ya but was that with a ballsout launch?

 

So it's a measly .2 seconds slower than the IX 360 and it's WEAK?

Wow dude, talk about splitting hairs. Typical pre-evo-X owner hate.

 

Man there is no pleasing some people...this is a new chassis, new engine, under more strict emissions and safety requirements. it's a couple tenths off the pace of the fully developed outgoing IX, but improved in every other area imaginable...and it's a complete let-down? the main thing that came to mind when i saw the 4.1 0-6 is "oh good, the evo can be made a lot quicker with simple bolt-ons and tuning" not "it's 0.2 seconds slower, it's crap!"
why do so many people see the glass as half empty? if you tear out all the new safety stuff and bumper supports, you can probably get those tenths back...but it would be that much less safe...

 

For sure, thats the same thing that went through my mind. "wow, all this hype over the weight and the new motor, and its only .2 slower, and handles better" Some people live to bit*h.

 

I could care less about the FQ because we don't get the damn thing

Seriously, the only reason why other folks bash it is because it's a performance car that isn't faster than it's predecessor. All the same arguing going on about the USDM X. A performance car should always raise the bar in all categories. The X and FQ, while raising the bar in many areas, didn't raise the bar in one of the most important categories. Only time will tell if that was a smart play by

 

LOL NO, we don't get the FQ here, and for good reason. AMERICANS can shop for HKS bolt-ons and get a custom tune at a fraction of the cost of, or (usually) cheaper parts that work as well or better. The only reason i an excited about the performance of the FQ 360 is that it is possible, with bolt-ons and a custom tune, to get a pretty damn quick car in a straight line (how many cars are quicker than that honestly?) and an absolute WEAPON on any road surface imaginable, and all this with added safety and a cleaner running lump to save the trees at the same time. if you are still disappointed with the X, i don't think if it would make a difference if it came with pam anderson under the dashboard to service the driver whilst playing with the diff settings...

 

Hmmmm, I like that Pam Anderson idea although I would prefer someone more natural Note to Mitsubishi, make an attractive lady under the dashboard package for long trips in your next Evo XI although that will add weight to the car. Decisions decisions.

 

I'm on the fence about the X. I can see it's merits and it's faults. I started a thread about that. The Pam Anderson comment is pretty damn funny, because you're right...there are some dudes who would never consider the X no matter what you do to it. You are right that the FQ makes things promising here for the upgrade potential of the X. Will just have to wait and see what the tuners develop for the aftermarket.

 

Again great points. I like the way you think. +10000000000. The main reason why I wont buy an 8 or 9 is because of the lack of saftey for my family, two airbags, bad crash test rating....no thanks. I will eat the .2 seconds any day for added saftey. IMHO.

 

We can't get too carried away assuming the safety will be better in the X. More airbags does not always mean better safety. IIHS nor NHTSA have crash tested the Evo X yet. So, we'll have to wait and see if all that extra weight Mitsu added for safety adds up to the car actually being safer than the VIII/IX.

The only comparison we can make between old chassis and new chassis is the Lancer. 2006 Lancer vs 2008 Lancer get very similar crash test scores (2006 is better in one rating and worse in one rating according to NHTSA). So, all that extra safety equipment in the Lancer didn't really do anything from a safety standpoint.

www.safercar.gov
www.iihs.org

 

YEAH it's definitely understandable to be on the fence about whether the X is right for you. i'm still on the fence myself. but the criticisms i have are more nuanced, and have more to do with the general problems associated with buying a car with a completely re-designed chassis and engine in its first production year (ESPECIALLY the question of how reliable the TC-SST is long-term), and less to do with the general direction the evo is heading. i remember vividly a spin i had at my local track during a Porsche club track day that likely wouldn't have happened in a X. the S-AWC would probably have saved me from a trip through the grass and near-collision with a tire wall as i cut the wet painted curbing thinking the track had dried out everywhere. i know i shouldn't have risked it, and i'm more cautious now, but it would be nice to have that safety net just in case...so i can explore the limits more easily with less risk of stuffing it into immovable objects...
EDIT: and about the safety...the driver side impact rating on the lancer went from 2 to 5 stars. not to mention the S-AWC with ASC will help avoid an impact in the first place. in my mind the X is unquestionably safer.

 

Well the base lancer is getting great safety ratings so X is supposed to be even more reinforced should be safer if notthe same.

 

I agree...the X will probably get the same safety ratings as the base Lancer. But, if that's the case, it would turn out to not be any safer than the 2006 Lancer/Evo All that extra weight and no significant upgrade in safety. Oh well.

 

What are you talking about? While 2002-2006 Lancers (regular and Evos) had a 4 star frontal crash test ratings, the side crash tests were horrible and that included the Evo. The new Lancer platform is a much safer chassis all around.

 

What are you talking about?????


2008 lancer
http://www.safercar.gov/Index2.cfm?m...ecific+vehicle

2006 lancer
http://www.safercar.gov/Index2.cfm?m...ecific+vehicle