That was my main concern with the X.

 

I can actually tackle one of these questions and attempt on the others.

The weight increase is unfortunate, but it is solely because the Lancer rides on a platform that is shared with other vehicles (Outlander, Compass, and Caliber), two of which are larger that must be able to accomodate a V6. That most all cars are growing in mass is a reality of the times, the Accord and Mustang have gained 1000+ poinds in the past several years. I'm not excusing the platform sharing, its the epitome of compromise, practiced by many, but I believe the execution of the X with what they had to work with is pretty good. To me, that extra weight is the only lack of focus on a base model X.

The additional weight is also why the final drive got shorter.

The gadgetry to me is pretty much nonexistent in the base model car. If you compare a 2008 base GSR to a 2006 base Evo, I don't see any substantial increase. To me, the base is the car the most hardcore enthusiast would want.

I would also argue that in the states, the RS was a bit poorly executed with the exception of the 2004, which got a better front differential the other 2004 cars did not. Mitsubishi could learn a trick from Honda on this, with the DC2 Integra Type R. The car was not made too spartan, but got better hot rod parts. The fact the car is on the street most of the time removed the non-ABS having VIII and IX RS from my consideration immediately.

For a worthwhile X RS, I'd say bring a stripped car that weighs 3250 pounds, no radio, no SAYC, much less sound deadening, lighter seats, light wheels, and maybe those two piece rotors. If they set the options up properly from the factory, they could bring the car in at $29xxx MSRP, and South Coast could sell them for $27k, and they would be received well.

Poor material quality, I have a tougher time here. But when you look at economies, how do cars sell for thousands more (when dollars are converted) in other countries? I have seen pictures of a UK FQ-360, and the interior materials are substantiall higher. My guess is these cars don't have a big margin in the USA, so they cheapened them up. That extra weight means more expensive brake calipers, rotors, and pads, more expensive tires, more expensive seats are in the X, and the addition of a more expensive SAYC system. In short, I think they had to make the interior cheaper. Even if the MR-Touring was offered with a manual like you and I prefer, we have been conditioned to pay high twenties to low thirties for an Evolution, $40k+ to me seems asinine.

All that to say, after a turbo-back and tune brings 100whp additional to be able to start to appreciating the potential of this chassis, I have grown to love the X every bit as much as I loved my VIII and IX, of which I still have the most seat time in an VIII by a good amount.

I am not trying to change your mind, but am just sharing my opinions and perspectives now that I am 7+ years in the journey as an Evolution owner. I do wish you lived closer, because I would like you to be able to drive my car and hear where we agree/differ on the chassis.

Sorry I've rambled so long, its hard for me to shut up when talking and enjoying Evos. Thanks always for your honest opinions, FJF!

 

^ reading your posts (ive been lurking on the X forums) have changed my mind about getting a IX. I really want an X now. I thought id let you know. Ive seen a lot of threads in which you post, and you always give compelling and well thought out posts. Thanks for that. If my budget allows it a X will be in my future. If not settling for a IX isnt that much of a settlement. Sorry if this is too OT just wanted to chime in

 

Hey thanks, man!
I agree a IX isn't a settlement. I honestly don't think you can go wrong with with any Evo, just be careful to buy a car from an owner who took good care of his so you don't get any nasty surprises.

 

Ganked from Jalopnik.

I put a couple little slits in the taillights.
The back looks like a 2004 Mustang GT, a Saturn Ion Redline, and the Subie quad exhaust thrown in there for good measure.



Man, its not pretty, the wagon looks infinitely better.

 

agree with you there, i like the hatch waaay better

 

I'm with you guys. The sedan looks hideous. It's not even a matter of it being disproportioned; it just looks contrived. I can't say that I've always liked the hatch, but the '10 Special Edition is pretty appealing.

 

Problem with the STI sedan is that when the car was originally developed there was never an intention to have an STI version. They wanted to make a bland sedan that would rival a Corolla without any sporty intentions that may scare away the older crowd that seems to love anonymous cars. The Kia styled rear end and 'C' pillar don't have an ounce of sportiness so the addition of the giant wing and quad tips makes it look like something a 16 year old dreamed up. I can live with the front end as IMO it looks decent on the hatch but it doesn't flow well with the doors or the rear. I can't get over how big that spoiler is. Maybe I'm used to the spoiler on my MR so I don't notice it but everytime I see the STI sedan I'm focussed on how big that spoiler is. It looks more like a handle than an aerodynamic mod. Also the silver piece on the trunk looks terrible. First thing I would do is get that color matched and remove the handlebar.

 

I actually like the STi sedan, but I would much rather get the hatch because the extended fenders seems to be more defined.

 

Problem with the STI sedan is that when the car was originally developed there was never an intention to have an STI version. They wanted to make a bland sedan that would rival a Corolla without any sporty intentions that may scare away the older crowd that seems to love anonymous cars. The Kia styled rear end and 'C' pillar don't have an ounce of sportiness so the addition of the giant wing and quad tips makes it look like something a 16 year old dreamed up. I can live with the front end as IMO it looks decent on the hatch but it doesn't flow well with the doors or the rear. I can't get over how big that spoiler is. Maybe I'm used to the spoiler on my MR so I don't notice it but everytime I see the STI sedan I'm focussed on how big that spoiler is. It looks more like a handle than an aerodynamic mod. Also the silver piece on the trunk looks terrible. First thing I would do is get that color matched and remove the handlebar.





^^ I would say the same about the Sportback. Forced design. Whatev, they are all cool cars that larger makes are afraid to offer. Just pray Mitsu and Subaru continue offering these cars...

 

After reading the driving impressions of the '11 STi at Jalopnik, Autoblog, and Edmunds' Inside Line, I cannot possibly consider purchasing one.

After all the people *****ing about cracked ringlands, crap steering, and excessive body roll, they bring out this laundry list of improvements whose benefits all 3 journalists seem to consider anywhere from mild to unnoticeable. The part Subaru hyping the most is the return of the sedan which is getting almost universally panned as HIDEOUS everywhere from NASIOC to the Porsche forums to Jalopnik.

I simply cannot imagine what the f*ck those morons at Fujitsu are thinking spending all this time, money, and energy reworking a car when it doesn't fix ANY of the problems of its predecessor.

 

You can't expect immense changes from the same car with a few suspension tweaks, no torque vectoring and the same crappy steering. From what I've read you can tell the difference when the car is pushed to its limits at the track but on the streets or just spirited driving it's unnoticeable. So after all the hype it's just another STI that's still a comfortable daily driver and while ultimate handling is slightly improved still isn't in the same league as the EVO on the track. The more things change the more they remain the same.

 

From what I understand the steering is because of where the boxer motor is (no direct path to mount the steering rack or something like that). torque vectoring (i'm assuming your talking about some sort of ayc type deal) is mainly helpful for cars whose motors are in front of the front axle (front heavy cars in general). in terms of suspension, i don't know why exactly they tune it for loose surfaces more than tarmac. everyone's talking like these cars are 3 seconds apart on any given track. they're <1 sec apart, and the jdm stis are faster than the jdm evos no matter what wizardry mitsubishi has employed

 

If you don't understand AYC then why comment on it? It's not made for heavy or front axle cars. It's made to reduce or abolish inherent understeer in AWD cars. Remember Mitsubishi has been using AWC for years since the EVO VII. It wasn't something added to the X because it is heavier.

Depending on the track the STI can be close to the EVO or way behind for example 5 seconds behind the EVO as shown by the 4.2 mile C&D lightning lap. I've never seen a comparison around any track where the difference between the cars has been less than one second actually. As for the JDM cars being faster it all depends on which level JDM STI you are talking about. Sure the Spec C is faster but it's like comparing an FQ400 to a regular STI.

 

but it would be fair if they compared it to an RS.