the wing is 13.5 lbs

 

Also the 4.5 0-60 is the fastest I've seen clocked with a stock evo x. I'm wondering if mitsu added a aluminum trunk and some other extras to this press model or something.

 

Hmmm, nice wheels, leather, less road noise, that seems to be the big plus for the MR Touring. Basically same trim package it seems. SE has a bit more kick with less weight? What would you go for? Other notes to throw in on the topic, looking at both right now...

 

SE doesn't have the RF sound system. only has 6 speakers w/o sub.

 

They were comparing the SE to a 2008 MR. I think the base no options MR model for 2011 has much less features then the 2008 did.

 

outcome does not surprise me, although sst equipped evos are pigs it seems.

 

Ultimately it becomes an issue of preference. Both vehicles are relatively similar in performance and handling so for most I think its an issue of brand loyalty or preference in looks. Personally I love my evo and would never swap it for an sti. However, you wan't see me drive my evo any massive distance...thats what the Tahoe is for

 

Very fast pigs though.

 

Road and track tested (11.09) a fully loaded MR touring against a Taurus sho and the Mr ran a consistent 0-60 of 4.6 seconds. Plus it was tested in this months road and track as the same. A fully loaded MR touring with moonroof and Rockford fosgate and nav only is 93 pounds more than the SE.

With the lighter BBS wheels and two piece rotors of the MR for less weight and great handling, a 4.5 or 4.6 with either model, especially a filly loaded MR is OUTSTANDING. Go Mitsu!

 

FWIW:

X SE (per M/T) - 3563 (curb weight)
MR-T (per R&T) - 3690 (curb weight)
MR-T (per R&T) - 3855 (test weight)

 

Again, both se and mr Are within .1 second despite the weight. That is where the unsought weight being less with the bbs and two piece rotors helps. 4.5 to sixty for the SE is quick, and with the MR being tested multiple times at 4.6 to sixty, it is speed on te cheap or speed with some bonus features (moonroof leather seats heated recaros) without sacrificing performance.

Since there is a tenth of a second difference, it all comes down to preference and budget. The SE looks to be a fantastic deal!

 

I wonder what size the drivers were to not like the seats for commuting or longer drives.

I'm not a fat body but not skinny either and find the seats perfectly comfortable for daily driving and road trips. I drove 3k miles in the Thanksgiving week, between North Alabama and Southeast Texas, was perfectly comfortable.

 

Amen. Love my pig!

 

Seriously, I drove my X home about 300 miles when I bought it and the seats felt great. I daily drive it 50 miles a day and find the seats plenty comfy.

I have the SE, and I'm not sure what they are referring to about the ride being overly noisy and the suspension being overly stiff - I find the cabin quite quiet at highway speeds and rough pavement isn't a big deal.

 

According to this Mitsubishi press release, the SE does have the two piece front rotors:

http://media.mitsubishicars.com/rele...1-dec14b0dd0fc

With the price difference between the MR and SE, you could buy the BBS and install them yourself for less.

I've seen the 2011 MR post 4.6 second 0-60 times, but I believe the 2011 MR has less standard equipment then the 2008 MR (no sound system, no rear wing, potentially others).

I'd like to see a test of each Evolution X trim vs. each other trim (GSR vs. MR vs. MR-T vs. SE), compared by year. Of course that would probably be a pretty expensive test which would only interest me Still, it would be interesting to see the effects each year has. 2010's with the new factory tune, 2011 with the new exhaust, etc.