yeah i know , but at least they could be little closer , don't you think?
My origin country where i from , in my area had only one... So it was preatty accurate for everyone...
When we get together and talk about dyno numbers we always know what the other guy car can do!

 

The X looked rolly-polly in the video. But its line held true. I have noticed this in alot of the 'handling' videos the car rolls, and stays on line. The ones where it competes against sti's and IX's you can see that its doing something diferent. The IX's have those glorious powerslides, and animalistic chasis moves under braking and acceleration. The X just doesnt look like its doing anything but rolling and staying on-line. Wonder what the X does if you dial out some of that roll....

 

So the IX hp is overrated and the X is not overrated? seems like they are making the same HP stock vs. stock.

 

^So what's your point?

 

since the VIII/IX were overrated i was under the impression that the X would be also, but i guess not.

 

no the 8s were spot on, the 9s were underrated from the factory case if point in socal stock 9s were putting down 270+whp on the DJs.

 

+1

 

Ahhh, yea I agree there.

 

After reading this I am really impressed with the x.

 

my base ix was almost the same.. I had 248Hp ON 100OCT baselined. tq was around same. lol did i just get a good ix or what?

 

I think this may be a side effect of the S-AYC. One of the reviewers noted that the car doesnt like slalom that much since the computer doesn't immediately seem to realize you just changed direction, instead of completing a turn. This is what causes the rear end to drift out a quite a bit more then ever before on those quick switch backs.

 

It made 2whp more than my IX did stock on the same dyno and has a fatter curve.

 

I guess it comes down to whether you want a glorious powerslide, or you want to go fast.

 

can we have both

 

Should be back on the dyno tonight with some more Power!