lol you edited this. Some of these turns are at speeds like 100mph and above. They don't show you the turn by turn g's on a track. You don't understand that at higher speeds cars will not pull as much g's as going at a lower speed? Hello? Physics?

 

Actually according to Road and Track, the MR ranged between 0.87 and 1.10 depending on the conditions. Again, the MR produces lower G forces than the GSR.

 

Ah so the evo was not driven hard enough you're saying.
So it should have gone faster you're saying?
How much faster than a IX should it have gone?

Answer: similar times. So the time is right. Once again a repeat, because you refuse to accept facts. If you're saying the X MR should have gone faster, you're saying it should have left a IX MR in the dust. On this high speed course. When the X MR struggles to break 100mph in the 1/4 mile.

 

every car can be adjusted to certainlimits. and even with those little mods you can change a sec easy on track , Just ask you wheel aligment guys.

The Exige S is adjustable in that test, The Evo is adjustable in that test, the GT3 certainly is adjustable in that test, The Cayman S is adjustable in that test, So why they did only if they where ther only with the Viper?
remember that test conclusion ?

"No car can truly be deemed idiot-proof (there'll always be a better idiot), but the Mitsubishi Evo comes mighty close. This nearly neutral, vice-free, high-limit chassis breaks away gently, sliding all four wheels on asphalt just as it does on gravel in rally duty. Add strong power and stronger brakes and a snug-fitting seat and cockpit, and the driver's confidence level increases accordingly. Even the steering manages to transmit more road-surface info than those in the front-drivers. It's a strong fourth-place finisher."

the exige S finished 3rd place
the cayman S second
and the GT3 third...

BEST handling cars in US..

this is another magazine test..

 

? How is the Evo adjustable? If you consider doing an alignment a modification then sure, every car is modifiable.
There is no evidence that the ACR used in this test was modified, you can't equate a completely separate test to this one.
What test are those results from? In the MotorTrend article the Evo finished 6th and that was in a subjective manner.
I presume you mean the GT3 finished first right since the Exige apparently finished third.

 

Kyooch and ambystom, I agree with a lot of what you have said, but I think what rob is trying to say is something along the lines of what I was saying earlier. You keep citing the X as being able to put down a good skidpad, but say that it doesn't realy equate to good numbers at high speeds on a road course because of the weight and that's not true. The X has put down killer G loads on road courses and tests including motor trend's "america's best handling car" test that backup the skidpad figures.

Most cars will produce peaks that are a good bit higher than their skidpad results when on a road course because of the angle of the turn in question as well as the forces of weight transfer in switchbacks, etc, but they are still relative to what the skidpad base line number was. In this breakdown from motor trend's test, it shows the cobalt pulling pretty big peaks that are way higher than it's recorded skidpad numbers but the evo pulls much higher peaks than the cobalt does, which makes sense considering the much higher skidpad ratings of the EVO.

Keep in mind these are peaks not averages, but this is part of what the averages are based on so it's valid data. Anyway, my point is that the skidpad rating is a pretty accurate test for showing the handling capabilities of a car, and in the car and driver test it just looked like the EVO wasn't pushed to it's full potential and that the results would therefor be flawed.

Again, after thinking about it, I really don't think that there was any intentional foul play involved, but I do think that the driver wasn't the best (considering he got scared of the IS-F and admittedly drove it like a nanny in certain sections, screwing the lap time) and the track was a power track that favors cars with straight line speed so the combination of the two makes the results a little off but who cares? I know I don't anymore. The fact is that the two cars stock for stock will be close on power tracks and the evo will put more of a gap on tight tracks.

You're right though that whether or not the evo could have gone a tenth of a second faster because of driver error doesn't really matter because the times are still reasonable and that pretty much just sums it up. In any case, I think that we all have valid points and have said all that needs to be said, so hopefully this thread can die off soon because I don't know about the rest of you but I'm worn out!

First link: cobalt, second link: X.
http://www.motortrend.com/features/p.../photo_05.html

http://www.motortrend.com/features/p.../photo_11.html

 

i'm talking about another test with the Viper, as an example being really truthful tests.
towards other cars, and visa versa. Like the Japan best motoring.
also what you talking about , that test the EVO is a 4th place. 1th GT3 2nd cayman S 3rd Exige S

i just quote them when they say the evo is a strong 4th place finisher..
You guys really dont read what i write there...

 

lol yea fail to answer once proven wrong.

I give up. Noize was right, this was a waste of my time, I should have been editing a paper.
Honestly I'm just surprised how blind your bias has made you guys. The Cobalt SS's time did beat the IX's too yano.
If you guys hadn't found the "low" g's to pick at, you would have found something else and picked at it. But it still wouldn't change the fact that the X MR ran a similar time to the IX MR, which is where it should have been. Which happens to both be under the Cobalt SS time.

 

OK, how is that relevant anyways? The ACR is meant to be adjusted (although doing so voids the warranty), the Cobalt isn't (at least no more than the Evo).
I think someone hit it on the head earlier, the Cobalt is simply faster than the Evo. You guys can try to analyze/criticize the results all you want but what it boils down to is that the Cobalt was just as fast as the Evo. Does it matter how? Does it matter where? No, you guys are starting to sound like SRT-4 owners who argue that their cars are faster than Evos or STIs but only from a roll or my brother in-law who argued that his Diesel truck could destroy my WRX from 20 kmph to 50 kmph.

 

Thanks man. I am so worn out. The times ARE reasonable. Yet, of course, I would take a IX or X any day, anyone who said otherwise would be a fool. This test shows nothing for the whooping a slightly modded evo could do. I am just trying to give props to some great stock engineering. The Cobalt SS unleashed some serious speed out on VIR, and it's hard to see the evo community seeming to be threatened by it. More power and the Cobalt's front drive train will reach it's limit while cars like the Evo will continue to get faster. But great job to the Cobalt SS!

 

Here are the rules for the Lightning Lap
You'll notice it specifically says the cars cannot be modified, even tire pressures have to be stock.

 

EVERYONE:

Can we tone it down a bit in here? I've read the last days posts and we seem to be a bit confrontational here. Let's keep it respectful, factual, and on topic. I appreciate frank discussions as much as the next guy, but let's remember this is the internet; there's no need to make it personal. Thanks guys,

SASD209

 

well, first off all i brought up the ACR Viper as an example being the honest test vs others, not to compere to the cobalt, Other proof you dont even read wht i wrote .
Those test where the ACR Viper was dialed in for trcak , several car couldhave been dialed in , just as easy... Like the GT3 Porsche.

\thats that.

compere to me the SRT 4 owners vs WRX, and saying i argue with like them /SRT-4/ faster from etc. is jut plane unrespectfull, and insulting from a moderator , who actually owns a WRX. And i never did with you , but you are certainly sounds like one of them.
The funny part is the SS is a new SRT-4 and you are the one who defending it. with out no other proof , but one lap time. Versus loads of facts on paper.
that lap time has no other proof but one 0.3 sec lap time difference. vs 5 loosing section by 1.7 sec differences. Straight, up hill, turns etc , include.

yes i'm suspicius, based on my OWN experience and the test data they provide.
Thats about it.
They should have post thge winning sections instead the loosing ones and we wouldn't have this conversation. But they didn't ...
Wonder why? If you cant see that. Then you are the biased one . Every datat show other wise every tst the evo has better numbers , even this test has better section numbers overall toward the MR. BUT in the shadow the SS won by big time..


and you are bealiving it, and i'm the biasd blind guy, huh?

good to know how the WRX - IX etc guys really thinks about us. See you at a track.
Thanks

 

Picked up my SS/TC 2 days ago. traded in my 08 gsr for it. What a car!!





I plan on powdercoating the rims black...seen a couple pics and they look sick! I am wanting to tint and lower it asap. Cosmetic mods are usually pretty easy....the go fast mods will come soon enough. SS Vs. GSR The SS wins! and it looks better too.

 

But you still cannot beat the laws of physics. They were pretty much the same today as they were before you were born.

And I can apply the same logic to AWD cars. Do you think technology was sitting still for decades while FWD advanced?
There are really no FWD or RWD cars in WRC, are there?
And as I said, if they allowed them in other events too, they would dominate, especially on less than perfect-weather days.