Unless you set some rules like what can be modded and what cannot be modded, the list of theories would be endless.
Also, what do you mean fast, when you are drag racing? Highway racing? When you take it for auto-x and road race? People use general 'guesstimate' of 10whp to 20whp = 100lbs depending on whether it is used for drag or laps, so on a street car, 200lbs isn't going to affect much, you just need to find a way to juice out 30-40 more whp. But if you live in a very hilly area with tons of twistly hairpin bends and extreme elevations, the importance of weight goes up exponentially.
ABS has quite a bit more impact on performance than AYC with current technology, as I am sure there won't be people that are able to slam on their brakes, instantly feel the lock, then pump the brake up to 10 times in a second to ease out the lock.
The VII was pretty eventless, other than Best Motoring creating a video of VII 'beating' a 360 Modena, then people claiming evo's are faster than 360s. They also created VII GT-A a year after the release, which was the first auto for evo.
I do like how you are trying to have a quantitative CT9A vs CZ4A performance discussion, but without any variables set, the thread will eventually get hi-jacked by trolls when the admins stop doing maintenance on it. CD9A/CE9A vs CN9A/CP9A got pretty much shut up after evo IV to VI dominated rallies, but even then, no one would completely summarize claiming it to be true at all cases. There are still many heavily modded I-III that would compete neck to neck with any of the newer evo's with heavy mods, whether it be auto-x, drag or road racing, just like how there are still many monster E30 M3's that would give modded E92 M3's a run for the money.
Like how you questioned, pretty much all generations of evo's are stiff enough. Even when they do build cars, they don't add any more than a welded roll cage, and a lot of them use shields at the bottom of the car for aerodynamics reason rather than braces for stiffening. If chassis rigidity was so important and if CP9A and CT9A weren't stiff enough, wouldn't the race cars have a lot of pyramid shaped space frames welded all over inside the cabin and trunks? Or they would just rebuilt the car out of solid block of iron using a mold that has shape for space for engine, components and driver?
Like how ripnbst brought up, this discussion has too many variables it won't have an answer. Fastest 'street' car but chassis modification is allowed, that means you can make all CF/magnesium alloy chassis? Can you even completely reshape to lower the car and improve aerodynamics? If the car cannot be modified to HKS, Cyber evo level, what are the restrictions? Unless you set some rules like what can be modded and what cannot be modded, the list of theories would be endless.
Also, what do you mean fast, when you are drag racing? Highway racing? When you take it for auto-x and road race? People use general 'guesstimate' of 10whp to 20whp = 100lbs depending on whether it is used for drag or laps, so on a street car, 200lbs isn't going to affect much, you just need to find a way to juice out 30-40 more whp. But if you live in a very hilly area with tons of twistly hairpin bends and extreme elevations, the importance of weight goes up exponentially.
ABS has quite a bit more impact on performance than AYC with current technology, as I am sure there won't be people that are able to slam on their brakes, instantly feel the lock, then pump the brake up to 10 times in a second to ease out the lock.
The VII was pretty eventless, other than Best Motoring creating a video of VII 'beating' a 360 Modena, then people claiming evo's are faster than 360s. They also created VII GT-A a year after the release, which was the first auto for evo.
I do like how you are trying to have a quantitative CT9A vs CZ4A performance discussion, but without any variables set, the thread will eventually get hi-jacked by trolls when the admins stop doing maintenance on it. CD9A/CE9A vs CN9A/CP9A got pretty much shut up after evo IV to VI dominated rallies, but even then, no one would completely summarize claiming it to be true at all cases. There are still many heavily modded I-III that would compete neck to neck with any of the newer evo's with heavy mods, whether it be auto-x, drag or road racing, just like how there are still many monster E30 M3's that would give modded E92 M3's a run for the money.
Feb 15, 2009, 10:00 AM
#21
Hmm.
Well, even with a "side" Cd, it still has to be multiplied by the area right? Either way I understand - aero is important. The only things that I can think of to improve that would be maybe certain body kits, under paneling, rear diffuser, vortex generator, etc?
I'm looking for quantitative numbers per se, that would be ideal and nice, but realistically I'm just looking at examples from other cars to see what works and what doesn't to know which areas we can especially focus on
Well, even with a "side" Cd, it still has to be multiplied by the area right? Either way I understand - aero is important. The only things that I can think of to improve that would be maybe certain body kits, under paneling, rear diffuser, vortex generator, etc?
I'm looking for quantitative numbers per se, that would be ideal and nice, but realistically I'm just looking at examples from other cars to see what works and what doesn't to know which areas we can especially focus on
Feb 15, 2009, 07:45 PM
#22
Evolved Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Aerodynamics is not that simple. To do a complete aerodynamics on a single vehicle, you may need a library full of books just on the statistics. The possibilities are endless if there are no restrictions (such as the minimum height of the car, maximum width of the car, certain place or shape of aerodynamics enhancer allowed or restricted).
Yes, Cd needs to be multiplied by area. The Cd is the average figure using the frontal area to divide on whatever figure they have received. Don't forget, vehicles aren't simple shapes as almost every square inch of the front would have different shape, and have ducts where the air will channel into (such as engine bay, wheel well etc) and create even more drag inside, how much would depend on the layout of the inside and how the air is re-channeled to exit the chamber. Calculating the non-frontal Cd will not be as simple as some Cd figure x side area, unless you are spinning out, you will not be facing the direction of velocity in a perfect sideway position. Also, if all the rounding of the edges and slopier panels were good enough so that at a 30 degree angle from perfect frontal view, say the car has Cd of 0.43, and has 75 square foot of area, where the other car has 0.48 Cd from the same angle, and has 71 square foot, the bigger car is going to have less drag overall (totally random calculation but you get the idea).
Sometimes the design can be changed to lower the drag coefficient and increase downforce at the same time, but once you get to a certain point, you will need to start making sacrifices on one side. It is like gear ratios, where there is no definate answer on what setting is the best. On some track you want taller final gear for higher top speed, on some track you may want to change the first three gears to be shorter for better low-speed acceleration, on some track you may want to change the 3rd gear's ratio in order to avoid the need for shift to 4th on one turn, etc etc.
Vortex Generator is totally meaningless if the rear wing it was designed for changes or replaced. Rear wing is one of the most effective way you can control between drag and downforce and generally it is better to switch to gigantic one with many fins and layers and adjustability. This along with the huge weight savings and strength from dry CF would make it better off with the new wing than the factory wing + VG. Underpanel and diffusers are for removing turbulence happening underneath the car, and to make sure the air that passes below don't end up lifting the car. Careful design is needed to make sure there is enough cooling as well as not eat up the ground clearance space (it would be better saved for suspension adjustment). If I remember clearly from what Mitsubishi said, the IX and X's stock 'diffuser' serve very little or no purpose.
The functional body kits' main purpose are usually to accomodate wider wheel and tire set up, the fronts do add canards and try to reshape to maximize the downforce at front, but usually they are quite minimal, basically nothing compared to F1's layered front wing.
If you are serious about reducing drag while not affecting the downforce much, most likely you need a very long and reshaped bumper, like Nismo 350Z. You can also try pillar hackjob like Norris Designs IX, I think the car was lowered by like 4 inches from hacking away the pillars and windows. It would also be good if you use smooth bonnet and rather have huge gap by the bottom of the windscreen and infront of front door on the quarter panel to be used as air vent.
As someone mentioned before. power, weight, tire adhesion (chemical property and contact patch) and aerodynamics are probably the most important performance categories. The first three are some what easily controlled by regulations and technology but aerodynamics has always caused controversy and rule changings especially in Formula 1 history, since too much technical complexity is involved, and to rule out what is unfair and what is acceptable.
You may want to try to talk to someone else for details as I don't even have a Physics degree. Also above information may not be 100% correct as it was based on magazine readings and up to freshmen year Physics course. I am sure some of the vendors on this forum should be able to help you quite well on this matter.
Yes, Cd needs to be multiplied by area. The Cd is the average figure using the frontal area to divide on whatever figure they have received. Don't forget, vehicles aren't simple shapes as almost every square inch of the front would have different shape, and have ducts where the air will channel into (such as engine bay, wheel well etc) and create even more drag inside, how much would depend on the layout of the inside and how the air is re-channeled to exit the chamber. Calculating the non-frontal Cd will not be as simple as some Cd figure x side area, unless you are spinning out, you will not be facing the direction of velocity in a perfect sideway position. Also, if all the rounding of the edges and slopier panels were good enough so that at a 30 degree angle from perfect frontal view, say the car has Cd of 0.43, and has 75 square foot of area, where the other car has 0.48 Cd from the same angle, and has 71 square foot, the bigger car is going to have less drag overall (totally random calculation but you get the idea).
Sometimes the design can be changed to lower the drag coefficient and increase downforce at the same time, but once you get to a certain point, you will need to start making sacrifices on one side. It is like gear ratios, where there is no definate answer on what setting is the best. On some track you want taller final gear for higher top speed, on some track you may want to change the first three gears to be shorter for better low-speed acceleration, on some track you may want to change the 3rd gear's ratio in order to avoid the need for shift to 4th on one turn, etc etc.
Vortex Generator is totally meaningless if the rear wing it was designed for changes or replaced. Rear wing is one of the most effective way you can control between drag and downforce and generally it is better to switch to gigantic one with many fins and layers and adjustability. This along with the huge weight savings and strength from dry CF would make it better off with the new wing than the factory wing + VG. Underpanel and diffusers are for removing turbulence happening underneath the car, and to make sure the air that passes below don't end up lifting the car. Careful design is needed to make sure there is enough cooling as well as not eat up the ground clearance space (it would be better saved for suspension adjustment). If I remember clearly from what Mitsubishi said, the IX and X's stock 'diffuser' serve very little or no purpose.
The functional body kits' main purpose are usually to accomodate wider wheel and tire set up, the fronts do add canards and try to reshape to maximize the downforce at front, but usually they are quite minimal, basically nothing compared to F1's layered front wing.
If you are serious about reducing drag while not affecting the downforce much, most likely you need a very long and reshaped bumper, like Nismo 350Z. You can also try pillar hackjob like Norris Designs IX, I think the car was lowered by like 4 inches from hacking away the pillars and windows. It would also be good if you use smooth bonnet and rather have huge gap by the bottom of the windscreen and infront of front door on the quarter panel to be used as air vent.
As someone mentioned before. power, weight, tire adhesion (chemical property and contact patch) and aerodynamics are probably the most important performance categories. The first three are some what easily controlled by regulations and technology but aerodynamics has always caused controversy and rule changings especially in Formula 1 history, since too much technical complexity is involved, and to rule out what is unfair and what is acceptable.
You may want to try to talk to someone else for details as I don't even have a Physics degree. Also above information may not be 100% correct as it was based on magazine readings and up to freshmen year Physics course. I am sure some of the vendors on this forum should be able to help you quite well on this matter.
Feb 15, 2009, 10:42 PM
#23
I understand that aerodynamics are very important - I think what I meant to say was, the difference between these two cars Cd's are negligible - between ultra lightweight F1 cars, very important - but between these two cars, not as much. The reason I say that is because from the front on, I'm willing to bet the overall drag is very negligible - better Cd with more area vs. smaller with worse Cd. In turning, depending on the track, the 'side' Cd is also negligible, depending on the speed of the corner - I don't think any one part of the design of how the wind flows on it's side is going to make a difference on a corner going about 80mph - For an F1 car going 150mph or w/e, yes. Between the 2 chassis's, not so much. But I could be wrong, my knowledge is limited as well, to around a sophomore/junior level of relatively basic physics. But I know how complex aerodynamics and flow can be - I was just pointing out that it's only a BIG factor for extremely light cars or extremely high speeds.
Either way, besides minor cosmetics/body kits that may or may not be any factor at all, there's not much we can do in this particular disadvantage.
Either way, besides minor cosmetics/body kits that may or may not be any factor at all, there's not much we can do in this particular disadvantage.
Feb 16, 2009, 12:33 AM
#24
Evolved Member
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Hong Kong
Posts: 594
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Yes, to summarize you can say that, the stock car aerodynamics variation is so little that it is difficult to conclude that one car is better than the other. Even between VIII and IX, where IX is supposedly an improved version aerodynamically, I have yet to seen anyone claim that IX has better fuel economy or feels more stable due to aerodynamics improvement, the furthest ever went was Mitsubishi claiming it has theorhetically been improved, with some statistics to show.
Look at S2000 for example, the type-S (USDM CR) has some obnoxious bumper, hard top as standard, a big wing to function with the hard top, and some chassis bracings, yet even Best Motoring who are known for sugarcoating a lot of new Japanese performance cars comment that they didn't really feel any difference until the 4th gear (at least 80mph) the biggest compliment was 'a little more stable'. All that theorhetical enhancement hasn't really gained much performance in real life.
I think things like 'reducing weight to IX level', 'modify suspension geometry to X level', 'equaling the X's stiffness' and such is just too ambiguous and difficult to come up with some statistics to match and prove at any given condition. Even if you get all the Whiteline products to close the gap, base X may still be faster at some S curves, while your car may be faster in some high speed turns. Unless you are a manufacturer, benchmarking your car on a totally different car when modding would get you no where, you are better off just keep improving your current car on the aspect you want to improve on.
Think of it in a easier way:
Buying an X - You are getting a brand new car, and has chassis and suspension headstart, as well as more convenience features and better safety. Less understeer in most situations would keep the car entertaining. Potential for better technology on aftermarket parts, as people will eventually stop developing new parts for CT9A, and any technology used on CT9A parts should already been taken into consideration when making CZ4A parts.
Buying an VII/VIII/IX - Used car, condition will depend on how you shop, but in anyway you will get a great price compared to buying a new car. You have a headstart on reducing weight, and more choices on aftermarket parts currently. It feels more raw due to less insulation, less weight and increased noise, which may be a plus for entertainment but may not always be true.
I think people's opinion matters a lot, I would say it is just as effective and easy way of conclusion as a wind tunnel test for aerodynamics, from those that have owned both cars at some point. And so far, it seems there are a lot more people that are willing to have X over older evos than people who regret, whether it be amongst performance minded people or people who want everything.
For the best review for your own though, is to try owning both, one at a time or both at the same time. If this is too troublesome, make friends with the other car's owner, try testing each others cars, stock or after mods.
I am in no way trying to turn you down from your brainstorm but I'm just trying to save you from all the headache
Look at S2000 for example, the type-S (USDM CR) has some obnoxious bumper, hard top as standard, a big wing to function with the hard top, and some chassis bracings, yet even Best Motoring who are known for sugarcoating a lot of new Japanese performance cars comment that they didn't really feel any difference until the 4th gear (at least 80mph) the biggest compliment was 'a little more stable'. All that theorhetical enhancement hasn't really gained much performance in real life.
I think things like 'reducing weight to IX level', 'modify suspension geometry to X level', 'equaling the X's stiffness' and such is just too ambiguous and difficult to come up with some statistics to match and prove at any given condition. Even if you get all the Whiteline products to close the gap, base X may still be faster at some S curves, while your car may be faster in some high speed turns. Unless you are a manufacturer, benchmarking your car on a totally different car when modding would get you no where, you are better off just keep improving your current car on the aspect you want to improve on.
Think of it in a easier way:
Buying an X - You are getting a brand new car, and has chassis and suspension headstart, as well as more convenience features and better safety. Less understeer in most situations would keep the car entertaining. Potential for better technology on aftermarket parts, as people will eventually stop developing new parts for CT9A, and any technology used on CT9A parts should already been taken into consideration when making CZ4A parts.
Buying an VII/VIII/IX - Used car, condition will depend on how you shop, but in anyway you will get a great price compared to buying a new car. You have a headstart on reducing weight, and more choices on aftermarket parts currently. It feels more raw due to less insulation, less weight and increased noise, which may be a plus for entertainment but may not always be true.
I think people's opinion matters a lot, I would say it is just as effective and easy way of conclusion as a wind tunnel test for aerodynamics, from those that have owned both cars at some point. And so far, it seems there are a lot more people that are willing to have X over older evos than people who regret, whether it be amongst performance minded people or people who want everything.
For the best review for your own though, is to try owning both, one at a time or both at the same time. If this is too troublesome, make friends with the other car's owner, try testing each others cars, stock or after mods.
I am in no way trying to turn you down from your brainstorm but I'm just trying to save you from all the headache
Feb 16, 2009, 12:56 AM
#25
Hah thanks for the input -
I didn't quite start this thread as a "which platform should you choose" thread.
I'm simply taking the lessons of what they improved in a X, and applying the logic to the CT9A to improve it's performance in areas where applicable.
Think of it this way - Even in a stock vs stock application, these advantages and disadvantages hold true - yet with just a lighter weight, the CT9A holds pretty much even with the X, depending on the course - With just the larger tires alone the CT9A should theoretically pick up a large amount of time - those are the types of "lessons" I wanted input on in order to further improve the CT9A chassis.
I didn't quite start this thread as a "which platform should you choose" thread.
I'm simply taking the lessons of what they improved in a X, and applying the logic to the CT9A to improve it's performance in areas where applicable.
Think of it this way - Even in a stock vs stock application, these advantages and disadvantages hold true - yet with just a lighter weight, the CT9A holds pretty much even with the X, depending on the course - With just the larger tires alone the CT9A should theoretically pick up a large amount of time - those are the types of "lessons" I wanted input on in order to further improve the CT9A chassis.
Mar 3, 2009, 08:58 AM
#26
Evolving Member
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: IL
Posts: 269
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
bump for more info on this!
A huge part of the Evo X's speed is how easy the diffs make it to drive fast.. just step on it through mid and exit of the corner, and the diffs will transfer power for you. The car being easier to drive is worth a huge amount of time on the track.
A huge part of the Evo X's speed is how easy the diffs make it to drive fast.. just step on it through mid and exit of the corner, and the diffs will transfer power for you. The car being easier to drive is worth a huge amount of time on the track.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
Joe's Evo X
Evo X Engine / Turbo / Drivetrain
17
Jan 31, 2009 04:07 PM
