I'm curious overall, of what I'm asking. Does that mean that a car with a better weight distribution and wider, stiffer chassis will be able to handle better? Does it come down to a trick differential? Does it track better than a rwd?

Could someone answer this, over focusing on X vs IX?
The same question really goes for any car, in that I would ask: Does each car have a maximum potential/ability in terms of handling, and does that differ significantly from every other car?
Other than more inherent differences such as weight or drivetrain, and not looking at race cars, I would have thought any one car prepped very well would be able to handle just as quickly as any one other car.
I.e., any prepped wrx tuned to its maximum capability in terms of suspension, or.. some other fully prepped 4wd car would be as fast through the corners as any other fully prepped 4wd car/evo, given that they were near similar weights and had suspension set up to it's maximum potential.

Thanks for the input guys

 

Did you have anything on your IX besides the tein flex? From what I understand that isn't the greatest suspension. I would think that a IX without otherwise suspension fixes would lose to a X easily.

From what I've come to understand, the IX needs at least a bumpsteer, roll center, and rear trailing arm bushings besides all of the other typical suspension mods to correct some of its geometric imperfections, as well as an upgraded mechanical rear lsd to match a track prepped jdm IX.
But really, I'm not talking about the IX.

In terms of the X, a lot of you guys are saying s-awc. Do you guys also believe that the s-awc will help a (fully prepped) X be quicker than a (fully prepped) ferrari f430, if they had the same power-to-weight ratios? If not, where would the discrepancy be here?

Or, how about a full prepped E92 M3, with similar power-to-weight ratio and the M differential, compared to a fully prepped X. It's similar width, stiffer chassis, better weight distribution, better brakes and bigger wheels.
I'm sure some of you would object that a fully prepped X wouldn't be faster than a fully prepped E92 M3 in that particular circumstance.

 

Hey, do you know if you can find that article? The only inside line I've seen comparing the two at the same time had the IX MR beating the X.
Either way, the point is moot, I'm trying to figure out the differences in potential of two track prepped cars rather than stock vs stock.

 

I'm talking more in terms of two track prepped cars. I'm sure ultimately, with everything stripped or however comparably you would want to drop the weight, the CT9A will be somewhat lighter than the X's.

 

i'll take a look around and see if I can dig it up

 

"Throw in a few turns, though, and the situation changes. Mitsubishi engineers report that they can lap the Evo X 2 seconds faster around their 2.4-km (1.5-mile) course than a U.S.-spec Evo IX. We believe it. The newfound chassis prowess results in cornering speeds that are simply faster in the Evo X. "

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=122744

 

Ah, thanks for finding that.
These were just claims made by Mitsu, later proven wrong by the same source on a slightly longer course. (By no means am I saying it doesn't handle better, the whole point of the thread is because it DOES)

But like I said, I'm pretty much asking questions in reference to everything I posted above. Thanks again!

 

Interesting indeed.

 

if you take out everything the X should be lighter. Since the added weight comes form the street safety standards, like 7 airbags, crash beams /X rear beams easy 50 lb when the XI was like 36 or something like that, dual exhaust, heavier front-rear seats, bigger spare tires... etc./

So it will boil down to engine weight - drive train weight - chassis weight. The X should win those or be darn close. And from there is depending which type of cage you put in. 12-14 point ones etc.
The after market parts - seats etc...

So compere race car to race car is not easy. That is why they have a weight limit .
So you can't go under that limit . Which is lead to: wont matter how light the car can be,
there is a weight limit, what the car can't pass, if you want to race.
It is good for IX vs IX race too. Since some team have unlimited money, some dont .

So we can argue theoretically things, when really is a the actually things are important.

 

Just one quick note to all EVO M members that own X's and have complained and complained about the extra weight the X carrys relative to the IX. According to one of the guys who actually tracks his car (Black Track), the increased chassis stiffness has been cited as one of reasons for the X being a better track car. How is the extra stifness achieved, you ask? By adding more steel reinforcements throughout the frame. This has to translate into more weight. So, yes, the X weighs more than previous EVO's but there were concommitant performance gains as well. So, please can we cease complaining about X's weight?! Sorry this is a little off topic but .... I lost it.

Later, Ken

 

nope this was a very good point!
Also race prepped car vs race prepped car comparison is just insane in this forum level , if you ask me.

 

Hmm yea, I get what you're saying, let me try to clarify for a more realistic comparison that most people will keep, but remember, I'm really trying not to make this a X vs IX thread.

For X, a car that will keep things like the interior, safety feat., crash beams, etc., and more focusing on add ons like coilovers, stabilizer bars, etc etc etc.,

Same for IX, not gutting interior, removing safety things, etc., but add ons like suspension geometry fixes, coilovers, stabilizer bars, etc etc etc.,

More how I'm trying to focus the question is what I said earlier, which I'm reposting:

In terms of the X, a lot of you guys are saying s-awc. Do you guys also believe that the s-awc will help a track prepped X be quicker than a track prepped ferrari f430, if they had the same power-to-weight ratios? If not, where would the discrepancy be here?

Or, how about a track prepped E92 M3, with similar power-to-weight ratio and the M differential, compared to a track prepped X. It's similar width, stiffer chassis, better weight distribution, better brakes and bigger wheels.
I'm sure some of you would object that a track prepped X wouldn't be faster than a track prepped E92 M3 in that particular circumstance.

 

nice read...

thats y u go JDM Evo IX with AYC!!

the X has made some major improvements with respect to chassis / stiffness / brakes etc. i think it is an overall pretty good platform!

 

There are tons of factors that go into how a car will handle and there are so many that you cannot pinpoint one thing that will prove that one car will handle better than another. You have to first start with the tires where all lateral forces are generated. Tires are the most important part of a car and the main focus is on the contact patch. Every tire will have different characteristics such as coefficient of friction (which is also affected by the road surface characteristics), bump stiffness, roll stiffness, spring rate, mass, and tire size (diameter and width) just to name some. Each characteristic will also change according to various conditions including inflation pressure, normal load, lateral load, slip angle and temperature to name a few.

Moving past the tires, the chassis and all sprung mass of the vehicle will affect your handling. For the car you have to consider the wheel base, front/rear track width, total mass, weight distribution, and center of gravity position (height, front to back position, and side to side position) just to name some. Also, chassis stiffness will have a big effect on your suspension system in keeping your designed points where they should be.

Now you can move on to the actual suspension system. First you have to start with the type of suspension layout you have (double wishbone, 4-link, etc.). Then the layout of your suspension geometry will affect your static and dynamic roll centers, camber coefficient in bump and roll (camber gain), static toe settings, static camber settings, bump steer, anti-dive or anti-squat, and others that I can’t think of right now. You then have your spring/damper and anti-roll bars (sway bars) system which will include your spring rates, wheel rates, roll rates, sprung mass natural frequency and jounce and rebound damping. Then you can move to the steering system which includes caster, kingpin axis (steering axis) angle, offset, and trail, and Ackermann to name the ones I can think of off hand.

Finally you have items such as your powertrain and brakes that effect overall track performance. Your handling will be affected by the differentials and brakes if you are trying to apply power or braking when in a turn. The X takes handling a step farther with the SAWC by taking into account the force vectoring effects and using the brakes and engine power to better align the forces being generated by the tires. This is just another system that has been thrown into the mix to add in more ways to control the vehicle and improve handling.

In the end, everything I mentioned above is designed in an analytical world on computers in an attempt to design a system that will help the car to perform at its best. Almost all the properties I talked about above are linked together and there is no optimum solution. Suspension design and handling are a major game of sacrifice and weighing the good with the bad. Once the analytical portion is complete, real world testing is truly the only way to develop a good suspension system so millions of dollars are spend on testing and reworking components.

I hope this can shed some light on this topic for some people.

 

Thanks for the great post. I understand that it's something very complex, but I thought with all the X owners being so certain that it was a better handling machine, that if we eliminated as many common variables as we could (brakes, tires, suspension mods etc) with a somewhat similar car (IX), we would be able to closer pinpoint what it is that makes it a superior handling machine, according to owners.

I'm just trying to put it all together, and thank you, your response has been the most comprehensive so far.

Eliminating variables that can be shared between two cars, (wheel size/tires, suspension geometry can be fixed on both cars, upgraded suspension parts, mcpherson up front, multilink in rear, mechanical rear lsds - proven to work better at the track, upgraded brakes),
the X has a wider track(marginally), better weight distribution(marginally, mods like lightweight battery are done actually worsens distribution for the X), stiffer chassis, and s-awc.
Comparatively, the IX has lighter weight (approximately 200 lbs) if both cars keep their interiors, airbags/safety features etc, and light weight mod for light weight mod are matched.

It comes down to whether the technology is worth the lighter weight. I think ironically, stock vs stock tests are a better indication of these cars handling potential, as track prepped cars are rarely modded in an "equal" manner, for the most of us who will be keeping our interiors etc.

Going along with this then, I think most owners would feel that the prepped X will be faster than a similarly prepped E92 M3.
While the M3 has marginally similar track width, stiffer chassis, better weight distribution, rwd with M differential, naturally aspirated well balanced v8.
Comparatively, the X has lighter weight (approximately 200 lbs).

Are those advantages of the E92 M3 worth the weight, or do X owners still feel they would have the advantage (with similar power output)?