no, now you're talking about efficiency and not end results. yes i agree you need more power for AWD than RWD. but that doesnt mean the AWD car will not be faster with that configuration. AWD will always be faster than RWD as long as you design it properly.

and yes while this discussion has gone off to theory and nitpicking, i do see real world significance: our car the evo x. and by extension the GT-R. these cars have highly advanced AWD systems and they perform better than their numbers suggest. yes the GT-R is obviously underrated but still it's heavy and performs better than most expected...

 

I loved the long term review comment "push bar for the trunk lid". SO TRUE!

 

That's the entire problem in a nutshell. You have a group or people that will always complain that it's too heavy and soft and another group complain that it doesn't have a luxury car interior and creature comforts.

Subaru's in the same boat and the latest STI isn't nearly as popular as last generation STI's as it's gone too soft. While the hardcore Suby guys in general loath the current STI you also have a group of people that love the storage space of the hatch and accord-like ride.

 

And this:

That's really the only part of that article I find of merit. Most every time you hear someone trash a Mitsubishi, they always claim its because they are not good cars, as in not reliable. Its almost like it pained them to mention it in this article, but they had too so they could go right back to complaining how the car wasn't the best daily driver for their needs. Whatever, it got them where they needed to go every time they got in it.

 

Put me in the group that says cut 400 pounds of the weight and add 100 hp to the power right off the showroom floor.

But I guess there is more profit in trying to steal market share away from the luxury brands.

 

This.

Evo X seems to have stolen quite a chunk of the market from BMW's and Audi's since it's finally got automatic climate control, sound, navi... Especially with the MR touring it's very obvious what kind of crowd they are aiming at.

 

I was looking at the BMW 335xi. I need AWD for the snow here and the Evo was just more appealing due the the fact that is has more power and gets close to the same mpg's. And yes the brakes look awesome too!

Why is the Evo getting compared to the 335i when the 335xi seems like a more even comparison since it is AWD? I like the more rugged style of the interior and the firm ride. It feels more race inspired.

 

The weight issue has been hashed before: the X is heavier because they made the chassis 40% stiffer than the IX; Mitsu did this because U cannot build a great handling car with a "sloppy" frame. I regret the weight but the handling of this car under load in the corners will outperform a Bimmer (i or x) any day.

Also the use of the term "luxury" is rather vague...what does this mean?...brushed aluminum everywhere, leather, other trinkets. People who buy EVO's are not interested in luxury but rather performance; so Mitsu spending a lot of $$ on interior crap are wasting their time. To me they should focus on the functionality of the interior only and all the rest of their time on enhansing the performance. In short, stick with what works...if the EVO X is what makes Mitsu shine, then put same into their other models...not just making it look like an EVO but perform like one. If U want a beautiful interior, buy an Audi but be prepared to pay an inflated price and it will not outperform the EVO X.

Later, Ken

 

I believe i read somewhere that the chassis is 67percent stiffer in the X vs the ct9 chassis. AMS or someone said its stiffer even with a roll cage.

 

Why can I not have the an Audi-like interior, BMW-like suspension complience, and the Evo X MR chassis, motor, transmission, etc. in the same package?

Paul

 

Because that isn't what the Evo is made for...it's roots are completely different.

They mind as well keep the GSR simple and raw and make the MR your version for people that want that extra weight. Then everyone can be happy. And maybe an upgrade tranny fee for nubs who can't drive stick

 

That article is strange. How the hell did they get 16k miles out of the tires? I'm just about done with my second set of advans and I'm at 16k on my car. I do not track it either.

And I've gotten way better mileage than 19 when driving above 75mph. I made a good 10 hour trip, often pushing far above 100mph, and was still getting 23mpg at the WORST.

And I don't know if it's different, but in the manual for my car, it explicitly states that the gas tank is 15.5 gallons, not 14.5 like noted in the article.

They should have done the test somewhere else...

 

no it shouldn't because these "cost of ownership" articles are all BS. The numbers are grossly inflated because they buy everything from the dealership at ridiculous prices. $432 for rear brakes? seriously? Hawk HPS pads, $180 front AND rear. Install them yourself in under an hour. Also, new tires do not cost as much as they claim either. Stock advans are what, 250-300 each? I run NT05's for less than half that. More grip, more life, less money. Oil changes aren't $100, and fluid changes aren't $400. there are cheaper places to have work done, or you can do the work yourself and not spend a fraction of what these magazines list. the list goes on and on.

 

Advans are $331.00 on tirerack. They must have went down because they used to be $392 each.

 

Granted, but ...
In producing the X Mitsubishi seems to have aspirations of moving upscale and attracting new buyers (like me) and no car today can offer the combination of luxury and overall "fun to drive" as an X with a properly appointed upscale interior and a more sophisticated damper would have, a niche market that Mitsubishi could easily exploit.

For a second or weekend car I would love to get a raw used VIII (or even a II) but not as a daily driver in Los Angeles. The fact that Mitsubishi can build a car like the X MR-T with some of the luxury trapping one expects in a BMW and still outperform (at least on the track) a similarly equipped but lighter VIII/IX (or BMW/Audi) is truly unique and begs the question of whether Mitsubishi could/should attempt to compete in the upscale sport sedan market?