its tough for me to believe this! a SS vs Evo and the SS is actually beating it!!!! wow mitsu is really F*king up!! Hey Mitsu, keep on trying to make the evo into a is250!

Now the evo isn't that much of the rally inspired race demon or the luxury gem they tried to build for 08... and now a 10k cheaper car is giving it a run for its money, Bravo BRAVO!!

which one?

 

the cobalt, i thought GM was replacing it with something else.

 

It always make me laugh when Evo or STI owners get freaked out by a cheaper car with similar performance. Don't forget, this exact reasoning is what makes the Evo and the STI the cars they are; amazing machines for very little money. How many Corvette owners get pissy about the Evo because with a few thousand in mods you can embarrass the big bad Vette? How many threads do we see where an Evo or an STi goes up against a car constantly twice as much and not only comes out the winner, but does so with ease? I really hope some people can see the irony here. It was only natural that eventually other manufacturers would respond in kind, it's just evolution. Sure the Cobalt can keep up or maybe even beat the Evo at a track but I wouldn't consider it to be in the same category. It's cheap speed, nothing more, nothing less. If you're that concerned, you might as well sell your car and buy a bike.

 

Seeing as the X is better on the track in stock form than the 8 or 9, I'm not sure how they are moving towards being in IS250. I don't get why everyone is getting so butt-hurt that a cobalt is putting up numbers in the same region as the evo. These cars are 2 completely different monsters. Sure the SS is a great car in stock form, but I would say it's limitations are reached much sooner than is the case with the evo when upgrades are concerned. The fact is that the X came out running pig rich and needing 2 flashes just to make it run OK - a failure by MITSU to be sure, but something probably not accounted for in any of these test runs. And even so, just look at the amount of power the engine has produced from simple bolt-ons. Couple that with tremendous handling, and it's an entirely different car than the SS.

If you bought your X to run it stock, you probably should have considered a used z06 for the price, or even a cobalt SS and saved some coin. The X is for people who want to tune and unleash the raw capabilities the car has hidden under the hood. Stop getting all mad because another manufacturer came out with a car that is extremely well balanced and near the peak of it's potential which happens to compete with the stock form of the evolution X. It's unattractive and reeks of superiority issues.

 

The track that the SS beat the Evo at in the C&D Lightning lap the X beat the IXs by 0.5 secs, so the SS took down the IXs time too.

 

I actually ended up buying a Cobalt SS/TC. I've looked at buying an VIII or a IX for over a year, but for some reason I could never pull the trigger. I can't believe I bought the Cobalt when I could have gotten an VIII for around the same price(paid 21k for my Cobalt). Or I could have waited a 6 months and bought a X. But I needed to get a car, and the Cobalt is the fastest car for the money I could get brand new. Plus my insurance is only 79 bucks a month, and I'm 22.

It's a fun car, but I wish I would have gotten an Evo.

 

^^Congrats on your purchase. It seems like a fun car.

 

Take a chill pill. By your logic, Ferrari and Lambo are f'ing up as well since the Corvette ZR1 is way cheaper and delivers similar performance. Just because a car does something well, doesn't mean another car sucks. Kudos to GM for making some good performance cars.

 

I say at your age, you made the smart buy, especially with the economy in the toilet. The 09 I drove was getting something crazy on the computer like 41 MPG doing 70 MPH for the 10 mile leg I drove.

 

That's because it was John Heinricy. He's like the racecar driver of racecar drivers. There's no doubt the cars are really close stock on track, but anything you put John Heinricy behind the wheel of is going to dominate. He's pretty much one in a million, IMO. GM is very lucky to have him.

 

I think any difference of less than half a second between a year, with different drivers, different conditions.. even different conditions alone makes that much time negligible.

Otherwise, if you're not talking about the C&D Lightning Lap, I'm not familiar with the X being widely recognized as faster on the track. If anything, I've seen that they run almost exactly equal times. The X's increased handling abilities vs. the IX's lighter weight/better accel. Which are then countered in modding stages by X's ease in increase in power vs. the IX's rear differential upgrades.

It's really not necessary to add little quips about the IX's performance, anyway. This has already been beaten to death, and the final verdict: Great car that runs times near equal to an Evo X on the track, but once the power increases its limited by the FWD. What's there more to say?

 

That was in no way intended to be a slam on the 8 or 9, more a retort to the claim that the X is moving towards an IS250 because of one test (the lightning lap) where the new X did manage to pull a better time than previous generations. I was only trying to imply that the car still showed improvement, not that it is superior to all previous generations because of one track test. I can certainly see why you would take it that way, though - I worded it horribly. I was speaking only to THE Track as in the track in question. I should have said the lightning lap.

I certainly don't want to get into another X vs. previous generations discussion, as I think my feelings on the whole "my car is better than yours" superiority argument are quite clear in the remainder of my original post. It's just plain stupid. So again, sorry about the miscommunication. Totally my fault. I left it there so no one would think I was trying to change what was written to hide it.

 

well some owners are just simply blind . Or they have another reason to forget those facts

 

when it comes down to it, it mostly depends on the driver with these two cars in particular IMO.

 

you REALLY can't compare times from one year ago with different conditions and different drivers.. Rob, you know that much.
That being said, I don't doubt that if a test were done now, with the same driver, on VIR with those three cars, that the times of all three would be very similar, with the SS/TC STILL being the quickest among the three.