Stig drives the X; let's have a look at the IX
 

Top Gear's Stig tests the X:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0beb7gopeP0

Those who watch the show know that he's a world class pilot with astonishing consistency. The X FQ300 ran a 1.28.2. The IX FQ320 (the stock US equivalent is s FQ300) ran a 1.26. That's .22 seconds quicker in a a car with only 6% more HP at the crank(!), on a road course, no less! This is especially interesting, given the X's added electronic gizmos, new tires with fantastic skidpad performance, and Mitsubishi's claims that it's ~2 second faster on their test road course. As a point of reference, a VIII FQ300 ran a 1.28.9. Thoughts?

X took off rather than launched?

Is there any evidence that a stock X can launch much better?

f the x, i would never take one over a 9

:confused:

Odd, as the cars were tested on the same track with the same, highly experienced, consistent, proven, very capable driver. The pic is cute, but do you have any logical objections? You're more then welcome to articulate them at will. Better yet, how about an opinion on the test times, perhaps followed by a conclusion?

The X MR's launching abilities are characteristic of the car, so any argument involving a useless point that it could be launched quicker to gain an additional half second would be irrelevant. I'd like to see a X gsr's lap, but I doubt that it would be faster than the MR's.
I guess the corner that Clarkson took at 100mph wasn't part of the track lol. Still, the stig should have been able to take every single corner faster than in the previous evo's... This might get merged with the X vs IX threads but, like the point i was making before in the advan x vs ix, rwd-feel and "better" feel don't equate to more speed

LoL the new Sti beat the X

Wtf are you talking about? The X ran circles around the STi

http://youtube.com/watch?v=9FYrMeBeBo8

In the STi's defense, they put up a FQ360 against a regular STi. Not real fair, I'd say.

In Europe they've had most of the cool electronic diffs on their Evo's for quite a while now (VII-IX at least). So, the electro-wizardry on the X probably isn't as big of a difference to them as it is to us (Read: their Evo's have always been faster than our's around a road course thanks to SAYC). Add to that the weight difference in the CT9A's favor and the times don't really surprise me.

still, 2 seconds is a big difference. i'd like to see a side-by-side sort of video to see what exactly is going on. I've driven the X in Japan, albeit not the SST version, and I've never thought the X would be 2 seconds slower on a track like top gear's

I have thought about trading my IX in on an X, but the more I read about the X, the less I like it. The gas is A LOT worse.. or so the numbers say. The paint is no better, honestly, I like the look of mine better as well.

WTF are you talking about watch the video the OP posted up Clarkson won't even reveal how fast it went cause it was slower than the STi.

looks like some of the X guys conveniently missed that part of the show.

no they didn't... Stig drove a regular EvoX