Theory on delay of 2009 Evo X
"who cares what i personally think about the X,"
i answered that Q in the beginning of page 3, but all of u were too busy unecessarily defending yourselves to notice!!
btw, its still not fair (just like it was 2 pages ago) to the OP to keep talking about "IX v. X" - so we are done
btw, its still not fair (just like it was 2 pages ago) to the OP to keep talking about "IX v. X" - so we are done
Evolved Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,849
Likes: 1
From: USA
Agreed that we should get back on topic, but you are the one who derailed it in the first place. You come in here and make rude, ignorant, and childish comments and then when people get offended you try to act high and mighty, as if you're somehow above the petty BS that you yourself started. I think it's funny that you still have no response to my earlier posts.
You run your mouth about the X being a POS because it lost by 1 tenth in one test to a cobalt SS (and beat it by the same in another) and yet the X put down a faster lap time in that test than the 9 did in a previous test on that same track by a couple tenths. If the X is a POS for losing to a cobalt SS, and the X was faster than the 9, then what does that make your car?
I'm sure at this point you'll start talking about the potential of the evo vs cobalt, and how it's a better platform (which is true) but yet when we said that about the X we were just whining about losing to a cobalt, right? How convenient... You want to get back on topic? Then don't take it off topic in the first place and better yet, stop trolling the X forums.
You run your mouth about the X being a POS because it lost by 1 tenth in one test to a cobalt SS (and beat it by the same in another) and yet the X put down a faster lap time in that test than the 9 did in a previous test on that same track by a couple tenths. If the X is a POS for losing to a cobalt SS, and the X was faster than the 9, then what does that make your car?
I'm sure at this point you'll start talking about the potential of the evo vs cobalt, and how it's a better platform (which is true) but yet when we said that about the X we were just whining about losing to a cobalt, right? How convenient... You want to get back on topic? Then don't take it off topic in the first place and better yet, stop trolling the X forums.
Last edited by STi2EvoX; Dec 20, 2008 at 11:09 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,849
Likes: 1
From: USA
Agreed. There are two main reasons for the weight increase of the X: the chassis is wider, stiffer, and better braced, all of which help handling. The other, is the safety features, like 7 airbags and larger, heavier crash beam reinforcements in the doors and crumple zones.
The former is what I would consider "acceptable" weight increase, but the latter, well... as much as I like safety features, something has to be done to reduce the unfortunate increase in weight that this has on a car. This is what mitsu should attack first, as the strength of these components could be kept largely intact but made lighter by the use of aluminum rather than steel.
They should be able to shed at least 75 lbs from lightening these components while reducing weight and keeping cost increase to a minimum. Then, upgrade the turbo to use a slightly larger compressor housing and wheel (more like the 9s) but keep the larger hotside of the current configuration. Through playing with the mivec, spool could be kept about the same and midrange as well as top end power would be improved.
Then, run more boost, less timing, and leaner air fuel ratios and the hesitation issues that plague the stock tune would be gone, gas mileage would be better, and power would be increased while still being well below what this engine is clearly capable of handling. Then add in a few small touches, like making the MR's two piece front rotors standard on all models, and you'd have an amazing car. Minimal cost increase, improved performance, and greater market appeal.
The former is what I would consider "acceptable" weight increase, but the latter, well... as much as I like safety features, something has to be done to reduce the unfortunate increase in weight that this has on a car. This is what mitsu should attack first, as the strength of these components could be kept largely intact but made lighter by the use of aluminum rather than steel.
They should be able to shed at least 75 lbs from lightening these components while reducing weight and keeping cost increase to a minimum. Then, upgrade the turbo to use a slightly larger compressor housing and wheel (more like the 9s) but keep the larger hotside of the current configuration. Through playing with the mivec, spool could be kept about the same and midrange as well as top end power would be improved.
Then, run more boost, less timing, and leaner air fuel ratios and the hesitation issues that plague the stock tune would be gone, gas mileage would be better, and power would be increased while still being well below what this engine is clearly capable of handling. Then add in a few small touches, like making the MR's two piece front rotors standard on all models, and you'd have an amazing car. Minimal cost increase, improved performance, and greater market appeal.
Last edited by STi2EvoX; Dec 20, 2008 at 11:06 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Mar 2003
Posts: 2,080
Likes: 27
From: Southern California
But still, seeing how you haven't even driven the car, I don't think you're really in a position to attack it the way you do.
S6Devil: saying that the X performs worse than a cobalt ss is ridiculous. In the test from one mag, the X beat the SS. In the other, the SS beat the MR. It was so close that it was almost a tie, which makes the cobalt ss a truly great bang for the buck car (still a POS, but great bang for the buck indeed). If you look at where the SS won, it was the straights, NOT the turns, which is where the evo has always excelled. The X actually beat it out in every category except straightline speed, so the X was the better OVERALL performer (plus it's just a much better wuality car with a lot more potential for mods). Matter of fact, in the same test that the MR lost, the lap time that the MR put down on VIR was actually a couple of tenths FASTER than the evo 9 MRs record, so your almighty 9 actually lost to both these cars. What do you have to say to that? The 3 all have their unique strengths, and depending on the track, one will always come out on top because of that.
Power to weight will be favored on some tracks, while handling ability will overcome on others, and occasionally, one will overcome in a less than ideal environment i.e. the X beating the 9 on VIR... a track that FAVORS power to weight. You need to accept that the X is a great car, and whether you like it or not, it's beating CT9As all over the place. Ryan Gate's X is smashing records, beating out 8s and 9s in many of the venues that he's won, AMS won the USCC, beating out a more heavily modded evo 8 with MORE hp, and robispec setup X's are beating out more heavily modded 8s and 9s on many tracks. You can whine and make baseless claims all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. In any case, if you don't like the X, then stop trolling the X section. Nuff said.
Power to weight will be favored on some tracks, while handling ability will overcome on others, and occasionally, one will overcome in a less than ideal environment i.e. the X beating the 9 on VIR... a track that FAVORS power to weight. You need to accept that the X is a great car, and whether you like it or not, it's beating CT9As all over the place. Ryan Gate's X is smashing records, beating out 8s and 9s in many of the venues that he's won, AMS won the USCC, beating out a more heavily modded evo 8 with MORE hp, and robispec setup X's are beating out more heavily modded 8s and 9s on many tracks. You can whine and make baseless claims all you want, but the facts speak for themselves. In any case, if you don't like the X, then stop trolling the X section. Nuff said.
The magazine is trying to ... well, sell magazines. What is your aim? To save face?
