X is better performance-wise probably due to bigger brakes, wider tires, better aerodynamics, and probably better engine, fuel system and ECU efficiency, but I disagree that it is due to AYC and stiffened chassis.

AYC system weighs over 150lbs and it was proven over and over again when driven by a skilled driver, you will have better lap time without AYC, due to the weight. AYC helps drivers to drive the car easier but it doesn't improve the cars limitations.

Chassis stiffness helps with flex and body roll, but usually it does not worth the weight gain once the car is stiff enough (which I am sure it is the case for CT9A evos). Otherwise race cars would have been made of solid block of forged aluminum.

Another place EVO gained weight was from safety and emissions, but you don't gain any performance by making the car safer and more environmentally friendly.

For comparison, EVO IX RS weighed 1310kg bone stock, and EVO X RS weighs 1420kg bone stock. So if you compare non-AYC to non-AYC and AYC to AYC models, the difference is about 250lbs.

 

If the IX is so great how come I only see a X ? http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ScuTI6vRq5Y

 

Then why the Puma Evo run better then others without AYC in Japan?
Even in Rally they like to leave it in. But the ADVAn evo in Japan /rally / dont have it. And its own driver stated on tarmac he would be happier if he would have it.
The AYC when in the car, it does raise the car limitations. Just take a look US vs EU or JDM evos , and the US evos are more powerful.

"Chassis stiffness helps with flex and body roll, but usually it does not worth the weight gain once the car is stiff enough (which I am sure it is the case for CT9A evos). Otherwise race cars would have been made of solid block of forged aluminum."

The stiffer is the body is better , period. Race cars using roll cage so they body is significantly stiffer then ANY street car. So being street car the added weight to make the car stiffer is one of the good trade off.


"For comparison, EVO IX RS weighed 1310kg bone stock, and EVO X RS weighs 1420kg bone stock. So if you compare non-AYC to non-AYC and AYC to AYC models, the difference is about 250lbs"

Just simple wrong... every Evo RS wich are didnt hit the US shore had AYC. from the Evo 4 and up.

"Another place EVO gained weight was from safety and emissions, but you don't gain any performance by making the car safer and more environmentally friendly"

The evo gained on many different aspects , not just from those.Also i dont know where the X gain weight , because the emissions regulations...
You do gain performance sometimes with weight gaining..
Like, the stiffer body, bigger wider rims -tires, bigger brakes...

 

Nine, I never said the IX is better, I wrote exactly opposite, read my post again.

AYC is like traction control in terms of preference, even F1 drivers prefer to have some traction aid, as no one can be perfect every time every minute (think of an NBA player shooting 100% and playing 48 minutes). I can't really insist that AYC does not improve limitations, but lap time on GSR vs RS in Japan clearly shows the weight advantage helps.

Stiffer is better period, I agree, but usually the extra bracing for production car has more purpose as meeting safety standards and bragging rights for the manufacturer. Race cars are usually very hollow and has bracing at core places using quality (expensive) materials. I believe that if you remove a lot of the 'weakest link' bracings on Evo X, it may lap a tad bit quicker.

Nope, no RS ever had AYC, only ACD, even the current X:
http://www.mitsubishi-motors.co.jp/evo/spec/spe_01.html

Stiffness, brake size, wheel size and tire width has diminishing returns on performance with weight. Think of extreme examples like an iron brick on wheels vs cardboard box on wheels, Evo IX with 20x12 wheels and 8 pot calipers and 16" rotor brakes vs Evo IX with 17x9 wheels and 6pot calipers and 13.5" rotors.

 

the japan RS has a ecu limiter to 120 mph/ i cant really remember but maybe even lower/. Has no brembos, no enkei's and evo tires. The interior, if i'm right the lancer ES interior.etc.
That is true too, right?

 

Yes, ECU limiter is to 180km/h, or around 117mph, but if you have flashed before, you will find out they are a cake to remove even for beginners, unlike those German cars.

The JDM RS come with 15" steelies for IX, and 16" alloy for X, no brembos, no wings, base lancer seats, and missing the 'piano black' plastic trim. Also the A/C of course. The wing, brembo + wheel are options, but adds about 30kg, or 66lbs total. IC spray bottle was another 10kg (22lbs) and is an option. Bilstein shocks are probably included in the wheel package.

I think it makes perfect sense, because I don't think there are any time attack cars with IC spray system, at least not the stock ones, and you will always use bigger and better tires, lighter wheels to match, more aerodynamic and lighter wing, coilver and better brake system of course. The parts on base RS is there so that it meets regulations and driveable, as you can't present it to the buyer with the car sitting on bricks.

 

lol, nurb ring times are far from accurate.

Its a huge track with lots of room for error. Different drivers and undisclosed mods, tires, etc.

The GTR and ZR1 on the ring was actually not 100% stock. They found that one of the cars was on R comps...

There are tons of variables.

I don't take what any of the mags say seriously because they are often inconsistant or wrong.

Motortrend said the EVO IX MR ran a 13.4 at the 1/4 mile and road and track said a 13.6...

Ive seen stock IX MR run 12.9 at the drag.

They also say the new civic SI runs like a 15.2 or some **** and ive witnessed stock SI's running mid-high 14's...

magazines are more for fun and good pictures and peoples biased/paid opinions than anything...

 

so if we agree on this how the "stock" RS runs faster then a GSR?
if you tune the ECU we know what does it mean for the Stock Evo..
also if they put the brembos back and the rims and the tires/i dont know which one/
still with a less weight the RS barely makes front of the GSR.

So if you take out the weight from the GSR / because it would more then fair , since you are upgraded a RS a lot/ to make it even RS vs GSR same equipment same weight but no AYC on the RS. What do you think which would be faster?

 

I never take reviewers to seriously. Also probably why I never take these threads seriously. They always end up being some pointless argument.

 

I am going to have to agree here, this is quite pointless. It's like this, who keeps an evo stock when they buy it anyway? With a mod or two, the evo would beat an SS like a redhead step child. As Lil Wayne once said...what's a goon to a Gobin?

 

would have, should have , could have, the MR got beat by a SS. It is sad, any way you slice it. It should beat the chevy off the lot. The MR weighs a ton, the MR has 210 whp and its tuned like sheeet.

 

Anyone else notice how the Cobalt SS has taken the Neons place?
I cant speak for Evo X owners but in stock form Mitsubishi should have
given more power to make up for the extra weight. I think if I am correct this is the first time an Evolution has regressed from it's normal evolution as far as speed, in either 0-60 or 1/4 times.

 

GSR also has a speed limiter in Japan, so it wouldn't matter either way as long as you do the same for both cars.

RS with the performance options (brakes, wheels and suspension) will weigh about 200lbs lighter than GSR with no comfort features (leather, moonroof, sound system etc). The main difference is AYC (around 150lbs), AC (around 30lbs), ABS (10lbs) and other minor trims missing. Bone stock RS weighs 242lbs lighter than the GSR for IX and X.

Whether it is magazine tests such as Option or Best Motoring, or privately tested, RS version usually laps about 1sec better on a 60-90sec tracks, such as Fuji and Tsukuba.

 

"So if you take out the weight from the GSR / because it would more then fair , since you are upgraded a RS a lot/ to make it even RS vs GSR same equipment same weight but no AYC on the RS. What do you think which would be faster?"

this was a question. And to take out 150 lb from the GSR is probably 3 hour job.
Way less then you spend on the RS to make it track ready. So it is fair to lighten it up the GSR, if you would test AYC vs non AYC model dont you think against the upgraded RS?

 

The wheel/brake/suspension is a package option from dealer, you can choose when you buy the car, like BMW's sports package. There is no way the RS can beat a GSR without it even with 40 more lbs of weight advantage. Think of how much time you would lose on a track if you switch your wheels and brakes to base Lancer brakes and 15" steelies.

As for GSR vs AYC-less GSR, which is basically AYC vs 150lbs, I don't have any statistics but it would not be much different than GSR vs RS. One good way to look is how much lap time you would lose if you add extra 50lbs? Another way to look is when are the moments the AYC will show advantage over a skilled driver and how much time would it save?