You've got to be kidding me...
Evos are touted for their handling and all around performance, and it is well known that they are not drag cars. At least I thought it was well known...
That's what puts it above the Ralliart, regardless of it being barely quicker to 60mph.
That's what puts it above the Ralliart, regardless of it being barely quicker to 60mph.
Newbie
Joined: Sep 2004
Posts: 83
Likes: 0
From: Atlanta, GA/Spfld, MA
Some of you guys have more excuses than Mitsubishi. In no damn way, shape or form should the RA come close to the Evo, straight line or otherwise! If Mitsu could not put more distintiction in performance and price between the two cars, then they should have left the RA as a drawing. This does nothing but dilute the name and heritage of the Evo! At this rate i guess i will be holding on to my BMW!
This is more of a jab at the X as opposed to the RA...still just really disappointed in the overall package of the X compared to my previous IX's...
This is more of a jab at the X as opposed to the RA...still just really disappointed in the overall package of the X compared to my previous IX's...
Last edited by fastlanez; Oct 4, 2008 at 04:59 PM.
Newbie
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 34
Likes: 0
From: York, PA
http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....rticle_id=7103
A) Th fact that the 26K ralliart, which is only a hundred pounds less than the evo, is getting a 0-60 5.4. That's only .3 behind the 40k MR with the same transmission! (R&T clocked the mr 0-60 at 5.1)
B) The new 26K 265 hp is running a 0-60 of 5.1 seconds, the same as the MR, for 14 K less! I know the MR has a faster transmission and better features, but in my money should be at the 4.9 second mark for the price. The EVO has matured (a great move,) but should still be performance, yet it is being equaled by a car its 14K lesser!
I just think that for 14k difference between the ralliart (which also has the same transmission as the MR and recaros minus leather,) that the MR should have some more distance between itself and its 'lesser', especially for the price.
C'mon Mitsubishi, increase the PSI, the strength of the transmission, or adjust the turbo for next year or soemthing; as the EVO MR should be able to put some distance between itself and some of its competitors to justify its price.
A) Th fact that the 26K ralliart, which is only a hundred pounds less than the evo, is getting a 0-60 5.4. That's only .3 behind the 40k MR with the same transmission! (R&T clocked the mr 0-60 at 5.1)
B) The new 26K 265 hp is running a 0-60 of 5.1 seconds, the same as the MR, for 14 K less! I know the MR has a faster transmission and better features, but in my money should be at the 4.9 second mark for the price. The EVO has matured (a great move,) but should still be performance, yet it is being equaled by a car its 14K lesser!
I just think that for 14k difference between the ralliart (which also has the same transmission as the MR and recaros minus leather,) that the MR should have some more distance between itself and its 'lesser', especially for the price.
C'mon Mitsubishi, increase the PSI, the strength of the transmission, or adjust the turbo for next year or soemthing; as the EVO MR should be able to put some distance between itself and some of its competitors to justify its price.
I don't know why Mitsu has such a hard on for the Lancer this year.....all the other Lancers have been straight up performance turds (no offense Lancer owners, but just like Milli Vanilli said "you know it's true") and now all the sudden they want to ramp it up.
I don't understand it from a marketing point or a sales point.....I just don't get it.
The Evo comes the way it does with only 290ish HP because it's a tuner car. The engineers know lots of people will crank up the power and strip out all the weight.
You should realize that the max potential out of an Evo is far greater than a RA and most european cars.
Stop looking at the Evo X as what it comes with Stock and start realizing the potential the Platform can achieve
You should realize that the max potential out of an Evo is far greater than a RA and most european cars.
Stop looking at the Evo X as what it comes with Stock and start realizing the potential the Platform can achieve
Problem with the Cobalt is, if you start modding the thing with more power, there really isn't gonna be too much you can do about the increasing torque steer you'll encounter for each hp you add. The EVO can take more power, better suspension, and respond with much better lap times. The Cobalt will peak fast and die. It's FWD..
Thread Starter
Evolving Member
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 280
Likes: 0
From: Boston
Some of you guys have more excuses than Mitsubishi. In no damn way, shape or form should the RA come close to the Evo, straight line or otherwise!
This is more of a jab at the X as opposed to the RA...still just really disappointed in the overall package of the X compared to my previous IX's...
This is more of a jab at the X as opposed to the RA...still just really disappointed in the overall package of the X compared to my previous IX's...
A car (ralliart) which is the step down (not-evo-yet-better-lancer as described by Mitsubishi) should not be within 2 tenths of the company's flagship performance vehicle, which is 14k its elder. The EVO MR's acceleration should have more of a distance between the two, especially for the 40K pricetag.
I think the EVO MR is a great car, but considering its acceleration performance, Recaros, and dual clutch transmission can be had for 14K and two tens of a second less for fourteen thousand dollars cheaper... Doesn't this stick out for anyone else? I know the EVO should waste a ralliart or base WRX in the turns, but I guess i was hoping for a little more.
Don't get me wrong, the EVO X MR looks and sounds to be a great car, but a 4.9 second or faster 0-60 with a reflash, more boost, or new turbo design seems to be a reasonable request FROM THE FACTORY without having to buy a car for 40K, only to have to immediately mod it to keep up or beat a stock WRX.
Last edited by Boston_eagle; Oct 5, 2008 at 01:17 AM.
I think someone wasn't paying attention in business school. I can tell you are not a target customer for the Evo nor RA. This isn't a car that you can sell to everyone in the US and they'll be happy. If it was it would be called a Mustang.
Last edited by unowned; Oct 5, 2008 at 09:38 AM.
The MR is aimed at an older audience 30+ year old who wants a more all-around car than pure performance. Something you can drive every day in full comfort and still go pretty fast when you want to push it. It is not the one-trick horse older Evos were. And if straight line is what you are looking for - the domestic cars have you covered.
the RA might have the udpgraded an bug free ecu in this test, since the EVo is out there almost a year. And when those test was written about the MR there was many known ecu issues. I hardly bealive they did a factory reflash with MR before the test ,even if it was out there already.