Theory on delay of 2009 Evo X
Evolved Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,849
Likes: 1
From: USA
Jesus man, no one is turning this into a comparison of the 9 vs X. The point was that you call the X a pos because it lost to a cobalt SS when your car lost by even more. You most likely were not aware of this fact when you made your rude comment (otherwise you most likely wouldn't have said it), and now this it's been pointed out, you cannot respond to it because you would rather play childish games than man up and take responsibility. Fact is that you turned this thread into a trash talking fest on the X and took it off topic in the first place. You're the type of person that antagonizes someone constantly until they get so mad that they punch you in the face, and then you cry about why you got hit. Take responsibility for your actions and let it go.
Last edited by STi2EvoX; Dec 21, 2008 at 10:23 AM.
of course i know the Ix MR did even worse! i have been reading car&driver since 1996, and am fully aware of the 2007 and 2006 VIR test results. so relax.
i am well aware that my IX did worse at the track than the SS and than the X, but it was supposed to, no ? the X was supposed to be much more technologically advanced, and so much R&D went into it that it was supposed to beat the IX. that was the whole point of making a whole new chassis, wasnt it? good lord, it wasnt supposed to be a shock or surprise!!
how many times do i have to repeat it - the X was supposed to be much better than IX, and most certainly better than any chevy!!!! its not even supposed to be close!
and i deliberately avoided saying this before, because WE ARE ONCE AGAIN TURNING THIS THREAD INTO A "IX v. X" THREAD
STOP
i am well aware that my IX did worse at the track than the SS and than the X, but it was supposed to, no ? the X was supposed to be much more technologically advanced, and so much R&D went into it that it was supposed to beat the IX. that was the whole point of making a whole new chassis, wasnt it? good lord, it wasnt supposed to be a shock or surprise!!
how many times do i have to repeat it - the X was supposed to be much better than IX, and most certainly better than any chevy!!!! its not even supposed to be close!
and i deliberately avoided saying this before, because WE ARE ONCE AGAIN TURNING THIS THREAD INTO A "IX v. X" THREAD
STOP
Newbie
Joined: Aug 2008
Posts: 4
Likes: 0
From: red bank, nj
of course i know the Ix MR did even worse! i have been reading car&driver since 1996, and am fully aware of the 2007 and 2006 VIR test results. so relax.
i am well aware that my IX did worse at the track than the SS and than the X, but it was supposed to, no ? the X was supposed to be much more technologically advanced, and so much R&D went into it that it was supposed to beat the IX. that was the whole point of making a whole new chassis, wasnt it? good lord, it wasnt supposed to be a shock or surprise!!
how many times do i have to repeat it - the X was supposed to be much better than IX, and most certainly better than any chevy!!!! its not even supposed to be close!
and i deliberately avoided saying this before, because WE ARE ONCE AGAIN TURNING THIS THREAD INTO A "IX v. X" THREAD
STOP
i am well aware that my IX did worse at the track than the SS and than the X, but it was supposed to, no ? the X was supposed to be much more technologically advanced, and so much R&D went into it that it was supposed to beat the IX. that was the whole point of making a whole new chassis, wasnt it? good lord, it wasnt supposed to be a shock or surprise!!
how many times do i have to repeat it - the X was supposed to be much better than IX, and most certainly better than any chevy!!!! its not even supposed to be close!
and i deliberately avoided saying this before, because WE ARE ONCE AGAIN TURNING THIS THREAD INTO A "IX v. X" THREAD
STOP
Evolved Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,849
Likes: 1
From: USA
of course i know the Ix MR did even worse! i have been reading car&driver since 1996, and am fully aware of the 2007 and 2006 VIR test results. so relax.
i am well aware that my IX did worse at the track than the SS and than the X, but it was supposed to, no ? the X was supposed to be much more technologically advanced, and so much R&D went into it that it was supposed to beat the IX. that was the whole point of making a whole new chassis, wasnt it? good lord, it wasnt supposed to be a shock or surprise!!
how many times do i have to repeat it - the X was supposed to be much better than IX, and most certainly better than any chevy!!!! its not even supposed to be close!
and i deliberately avoided saying this before, because WE ARE ONCE AGAIN TURNING THIS THREAD INTO A "IX v. X" THREAD
STOP
i am well aware that my IX did worse at the track than the SS and than the X, but it was supposed to, no ? the X was supposed to be much more technologically advanced, and so much R&D went into it that it was supposed to beat the IX. that was the whole point of making a whole new chassis, wasnt it? good lord, it wasnt supposed to be a shock or surprise!!
how many times do i have to repeat it - the X was supposed to be much better than IX, and most certainly better than any chevy!!!! its not even supposed to be close!
and i deliberately avoided saying this before, because WE ARE ONCE AGAIN TURNING THIS THREAD INTO A "IX v. X" THREAD
STOP
For a FWD car, it handles pretty well and it's a potent car in stock form, but it isn't the machine that the evo is and never will be. I guarantee that the engine won't make power like the 4b11, and it will never handle like any evo, especially the X. So if we both know the evo is a far more advanced and capable platform, who cares about a 1 tenth loss on VIR in stock form? You have to look at the big picture with cars to see which car is truly better, and there isn't any question of that here. In any case, none of this mess would've started in the first place if you hadn't trash talked the X, like you always do in every thread about the X.
As far as getting back on topic, I already tried to do that, as you can see from the post below that I made last night.
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.
But, you had to bring the argument back and keep making snide, immature comments. If you want everyone else to stay on topic, then stop taking it off topic in the first place by trash talking the X like you seem to do in every thread.
Last edited by STi2EvoX; Dec 21, 2008 at 01:14 PM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Jul 2008
Posts: 211
Likes: 2
From: Fresno Ca
[QUOTE=STi2EvoX;6490851]That POS cobalt is faster than a lot of cars it shouldn't be. It doesn't mean that mitsu did anything wrong with the X, or any previous evo for that matter. Chevy just did what they always do; they took a light car and gave it a lot of power. Just because it is able to edge out wins against much higher performance cars, including the evo, it's only able to do it on a fast track that doesn't require a well rounded machine to create a fast lap time.
For a FWD car, it handles pretty well and it's a potent car in stock form, but it isn't the machine that the evo is and never will be. I guarantee that the engine won't make power like the 4b11, and it will never handle like any evo, especially the X. So if we both know the evo is a far more advanced and capable platform, who cares about a 1 tenth loss on VIR in stock form? You have to look at the big picture with cars to see which car is truly better, and there isn't any question of that here. In any case, none of this mess would've started in the first place if you hadn't trash talked the X, like you always do in every thread about the X.
QUOTE]
A simple tune will change the WHOLE picture when it comes to the cobalt
For a FWD car, it handles pretty well and it's a potent car in stock form, but it isn't the machine that the evo is and never will be. I guarantee that the engine won't make power like the 4b11, and it will never handle like any evo, especially the X. So if we both know the evo is a far more advanced and capable platform, who cares about a 1 tenth loss on VIR in stock form? You have to look at the big picture with cars to see which car is truly better, and there isn't any question of that here. In any case, none of this mess would've started in the first place if you hadn't trash talked the X, like you always do in every thread about the X.
QUOTE]
A simple tune will change the WHOLE picture when it comes to the cobalt
and really who cares? It's still always going to be a total POS cobalt... they will never be remembered as a great car that was a fantastic combo of power, speed, handling and the ability to outclass cars 3-4 times it's own cost.
Account Disabled
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 857
Likes: 0
And the Evo is just a POS Lancer, blah blah blah. GTFO.
