3000 has some valid points.

 

Factory rated horsepower is relevant because, even if it is underrated by a few hp, it is still not enough to offset that weight. The JDM version of the car (the one that all of the magazines are testing) is lighter than the USDM Evo X and is still slower than a USDM Evo IX (in a straight line, anyway). The reason why so many people are concerned about it is because most of the time, especially from one generation of a performance vehicle to the next, you would expect the car to be better all around - especially in acceleration. I know that we don't have "official" U.S. specs yet, but it will probably be porkier than the JDM version and have a few more bhp which wont make much of a difference.

Personally, one major complaint I have with respect to the engine is why don't they just increase the displacement? A 2.5 or even a 2.3 or 2.4 would be great. My guess is that when they were developing the motor, they were still in WRC. But now they really don't have a reason not to increase displacement. It just doesnt make a whole lot of sense anymore to have a 3400-3500lb vehicle with a 2.0T.

 

Your missing my point, factory rated horsepower isn't relevant when the rating isn't very accurate. I am not talking about whether the power will offset the weight gain, that is an entirely different subject. I am just saying that going off of what Mitsubishi rates the horsepower is foolish, and doesn't really give you an indication of how much power the car is really making. Your talking about something else entirely.

 

I made another thread, displaying how Mitsubishi in the past has rated horsepower and torque compared to what the car really makes, maybe that will give you a better idea of what to expect from Mitsubishi power ratings, hold on let me dig up that thread. Forget it, gonna take too long to find it. Basically actual whp numbers compared to Mitsubishi hp ratings are around 5% to 13% loss depending on the year (this explains why Mitsubishi cars are underrated, because most people accept that tradionally AWD cars lose 20% to 22% at the flywheel). Also this formula only works with USDM EVO models, not JDM and Euro factory hp ratings. Sorry if this is too complicated, blame Mitsubishi, I don't know why they just don't rate the EVOs more accurately, I know there was a gentlemen's agreement, but that sh*t has long passed. You have to break out freakin' mathematics just to figure these muthaf*ckers (Mitsubishi) out.

 

I'm not really missing the point. I understand what you are saying about the listed factory hp being underrated...but they werent underrated by that much. Take the IX for instance. I've seen the IX dyno at 255awhp which equals 293bhp with 15% drivetrain loss. So, thats only a difference of +7bhp. The general rule of thumb is that it takes at least 10 bhp to offset every 100lbs of increased curb weight. If this Evo X is to have roughly the same acceleration as the IX, it is going to have to have an increase of at least 20 or more bhp to match the power/weight ratio of the IX.

I just don't think that even with it being underrated, it is going to be underrated so much that it is going to even be a factor in acceleration improvement. It will be slower in a straight line .

 

You know I was gonna post this before you posted, but your right, when it comes to USDM factory ratings, it is relevent, I am sorry. And I messed up, sorry posted that thread or post a long time ago, what I meant was that actual whp in comparison to hp ratings was whp=87% to 95% (depending on the year) of the total horsepower rating. Sorry I posted that a long time ago. So in theory, 255whp of the 286hp rating is about 89% of the hp rating. So if Mitsubishi follows the same mode, then hp ratings for USDM models could be used to somewhat accurately estimate the whp #s on the EVO X.

For example most EVO IXs have dynoed anywhere from 255 to 270whp, so that is 89% to 94% of the horsepower rating. EVO VIIIs usually fall into the same range, with the biggest variations coming from 03-04 EVO VIII models. So in theory, if the EVO X is rated at 295hp in the USA, it could be expected for it to put down 265whp to 280whp.

 

Yeah, I wouldn't be surprised if the X put down 265whp. 280whp seems quite unlikely based on the JDM acceleration tests.

Does anyone know how much boost the X is going to be pushing? I'd guess not cause that would be a pretty good way to estimate the bhp.

I just wish I could install an AYC on my IX and forget this X nonsense .

 

Well you never know, the JDM tested model could have been 265whp version, and some owners will get lucky and get more powerful EVO Xs. We all know cars dyno differently, even the same cars, that is why I give range. I am not saying all EVO Xs will dyno at 280whp (or more), just that some might and some will dyno at 265whp (or lower) but going off of the formula, most should fall inbetween 265whp and 280whp.

Also what to expect, well-

EVO IXs
Most (dynojets) 255 to 270whp
3200-3300Lbs

and EVO Xs
Possibly most (dynojets) 265 to 280whp
3500-3600Lbs

The car will be slower, even lighter JDM models, are just as fast or slower than IXs, so no argument here. But just because the EVO X is slightly slower in the a straight line, doesn't mean it is less of a car.

Seriously I am all for straight line acceleration, check out my sig. But I wonder why for years I had all these 1/4 mile haters tellin' me sh*t "Like the EVO wasn't built for straight line acceleration," and yada yada. But now the EVO X is a little slower, so straight line acceleration matters now? Kind of hypocritical if you ask me.

 

When GM makes a Corvette 4-door sedan economy car, that argument might be valid. The fact is that the Evo is based on just such a platform, so comparing weight between the Corvette and Evo is silly.

 

Just cause it is based on an econo-platform doesnt mean that they can't use marketing and engineering strategies that GM uses for the Vette. They could have not made the base model lancer so heavy. The base model lancer weights 3034 compared to the previous generations lancer's weight of 2745. I mean, the Evo IX packed on 535lbs of curb weight from the lancer that it is based off of. That means that there is pretty much no way this X is going to be lighter than 3400lbs. More than likely it will be 3500lbs...especially when it has the addition of the AYC. Mitsubishi should have taken the Evo into more consideration when developing the base Lancer.

 

You seriously don't know what you're talking about. anyway, have you ever even owned an evo?

 

 

Would you guys rather have this?

 

Yes i have. I also owned an STI. So yes i know what an EVO FEELS like, and YES my friend has a 9 MR and yes i know what that feels like.

Im just not an idiot to listen to reviews and write cars off before i have even step foot in them. I can careless if a magazine says the EVO x sucks and feels like a Lifted TRUCK, I will still drive it and give my oppinion then.

IT DOESNT MATTER WHO MADE THE ENGINE, like i said all that matters is if it performs.

If it is Reliable and performs i can careless if my grandma made it.

 

Um no Way to go off topic there buddy. I can't believe you would taint my thread with that Subaru crap