EVO X GSR Sold.....
EvoM Community Team Leader
iTrader: (2)
Joined: Sep 2001
Posts: 3,135
Likes: 6
From: chicago, michigan, arkansas
Its official, I really hate this site. I really do, its one stupid comment after another, Cant take it anymore, this was once a site for all evo owners to merge and just talk cars, now its divided into IX lovers, and X lovers. Too much bs posted on this site, its like the blind leading the blind, and it gets quite annoying, good riddens to all, enjoy all your arguements and controversy.
what do you mean? For him to bravely post this thread while considering the backlash he will get is very brave and probably his own experience with the X but my post did not in any way denigrate the X. try not to be too sensitive! I'm also in the market for a DD and will keep my IX that is why I'm interested to all your views.
i know that, just trying to understand why this guy would fold his cards without even looking at them, sort of speak?
especially that those go-fast parts, no matter who made them and how much r&d they put into actually making sure that the design is optimized, will make his car go-fast, right?
especially that those go-fast parts, no matter who made them and how much r&d they put into actually making sure that the design is optimized, will make his car go-fast, right?
Well after about 1200k on the engine we got rid of the X...
Why?
We did some testing and cannot comprehend spending this much $$$ on a car that is in our minds NOT AN EVO.
Testing cars:
Stock GSR IX vs. Stock GSR X
Drivers:
2 drives with 10+ years racing experience.
Test:
1/4 drag, Road course, and our parking lot auto X
------------------------------------------------------------------
Results:
1/4 driver 1 IX GSR - 14.2 / 14.0 / 14.0
1/4 driver 2 IX GSR - 14.1 / 14.2 / 13.9
1/4 driver 1 X GSR - 14.5 / 14.4 / 14.4
1/4 driver 2 X GSR - 14.3 / 14.5 / 14.7
------------------------------------------------------------------
Road course driver 1 IX GSR - 2:31 / 2:15 / 2.18
Road course driver 2 IX GSR - 2:25 / 2:32 / 2:20
Road course driver 1 X GSR - 2:46 / 2:42 / 2.39
Road course driver 2 X GSR - 2:42 / 2:43 / 2:45
------------------------------------------------------------------
Auto X driver 1 IX GSR - 32.6 / 33.1 / 33.4
Auto X driver 2 IX GSR - 33.8 / 32.8 / 32.2
Auto X driver 1 X GSR - 35.4 / 34.2 / 32.4
Auto X driver 2 X GSR - 34.8 / 34.5 / 33.9
------------------------------------------------------------------
So before I get bashed for selling the X, let me put some rhyme / reason here (well at least ours) ever since we first jumped into the X id DID NOT feel like an EVO at all. Its basically a lancer will the hopes and dreams of being an EVO also with all the talk about the Lancer Ralliart for 25K on the same platform is to temping over the EVO at this point.
The car is FEATURE rich no doubt but if I wanted all that why am I buying an EVO? Leave the features and lights to Audi / BMW and save the racing for EVO's. The X's turning / digging ability is nothing like the IX and it seems the X loses its guts after 5500 RPM's. While the IX just walks away.
I know a lot of you guys love the X and we are not trying to bash it, it’s just not up to EVO par in our eyes having them both first hand to play with. In fact the guy we sold the X to loves it and we were glad to point him to the vendors making parts for the X and showing good results doing so. But for us at Fullboostracing the X is just not enough compared to the IX.
So in the end the 33,000 we were going to spend on the Evo X is now being rolled into a GT-R purchase when they come out.
All you X guys please enjoy your EVO's we are not trying to put you down just wanted to show everyone the results we got from our own testing.
Why?
We did some testing and cannot comprehend spending this much $$$ on a car that is in our minds NOT AN EVO.
Testing cars:
Stock GSR IX vs. Stock GSR X
Drivers:
2 drives with 10+ years racing experience.
Test:
1/4 drag, Road course, and our parking lot auto X
------------------------------------------------------------------
Results:
1/4 driver 1 IX GSR - 14.2 / 14.0 / 14.0
1/4 driver 2 IX GSR - 14.1 / 14.2 / 13.9
1/4 driver 1 X GSR - 14.5 / 14.4 / 14.4
1/4 driver 2 X GSR - 14.3 / 14.5 / 14.7
------------------------------------------------------------------
Road course driver 1 IX GSR - 2:31 / 2:15 / 2.18
Road course driver 2 IX GSR - 2:25 / 2:32 / 2:20
Road course driver 1 X GSR - 2:46 / 2:42 / 2.39
Road course driver 2 X GSR - 2:42 / 2:43 / 2:45
------------------------------------------------------------------
Auto X driver 1 IX GSR - 32.6 / 33.1 / 33.4
Auto X driver 2 IX GSR - 33.8 / 32.8 / 32.2
Auto X driver 1 X GSR - 35.4 / 34.2 / 32.4
Auto X driver 2 X GSR - 34.8 / 34.5 / 33.9
------------------------------------------------------------------
So before I get bashed for selling the X, let me put some rhyme / reason here (well at least ours) ever since we first jumped into the X id DID NOT feel like an EVO at all. Its basically a lancer will the hopes and dreams of being an EVO also with all the talk about the Lancer Ralliart for 25K on the same platform is to temping over the EVO at this point.
The car is FEATURE rich no doubt but if I wanted all that why am I buying an EVO? Leave the features and lights to Audi / BMW and save the racing for EVO's. The X's turning / digging ability is nothing like the IX and it seems the X loses its guts after 5500 RPM's. While the IX just walks away.
I know a lot of you guys love the X and we are not trying to bash it, it’s just not up to EVO par in our eyes having them both first hand to play with. In fact the guy we sold the X to loves it and we were glad to point him to the vendors making parts for the X and showing good results doing so. But for us at Fullboostracing the X is just not enough compared to the IX.
So in the end the 33,000 we were going to spend on the Evo X is now being rolled into a GT-R purchase when they come out.
All you X guys please enjoy your EVO's we are not trying to put you down just wanted to show everyone the results we got from our own testing.
This reply is not intended to be a flame whatsoever, but questionable data needs to be questioned.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the 10 is an Evo. The fact that it didn't seem to be in your mind does not change that hard fact.
Regarding your data, I would hope that a driver with 10+ years of experience would not have a 16 second variance on his Evo IX roadcourse runs. Perhaps that was a typo or the first driver fell asleep at the wheel for those 16 seconds? And the second driver had a 12 second variation around the course? I don't have ten years of road racing experience yet myself, but if I have more than a 3 second variance on a two and a half minute course, I'd be retiring my helmet. Good grief! 16 seconds gives you enough time to wreck the car, jump out, pull out your cell, and dial the number for the towing company. What were you doing in those 16 seconds?
And the drag racing runs are very lackluster for both cars. According to dragtimes.com, HRP is at an elevation of only 38 feet. Having all wheel drive cars that have proven to trap 101-104mph bone stock and only manage to barely break out of the 14s on one run does not bode well for the drag racing numbers either. Were you upshifting at 5000rpm? Were you starting in second gear? Help me understand these numbers. I had a stock WRX wagon back in 2002 and managed better times than all but two of those you are reporting here, and it had a 70 horsepower handicap running in the summer at 550 feet higher elevation. What gives?
Lastly we have driver #1 with a 3 second variation on a 30 second autocross course, but in the X this time. The very first time I ever autocrossed in my life I did not have a 3 second variance that entire day. What in the world happened to him to have a 10% variance in run times?
To anybody that has spent any time on track at all, these numbers make no sense at all. Would you care to explain them?
Conditions:
1/4 mile - temp was 72deg, 90% humidity, dry.
Road course - temp was 68deg, 62% humidity, wet track from earlier rain.
Auto X - temp was 70deg, 86% humidity. Dry.
Drivers:
One driver used to be a NASA HPDE driving instructor and the other has been hopping from strip to road course for the last 5 or so years but has been doing 1/4 mile since the mid 90's. To say the least I have every bit of confidence in their driving ability. More than my own in fact.
1/4 mile - temp was 72deg, 90% humidity, dry.
Road course - temp was 68deg, 62% humidity, wet track from earlier rain.
Auto X - temp was 70deg, 86% humidity. Dry.
Drivers:
One driver used to be a NASA HPDE driving instructor and the other has been hopping from strip to road course for the last 5 or so years but has been doing 1/4 mile since the mid 90's. To say the least I have every bit of confidence in their driving ability. More than my own in fact.
Tracks:
1/4 mile Houston Raceway Park
Road course MSR Houston
Auto X our / target parking lot
I was also surprised at the X's road course times as both drivers stated it slid more then grabbed traction in almost every turn compared to the IX.
As far as parts for the X go, I bet there will be a ton of modded X's in the near future because of all the shops out there making parts. I am also sure I will be impressed by the numbers there pulling.
We are not rolling in the dough so 33K is a big investment for us on top of the modded IX we have plus the 240sx we have been building. The only logical thing to do was find an IX that was still stock and go toe to toe with our X. After we tested them both we came to the conclusion if the IX is a better starting platform then the X for EVO's we are just by keep the IX over the X in development terms.
So I am not hating on X I just wanted to see what kind of investment we were getting our shop into (with an IX all ready on hand). After seeing the big differences in times compared to the Road and track plus the ton of other reviews out there it left us skewed and confused just like a lot of you with our numbers.
The new owner of the X has been around from day one and knows we broke the X in (1000 miles) before doing all this testing. So he bought the car for 500 less then what we paid for it and he is happy as can be getting ready to order a bunch of AMS stuff for it.
This was our testing to help validate keeping the X, I just wanted to share the results with all of you guys as there were a lot different then most magazines...
I bet we could have found a new STI stock and maybe an old STI stock, I am sure that would have added a whole new face to these test.
I hope you have better results with your GTR. Good luck.
This reply is not intended to be a flame whatsoever, but questionable data needs to be questioned.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the 10 is an Evo. The fact that it didn't seem to be in your mind does not change that hard fact.
Regarding your data, I would hope that a driver with 10+ years of experience would not have a 16 second variance on his Evo IX roadcourse runs. Perhaps that was a typo or the first driver fell asleep at the wheel for those 16 seconds? And the second driver had a 12 second variation around the course? I don't have ten years of road racing experience yet myself, but if I have more than a 3 second variance on a two and a half minute course, I'd be retiring my helmet. Good grief! 16 seconds gives you enough time to wreck the car, jump out, pull out your cell, and dial the number for the towing company. What were you doing in those 16 seconds?
And the drag racing runs are very lackluster for both cars. According to dragtimes.com, HRP is at an elevation of only 38 feet. Having all wheel drive cars that have proven to trap 101-104mph bone stock and only manage to barely break out of the 14s on one run does not bode well for the drag racing numbers either. Were you upshifting at 5000rpm? Were you starting in second gear? Help me understand these numbers. I had a stock WRX wagon back in 2002 and managed better times than all but two of those you are reporting here, and it had a 70 horsepower handicap running in the summer at 550 feet higher elevation. What gives?
Lastly we have driver #1 with a 3 second variation on a 30 second autocross course, but in the X this time. The very first time I ever autocrossed in my life I did not have a 3 second variance that entire day. What in the world happened to him to have a 10% variance in run times?
To anybody that has spent any time on track at all, these numbers make no sense at all. Would you care to explain them?
Actually, that is incorrect. Since you wanted to point out that the X is not a real Evo "in your opinion", I am happy to point out that your IX is not a GSR in reality. The US Spec IXs did not have SAYC and thus were never marketed as Mitsu as a GSR. Just a little point of data about real Evos, moving right along...
The variations in times, particularly on the autocross, do not bode well for these drivers at all.
I hope you have better results with your GTR. Good luck.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the 10 is an Evo. The fact that it didn't seem to be in your mind does not change that hard fact.
Regarding your data, I would hope that a driver with 10+ years of experience would not have a 16 second variance on his Evo IX roadcourse runs. Perhaps that was a typo or the first driver fell asleep at the wheel for those 16 seconds? And the second driver had a 12 second variation around the course? I don't have ten years of road racing experience yet myself, but if I have more than a 3 second variance on a two and a half minute course, I'd be retiring my helmet. Good grief! 16 seconds gives you enough time to wreck the car, jump out, pull out your cell, and dial the number for the towing company. What were you doing in those 16 seconds?
And the drag racing runs are very lackluster for both cars. According to dragtimes.com, HRP is at an elevation of only 38 feet. Having all wheel drive cars that have proven to trap 101-104mph bone stock and only manage to barely break out of the 14s on one run does not bode well for the drag racing numbers either. Were you upshifting at 5000rpm? Were you starting in second gear? Help me understand these numbers. I had a stock WRX wagon back in 2002 and managed better times than all but two of those you are reporting here, and it had a 70 horsepower handicap running in the summer at 550 feet higher elevation. What gives?
Lastly we have driver #1 with a 3 second variation on a 30 second autocross course, but in the X this time. The very first time I ever autocrossed in my life I did not have a 3 second variance that entire day. What in the world happened to him to have a 10% variance in run times?
To anybody that has spent any time on track at all, these numbers make no sense at all. Would you care to explain them?
Actually, that is incorrect. Since you wanted to point out that the X is not a real Evo "in your opinion", I am happy to point out that your IX is not a GSR in reality. The US Spec IXs did not have SAYC and thus were never marketed as Mitsu as a GSR. Just a little point of data about real Evos, moving right along...
The variations in times, particularly on the autocross, do not bode well for these drivers at all.
I hope you have better results with your GTR. Good luck.
Anyone who reads the OP's "test" and beleives it has no clue about racing much like the OP.
Noize nailed it!
I'm not a tuner shop owner, but all this doesn't make much sence to me businesswise.
Why would someone who's business is to sell performance part chose a discontinued model over a new model that is in the beginning of its production cycle? There will be no more IXs produced and the existing cars will rot in a few years. At the same time more and more Xs will appear creating demand for parts. Are you not looking into the future?
Secondly, if the car is slower, than I would have thought it will bring even more demand to make it at least as fast as IX.
I could understand selling the car from an owner's point of view - this is slow, I want a fast one. But as a tuner shop... I don't get it.
Now the GT-R. From what I heard, this car so high-tech, it will not be easy to tune at all. And who would need to mod a GT-R if it drives at par with GT3s and even Veyrons?
Why would someone who's business is to sell performance part chose a discontinued model over a new model that is in the beginning of its production cycle? There will be no more IXs produced and the existing cars will rot in a few years. At the same time more and more Xs will appear creating demand for parts. Are you not looking into the future?
Secondly, if the car is slower, than I would have thought it will bring even more demand to make it at least as fast as IX.
I could understand selling the car from an owner's point of view - this is slow, I want a fast one. But as a tuner shop... I don't get it.
Now the GT-R. From what I heard, this car so high-tech, it will not be easy to tune at all. And who would need to mod a GT-R if it drives at par with GT3s and even Veyrons?
Working with a professional racing team, I have seen some huge differences in lap times between two cars, from a pro driver. This generally has a lot to do with the fact that the driver is used to a specific response from the car, and when you move them into another vehicle, that they are unfamiliar with, they can really struggle to be competitive. This was especially true when a very well known racing team switched from Corvettes to Vipers. Everyone thought the Vipers would help her post better times, since they were faster, better reviews, etc, but the reality was the opposite. It took two racing seasons for this life long pro driver to get the hang of the new car. Only after almost 3 years is she finally running back in the same times, and sometimes faster, then she was at the initial transition.
The reality is these two US cars handle completely differently. Just in my limited, non-track time, with the X, I have found the cornering capabilities difficult to get used too. After ~5 years of driving the VIII, and over 3000 miles on the track, I know for sure I will be struggling with the X on my first few runs, since I will be out of my comfort zone.
All I know is it takes time to get used to a new car, and all of its handling characteristics. One of the things I am really looking forward to is finding out where the breaking point is, and how the car handles when its "lost control". Until that time, its not unrealistic to struggle with a new platform, and in the case of FBR, it obviously didnt make sense to spend a lot of time getting used to a new, and yet unproven, vehicle.
The reality is these two US cars handle completely differently. Just in my limited, non-track time, with the X, I have found the cornering capabilities difficult to get used too. After ~5 years of driving the VIII, and over 3000 miles on the track, I know for sure I will be struggling with the X on my first few runs, since I will be out of my comfort zone.
All I know is it takes time to get used to a new car, and all of its handling characteristics. One of the things I am really looking forward to is finding out where the breaking point is, and how the car handles when its "lost control". Until that time, its not unrealistic to struggle with a new platform, and in the case of FBR, it obviously didnt make sense to spend a lot of time getting used to a new, and yet unproven, vehicle.
This reply is not intended to be a flame whatsoever, but questionable data needs to be questioned.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the 10 is an Evo. The fact that it didn't seem to be in your mind does not change that hard fact.
Regarding your data, I would hope that a driver with 10+ years of experience would not have a 16 second variance on his Evo IX roadcourse runs. Perhaps that was a typo or the first driver fell asleep at the wheel for those 16 seconds? And the second driver had a 12 second variation around the course? I don't have ten years of road racing experience yet myself, but if I have more than a 3 second variance on a two and a half minute course, I'd be retiring my helmet. Good grief! 16 seconds gives you enough time to wreck the car, jump out, pull out your cell, and dial the number for the towing company. What were you doing in those 16 seconds?
And the drag racing runs are very lackluster for both cars. According to dragtimes.com, HRP is at an elevation of only 38 feet. Having all wheel drive cars that have proven to trap 101-104mph bone stock and only manage to barely break out of the 14s on one run does not bode well for the drag racing numbers either. Were you upshifting at 5000rpm? Were you starting in second gear? Help me understand these numbers. I had a stock WRX wagon back in 2002 and managed better times than all but two of those you are reporting here, and it had a 70 horsepower handicap running in the summer at 550 feet higher elevation. What gives?
Lastly we have driver #1 with a 3 second variation on a 30 second autocross course, but in the X this time. The very first time I ever autocrossed in my life I did not have a 3 second variance that entire day. What in the world happened to him to have a 10% variance in run times?
To anybody that has spent any time on track at all, these numbers make no sense at all. Would you care to explain them?
Actually, that is incorrect. Since you wanted to point out that the X is not a real Evo "in your opinion", I am happy to point out that your IX is not a GSR in reality. The US Spec IXs did not have SAYC and thus were never marketed as Mitsu as a GSR. Just a little point of data about real Evos, moving right along...
The variations in times, particularly on the autocross, do not bode well for these drivers at all.
I hope you have better results with your GTR. Good luck.
I hate to be the bearer of bad news, but the 10 is an Evo. The fact that it didn't seem to be in your mind does not change that hard fact.
Regarding your data, I would hope that a driver with 10+ years of experience would not have a 16 second variance on his Evo IX roadcourse runs. Perhaps that was a typo or the first driver fell asleep at the wheel for those 16 seconds? And the second driver had a 12 second variation around the course? I don't have ten years of road racing experience yet myself, but if I have more than a 3 second variance on a two and a half minute course, I'd be retiring my helmet. Good grief! 16 seconds gives you enough time to wreck the car, jump out, pull out your cell, and dial the number for the towing company. What were you doing in those 16 seconds?
And the drag racing runs are very lackluster for both cars. According to dragtimes.com, HRP is at an elevation of only 38 feet. Having all wheel drive cars that have proven to trap 101-104mph bone stock and only manage to barely break out of the 14s on one run does not bode well for the drag racing numbers either. Were you upshifting at 5000rpm? Were you starting in second gear? Help me understand these numbers. I had a stock WRX wagon back in 2002 and managed better times than all but two of those you are reporting here, and it had a 70 horsepower handicap running in the summer at 550 feet higher elevation. What gives?
Lastly we have driver #1 with a 3 second variation on a 30 second autocross course, but in the X this time. The very first time I ever autocrossed in my life I did not have a 3 second variance that entire day. What in the world happened to him to have a 10% variance in run times?
To anybody that has spent any time on track at all, these numbers make no sense at all. Would you care to explain them?
Actually, that is incorrect. Since you wanted to point out that the X is not a real Evo "in your opinion", I am happy to point out that your IX is not a GSR in reality. The US Spec IXs did not have SAYC and thus were never marketed as Mitsu as a GSR. Just a little point of data about real Evos, moving right along...
The variations in times, particularly on the autocross, do not bode well for these drivers at all.
I hope you have better results with your GTR. Good luck.
I read the OP's post over and over again and i'm determined that it's a joke. This can't be a serious and legitmate post or reason to sell a $35k car with only 1500 miles. Not to mention that their "seasoned" drivers pulled off 1/4 times on a stock IX that can be run better by on a 110 degree day with zero launch and just rolling off the line. To me their information means nothing because it was done by inexperienced drivers with no variables to back it up. It's a joke, literally...