http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...opanel..1.*#20

It says X 0-60 is 4.9 and 1/4 is 13.6 while IX is also 4.9 but 1/4 is 13.3, also price is 33k with out SSS and with SSS its 35k

 

hehehe

 

great article. written by scott oldham, so you know it's written with the enthusiast in mind. very well balanced review.

 

so the sss package is approximately $2000, not exactly a good deal, i think most people will just be forced to buy it as most cars will probably have it pre-installed.
i have yet to see an X with the standard wing (possibly the lancer gts wing). damn this delay...

 

Very strange article to me!! They got a pretty decent numbers for the EVO X and EVO 9 was better only at the 1/4 mile and some of those lengths needed for 0-30 or something like that. On the other hand, X has such a better numbers in lateral Gs that if they actually tried to run both of them on the track, it would show how significant those are and how much faster X would be over there! But, they didn't run that test!

Another strange one is that they complained about the slalom and how X is not good in there. But, regardless of the wider and heavier car (both of them affect slalom speed a lot) they ended up with the same numbers between them. Yet they still complained about it!

And, they started article with complains to Dr EVO for just about everything just to say that things are actually not that bad at the end. Not sure why all of dramatization was needed but, I was just reading the article...

Oh well! Still, I am actually pretty glad to see those numbers like that!!

Fedja

 

Is this true? I was under the (perhaps incorrect) impression that the IX sold more cars than any other Evo.

 

This review is coated in rotten cheese.

 

Sounds alright but I still hate the look

 

It is the standard GTS wing...there is a video floating around here of a base evo X.

 

Quote "Regardless of what the stopwatch says, the Evo X will easily outsell the great Evo IX, which, truth be told, trickled out of Mitsubishi dealers as if they were coated in feces"


so thats the reason you can still find a brand new 9

im glad my 8 wasnt covered in feces.



so now its the techno stuff thats really driving the car, not the engine like before.

 

lol @ all the idiots on here who talked sht about the X after the initial tests.

 

nice article. too bad no matter how they coated the X in sugar it is still slower than the IX. true I'm an IX owner but I am also looking for a cheaper daily driver so I can just park my IX in the garage and drive it weekends. Am I a fanboi, yes but not just the IX in general but all evo's. unless they make it unleash and be faster than the IX, I'm looking somewhere else for the DD.

 

Well, at least they tell you it's slow... and that the motor doesn't have high rpm power... and that the AYC unsettles the car... and that the SST is slower... and that the better braking distances are due to the wider tires... and that it's made for people who care more about comfort than performance... and that it's marketed for the 30+ crowd...

Take the time to read the second opinion and watch the video. I have yet to see a reviewer prefer it over driving the IX.

 

Quote:
...the Evo X will easily outsell the great Evo IX, which, truth be told, trickled out of Mitsubishi dealers as if they were coated in feces.


yup they sold more IX's and they were coated in gold feces

 

Chief Road Test Editor Chris Walton says:
Where the Evo IX drifted past apexes on the racetrack with all four tires sharing the same slip angle, the Evo X rotates and provides a measure of oversteer the old car never could (although sometimes too much). Lifting off the throttle midcorner doesn't change the IX's attitude, and adding more gas just makes the car go wider on the exit, but that's easier to predict than the fuzzy logic of the Evo X's Active Yaw Control.

Compared to the IX, the extra weight of the X is offset by its added power, so acceleration times are effectively a wash. And Evos have never lacked for brakes, now or then.

But these reasons are not enough to place the X above the raw, superbly direct connection with the mechanical soul offered by the IX. The Evo IX remains a sharper instrument I'd choose to drive in anger. You could grab the IX by the nape of its neck and throw it around — like a Jack Russell Terrier, it likes to spar.

The 2006 Evo feels like it needs me and the 2008 Evo does not. I like being needed. So, in an imaginary cake-and-eat-it-too world, I'd like a X's sexier body and more livable interior wrapped around a IX MR's 250-pounds-lighter chassis. I'm still on the fence about AYC and need more lapping to make a final pronouncement on its cost/benefit status.

How soon can we get an Evo X back? I just might change my mind.


I know what you mean!