i dunno if anybody said this yet, but EVO IX's can go into the 12.7 range bone stock. your numbers of 13.0-13.4 are a bit slow for EVO IX's.

 

The new motor may have something to do with it. Motor trend said it would not breathe well from 7000 up. It seems for those who like to drag race their cars that the X may be a step or two behind the previous model.

 

You're talking about the RS right? Not the MR!

 

I think that's the MR too.

 

agreed

 

The January 2008 Motor Trend article actually seemed to attribute the power loss up top to a mechanical problem, not a design flaw. How significant it was remains to be seen.

Evo X "GSR" vs Evo IX "GSR," both 5-speed manuals, both stock, same track, same day, same driver:

0-60 MPH = 5.4 vs 4.7
1/4 mile = 14.0 at 96.9 vs 13.4 at 102.2
2.78 mile road course = 2:36.046 sec vs 2:34.558 sec

Curb weight = 3585 vs 3254
Weight distribution = 56/44 vs 60/40
Price as tested = $35,500 (est) vs $32,400

 

^^^^ oh well..

 

it's fat, it ate too much baskin and robins......that's why

 

^^^^^^jealousy is overwheleming in the previous owners lmao

 

^ what jealousy....it is slow

 

Lb's

 

fatso. that's why.

 

From reading about the X it makes me feel good to only have 5k miles still on my 2-year old IX.

 

Why are some people worried about the stock performance of the Evo X? Just wait until the aftermarket manufacturers make some speed parts for that car. No one ever has to settle for the stock performance of any vehicle. You can always change it.

 

Jealousy is a wrong word for this situation, disapointment would be more appropriate to describe the downgrade in performance of the X over the previous model or models to be more accurate.

You would understand were we are coming from if you had an evo and got used to a certain level of performance and then got faced with the X lower performance standards. The X was suppose to raise the bar and failed to carry the basic philosophy behind Mitsubishi's most iconic model an "EVOLUTION" in performance .