between the subaru site and the new sti and here with the evo x its hard to tell who is more harsh on the new stuff...

many hated the 06 subaru facelift, including myself as i searched for used or left over 04's and 05's.......the 06 grew on me and eventually bought one...

as well i wasnt a fan of the evos but they grew on me as well and i like them just as much....

with the new designs from both manufacturers is funny to see the fans of both companies bashing the new stuff yet again......but when it comes around i bet a lot of the hating will turn into loving!

 

+1000^^

 

i think the front of the car looks sick! the back looks like the gay..and I would have loved it if they kept the 4g63...but hey well see what happens!

 

I'd just like to add the observation that with the STI, it's almost all about bashing the looks of the car. Not the performance - that's significantly improved over the outgoing model (both straight line and cornering). Not the rawness, that's intact, or even slightly improved (retains a 6 speed MT and has a quicker steering ratio). No, most people complain about the fact that it's a hatch. Fair enough, beauty is in the eyes of the beholder (and I agree it doesn't look great), BUT the switch to hatch was dictated by performance considerations. Subaru was losing the WRC to hatches, and decided to get with the program. Unlike Mitsu, which has thrown in the towel long ago and abandoned all WRC aspirations, so doesn't care about building a homologated model anymore.

Now, the Evo X is being bashed less on looks (most people do like the looks) and more on the performance (both out of the box and moddability-wise) and rawness of the car. Out of the box, it's almost certainly slower in a straight line than the IX (nearly all reviews have conceded this point). On a track, it's likely better, but a lot of people place more emphasis on street performance than trackday-worthiness. As far as performance potential goes, there are many uncertainties in the package of the X. The engine is, to me, the biggest question mark, although I'd like it to be an improvement (power-wise, I don't give a crap about emissions or fuel economy) over the 4G63, I have little hope of that materialising.

Bottom line : neither the STI nor the Evo are bought by most people for their looks. They are all about real performance on a budget. It actually saddens me (believe it or not) to say the next part, because I was *really* looking forward to going Evo now. In the past, the Subaru vs Mitsu road-going car battle has been close, but the clear winner has always been the Evo. Now, for the first time, the STI might pip the Evo. I take no joy (honestly) in that fact, because I have owned two Subarus to date, and I will not be buying another. But the way this is turning out, I'm getting sour on the X as well (I wasn't at the start, I was actually very enthusiastic).

 

Noh, 4G63 = Eclipse, Galant, Pajero, Eagle Talon. Why do people always associate car only with it's engine? The original lancer evo 0 didn't even have that engine.

 

On a track, it's likely better, but a lot of people place more emphasis on street performance than trackday-worthiness

IMO on this, people have to understand that this car is not created for the street.
Period.
It is created for the track. People have bastardized the car to make it a street performer. Anyone that says different need to re-read it's history. That is the source and true root of the Evo/STI.
Stupid movies like the Fast and the Furious doesn't really help either when it shows no true credibility of the EVO's and STI's heritage.
If they are going to make a movie that uses the F&F concept, and has the Evo or STI as part of the main theme, relocate it somewhere where the Evos' and STI's shine upon.

BUT the switch to hatch was dictated by performance considerations. Subaru was losing the WRC to hatches, and decided to get with the program.
Excellent point, here.


Additionally, and if anyone is going to make claims on the 4g63 engine, why don't those same people bring up all the other 'great' cars that had the 4g63 engine?
Compliments to Hanzo for bringin that point up.

I mean look at all the applications that 4g63 engine had:
1984–1987 Dodge Colt Vista
1988 Mitsubishi Cordia
1988 Mitsubishi Tredia
1988–1992 Dodge Colt Vista
1989–1992 Mitsubishi Galant
1989–1992 US-spec Mitsubishi Galant
1990–1999 Mitsubishi Eclipse
1990–1998 Eagle Talon
1990–1994 Plymouth Laser
1982-1990 Mitsubishi Starion (Australia)
1992–1998 Hyundai Sonata
1994–1998 Mitsubishi RVR X3 Turbo
1992-2007 Mitsubishi Lancer Evo

Geez. get a grip with all that "4g63 FTW" BS.

The EVOS are the only reason why I decided to deal with Mitsu in the first place, and this car is NOT replusive IMO.

 

On the F&F point, you do have to realize that Mitsu PAID to put those cars in those movies (they did get free placement in part 1 after approving to have the car in the movie). That was a choice by them to have an Evo included in the movies.

Great point about the 4G63 and it being in many other vehicles. Although, in the Evo it is the star of the car. An Evo isn't an Evo without a great turbo engine and AWD

To your first point about the Evo being built for the track first and street second. I would agree with generations 1-9. But, the Evo X was made for the street. Not for the track. That's why many say the new Evo X has left its roots behind in chase of a new consumer who doesn't care about track days, autoxing, drag racing...the only racing they care about they can watch on TV.

 

People have been saying the Evo was leaving its roots since the beginning. The Evo VII was blasphemy to many people, to them the Evo 6.5 was the last true Evo. The car has always gotten bigger and heavier, it happens to most cars and I hate it. Remeber that the US got into Evo's quite late, they had them for about 15 years in other parts of the world.

 

If that was the case it wouldn't get a 2 second faster time around the mitsu track now would it? Drag you got me there but it was never made to be a dragster. What's wrong with getting a smoother ride and a faster time around the track? I guess some people just like to feel like their legs and back are about to get broken because the suspension is so stiff, even though it might get a slower time around the track?

 

You really didn't read what I wrote and you highlighted...did you? Your diatribe about being faster around a track has nothing to do with a car being built for the track or the street. If that was the case, cars like an Aston Martin DB9 or Bentley Continental GT would be appropriate to discuss since both of those cars will deliver pretty impressive numbers on a track...but they weren't designed for the track. I know it's a stretch example, but still proves the point. A car doesn't have to be designed for the track to run a fast lap.

My specific comment was about their new target consumer...argue about that point. Don't go off on a wild tangent about something else. If you want to learn more about their new target, do some research on this forum or on Google. Maybe you're one of the new target?

 

People got to stop bringing up the 4g63 like if that motor is Evo Exclusive.

 

If you want to bring out extreme examples then I can say that a first evo with a cd/casette player from factory was made for streets first and track second (I mean why would you need a cd player for the track). See how your post doesn't make any sense now. Evo IX was made for the streets first and really X is more of a rally car than IX ever was at least they are getting X back into it.

Also aston martin is an exotic/rare car that also costs 5 times what an evo costs. ( Any car with a price tag of 100k+ better be fast )

 

the x is definetly a true evo. definetly in its time the 4g63t awd has already proven its potential. everyone knows mitsu. is always striving to make every evo a lot better in every aspect. check out the evo 1 then take a look at the 9. big difference looks,power and performance. evos proven great every 3rd model. evo 3/6/9/..12?! though most of all its been improving every model after the next. witin the third they've been actually fixing what they did wrong in the first 2 models. i wouldnt see y this one isnt all that great but itll grow on to some people. its definetly gonna hurt the evo 4-9 4g63t interchangable parts. <---good, thats just makes it cheaper haha.

 

Wow...thanks again for all that rambling. You do realize that the car isn't why manufacturers get into rally. If it's about the car, then how the hell does Ford race a Focus in rally? It's not the car...it's a dollars and cents thing...simple as that. Either they have money in their budget to race...or they don't. Mitsu didn't have money to race over the past few years. It's well documented. Research it.

IMO, Evo X is actually the furthest iteration from the true roots of an Evo. Many on this forum would agree. And, I'm not saying that it's necessarily a bad thing. But, when Mitsu designed the X, I don't believe they sat down and said "we have to design a true rally machine." They designed it for a different type of consumer who probably doesn't even know their is a series of racing called rally. Again, them building this car for a new target is well documented. Research it.

And your final example about a $100K+ car better be fast, go check out how fast a Rolls Royce Phantom is. For nearly $350K, using your logic, that car should do 0-60 in less than 3 seconds. It's not even close. Just because a car costs a lot of money, does NOT mean it will be fast. Where do you get this stuff?

 

God and you accuse me of rambling on, I'm sorry for calling you a name but you are a tool. Rolls-Royce has 450 hp and it weights like what 3 tons so yes its very fast for the amount it weights and it's the symbol of luxury. Any other extreme examples you want ramble on about because there is always an exception to the rule I can give you a list of 50 cars that are very fast because they cost 100k+

I didn't say they specifically designed it to be a rally machine, I said it's closer to being a rally machine than the IX ever was. I'm pretty sure IX was designed for the streets first and track second (same goes for the X), isn't that the reason the trannies keep braking on them? Is the Chevy corvette super fast? Was it designed for the streets first and track second, I like to think so when I see dozens of them everyday.

Any ways I'm done debating with you. Obviously you are one of the haters of evo x and with a "4g63 fo life" mentality to go with it. Plus I don't want to get this thread closed.