I'm freakin sick of this "Oh, call it an automatic but it really is a manual" bs. A manual is a manual because the driver manually operates the clutch and gear shift, and not a computer. Even if you have it in the so called "manual" mode and shift it with the paddle shifters, all you are doing is telling the computer when you want the computer to do the shifting for you. It's true that you may not be able to shift as fast but if .3 seconds quicker is your cup of tea then I'm all for it. I'm a believer that with better gear ratios, the manual version would still be quicker (EVO X), especially on the quarter mile.

 

@ girly transmission

Sadly that "girly" transmission is the only option that's keeping me interested in the X above various other cars available ... otherwise I'd be hearting on the IX instead.

 

@ the fact that mom's will be cross-shopping evo's with other cars. The facts show that the new Evo X is officially a b***h mobile, it has gone soft.

In fact as much as Evo guys called STi's slowbaru's, they are the only one's holding onto the hardcore rally-machine title. Sure Mitsu's sales will increase but way to water down the last of the hardcore cars. Oh well doesn't matter much to me, my next car wouldn't be a Mitsu anyway.

 

Funny you should say that XRS, because I'm getting "so freakin sick" of this "A manual is a manual because the driver manually operates the clutch and gear shift, and not a computer" and "It's true that you may not be able to shift as fast [but somehow that's preferable?]" BS. Time and time again I hear this, and time and time again I draw the same conclusion: Your vehement criticism and arguments are based solely in nostalgia, familiarity, and fear of the unknown, and in stark opposition to reality and logic. You are free to choose whatever technology you wish, but to criticize those who embrace newer, and yes, BETTER technology (implementation-specific details aside), is very grating.

1) The only point of choosing your own gear in performance driving is to stay in the correct power band for the next action.
2) The point of having a clutch instead of a torque converter is to not have a significant amount of power lost as heat instead of going to the driving wheels.
3) The less time you spend coasting between gear selections, the more quickly you accelerate (I don't know how many drag races I've seen or been in that were lost due to a missed shift).
4) Aside from time lost, every missed shift or other transmission/clutch related mistake is HORRIBLE (if not fatal) to your driveline.

So in principle, all things being equal, there is absolutely no argument for an old-school type manual vs. automated gear selection, just as there is no argument for carburetors over EFI. Of course there are specific implementations of either technology to warrant choosing an old-school manual or a carburetor, be it racing regs, tune-ability, reliability, maintenance, personal preference/comfort level, etc. and I would never argue against that point. However, you cannot argue that in principle, rowing your own gears is better than automated gear selection, just as you cannot argue that in principle, a carburetor is more capable than EFI. It simply is NOT the case, as computers are capable of doing things a lot better than their mechanical counterparts. That's why they take over more and more things done manually each day...

Personally, I've taken manual shifting about as far as I can take it. I can heal-toe, and even powershift if I want (but I rarely do, as the cost far outweighs the benefit). I also find it troubling that to eek out the last bit of performance from my gearbox, I have to put it at risk of stripping gears or otherwise risking damage to the driveline, and that no matter how fast I shift, there is a computer which can execute the same action, infinitely more reliably, and in a fraction of the time. If you can't relate to that, please go read the story of John Henry. Yeah, he beat the steam shovel, but he exploded his heart in the process. The smart money is always on the steam shovel...

I'm sure thousands of years ago, people like you were also hold-outs on the square-shaped wagon wheel...and made fun of your round-shaped wheeled brethren...because they weren't true wagon enthusiasts...

So go ahead, argue against my points, but I'm confident each counterpoint could be replaced (without any real loss in translation) by saying "FIRE BAAAAAAAAAD!!!!!! ARGGGGGGGG!!!!!!!."

EDIT: I like the Evo because it brings racing technology to the street that the average joe could afford. Modern racing technology, at its pinnacle, includes automated gear selection. Call them "flappy paddle gearshifts" if you want...but the best racing drivers in the world would not trade them in for a row-your-own gearbox, nor would their engineers let them...for the simple reason that it would make them slower...and if you don't care about that, you might as well go buy an old british sports car and drive around scoffing at all the wussies with such quaint features as fenders that stay attached to the vehicle...

 

what are you retarded???? lol going to a 2.5L is really holding ones rally title...pause not...lol your a joke...

 

I hope the X sells well so Mitsu keeps making parts for my 03' 8.

Don't mind the "flappy paddles" but not having them move with the steering wheel makes for akward shifting while cornering

If it turns out to really be that great I'll figure out how to stuff the new tranny in my 8 before I buy a X.

 

You are completely on the dot! In the rally world 2.0 is the max!




NOW if i were a LS1, mustang or generally 90% of muscle car owners i WOULD SAY......"THERES NO REPLACEMENT FOR DISPLACEMENT" .......BUT ........

YES THERE IS A REPLACEMENT AND ITS CALLED A TURBO




/

 

milfy car

 

Well atleast you won't have to deal with computer bugs with a manual, which mitsu is trying to sort out right now. New technology is good, but when you look at the problems mitsu is having with the sst a trusty "old "five speed seems more reliable.

 

SHUT YOUR MOUTH!!! MY SUV ON TRAPEZOIDS AND SQUARES FTW!!!!!

...I MEAN... sure it gets horrible gas mileage & the ride is very rocky... BUT IT'S AUTHENTIC TO WHAT MY ANCESTORS DROVE!!!

 

eh, 99% of people won't have the left foot braking skills to use the new tranny in any kind of real driving, except for drag racing.

 

 

BUT I'M TOO OLD TO LEARN NEW TECHNOLOGY!!!


PS- To the guy talking about the paddle shifters not moving with the steering wheel, umm the new Nissan GTR also has stationary paddles why do you ask? Because during a turn you would confuse yourself when the wheel is all the way upside down. Also you get the stick in the middle to change your gears problem solved.

 

I don't either, and I'll be the first to admit it, but I'm excited at the prospect of learning someday. I think many people are simply scared to start from the ground up developing new skill sets to take advantage of new technologies that change the notion of what is possible, and what it takes to accomplish it. Maybe in their world, they are top dog because they've mastered downshifting into a corner without upsetting their car, or mashing through the gears at an impossible rate (for a human), and it gives them a leg up on the competition. But...along comes some fancy technology and EVERYONE can do it without thinking, and they are again on an even playing field. Seems to me people would love to play with, explore, and exploit any new technology that makes them faster, but then again it also seems to me that carbureted pushrod V8 cars turning left all day is dull...so what do I know?

 

Obviously the specific implementation of any given technology can be either junk, god's gift, or somewhere in between, and of course this still remains to be seen with the new SST as you pointed out. I just get annoyed when people dismiss it out of hand as junk because of what it does in principle. Namely, shifting the cogs the way it sees fit, safely, and much faster than a human could. I mean, should we also be adjusting the fuel injector duty cycles via an analog knob on the dashboard? Should we have a joystick for the S-AYC and ACD instead of letting the computer sort it out via a myriad of sensors? How about the Electronic Brakeforce Distribution? Maybe we should add a 4th pedal for that. After all, if a computer is doing it, it is neither pure nor enjoyable...and a good driver can do it better...

Personally, having such a complex system at work, while at the same time employing a rod in the cabin, cabled into the gearbox, to change the gears, with a hydraulic pedal to engage/disengage it, seems archaic at best, and such a system should be replaced as soon as technologically feasible for optimum performance. However, I know I'm in the minority when I say this...