Lancer Evolution X News, Info, Pics, etc... | [ALL THREADS MERGED]
Evolving Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
From: OH
You're right though, 300hp will not propel a 3500lb vehicle to a 12.5 second quarter mile. So one or more of those figures has to be wrong, and it doesn't neccesarily have to be the 12.5 number.
I think there's a very good case for the X to be markably less in weight than 3500lbs. With a stripped-down DE coming in at 2999lbs and STILL being 50% stiffer than the IX, Mitsu has no need to add extra stiffening, so it could almsot be argued that the X will be the same weight as the IX even. THough I'm still thinking it'll be more, hence my 3350 estimate.
Additionally, 300hp has been stated as a safe estimate; more of a minimum. If Mitsu is coming out with a new Evo with a new engine, it would be stupid to aim any lower than the competition's output. So 300 is the barest minimum for the Evo X. I'm about 75% sure it'll be more since conservative estimates of the new STI are at 320 hp.
On the flipside here, 12.5 seems a bit generous. Mitsu is banking a LOT on the C-platform, so they need people to stand up and take notice. Though I think 12.5 might be a bit low, I strongly believe the Evo X will be a 12 second car off the lot. (12 second car meaning 12.99 or quicker)
Bench racing at its finest LOL
^^
They probably inferred this based on some common leading indicators...Let's see if we can come to the same conclusion based on what we already know.
Now, what do we know?
Weight
General consensus is that it will be heavier by ~200 lbs or so (which I personally find difficult to believe, but that's what's generally said so we'll leave that be).
Since current Evo IX weighs in at:
Power
Peak horsepower
Nobody knows for sure, but I've not seen many (if any) figures that weren't somewhere between 300 and 320hp. The current Evo IX is rated at 286hp. So that's an increase of between 4.9% and 11.9% peak horsepower. So, let's say it will be at least an even 5% more powerful, which leaves us with a 1.1% power-to-weight deficit it would seem.
Peak torque
Since this topic is rarely discussed (or possibly rarely read by me), we can just assume torque increases at the same rate as horsepower, and for what it's worth, probably a slightly higher number than the peak horsepower since that's how the current Evo is.
Power under-the-curve
A couple things not really brought up much are exactly how much the additional MIVEC cam and direct injection will help make more power under-the-curve, as did the addition of a single MIVEC cam on the IX. Count on more power down low, less turbo lag, and possibly nearly doubling the increases seen on the Evo IX. For example, if MIVEC puts a certain amount of extra power under the curve in the IX, I would guess at least 80% of that amount again will be present in the 4B11 with dual MIVEC and direct injection. And since the IXs are such beasts compared to the VIII's, I'd imagine it will be significant enough as not to be excluded from the power-to-weight and acceleration equation of the Evo X. Maybe good for another 0.1 to 0.2 seconds off a 1/4 mile time?
Drivetrain
The estimate was almost certainly taking into consideration the new Mitsubishi Sequential Shift Transmission (SST), which should shave at least 0.1 seconds per shift, and on a 1/4 mile blast, shifting 4 or 5 times, that shaves nearly half a second off the 1/4 mile time. That is fairly significant...
1/4 mile time
So, the magazine in question tested the Evo IX to run 13.5 in a quarter mile. We all know they can do better than that stock, but that's the number this magazine is probably basing their estimates on. So, let's see how fast it will probably be based on what we know:
We can even the playing field by using a 1/4 mile calculator (http://www.jcalculator.com/?c=1_4_mile_calculator). So, assuming the average driver weighs 175 lbs, the actual curb weight of the average Evo IX and the average Evo X would be 3438 lbs, and 3638 lbs, respectively. According to JCalculator, that would be good for 1/4 mile times of 13.34 and 13.38, respectively. So, it would appear the 1/4 mile time calculated only from peak power-to-weight ratio would be nearly identical, even with the additional weight. Shave off 0.4 to 0.5 seconds for the SST gearbox, maybe 0.2 seconds from some extra power under the curve, and you are looking at a theoretical 1/4 mile between 12.98 and 13.08. Not too shabby. However, if you factor in the fudge of this magazine running the test, adding about 0.2 to the time, we might expect the X to actually run between 13.18 and 13.28 in their test, which is very much slower than their 12.5 estimates. But...maybe they learned that an actual IX is capable of hitting 12.9 stock even though they only tested it to run 13.5. If you factor that in, the difference between the JCalculator 1/4 mile estimate and the actual Evo IX fastest stock time is 0.44 seconds faster. If you take that into account for the X, a more true estimate for the X is probably somewhere between 12.54 and 12.64...which is somewhere around the Road and Track estimate. Maybe they actually did mean to say what an Evo X is capable of rather than what they are going to run, since they may know they are slow...so, yeah I think a 12.5 1/4 mile with only 300 horsepower, even with the additional 200 lbs, is not outside the realm of possibility.
Mods
I would guess based on how easy it is to make substantial gains with the IX, it will be even easier (once the ECU is cracked) to make even more substantial initial gains with the X given the same types of mods (exhaust, boost controller, reflash, meth, etc.). It is well known you can extract 330 whp from a few bolt-ons on the IX without much difficulty because of the MIVEC and larger turbo. Since the X will have even more MIVEC to play with, plus direct injection, I would hazard a guess that 360 whp would be fairly easily attainable with a similar approach. However, I expect the limitations of the aluminum closed-deck block to come into play after that, making huge horsepower gains on a stock bottom end more difficult than a VIII or IX. For me, that's fine. I'm not on a quest for that much power. But for the hardcore, maybe they should stick to the old 4G63.
They probably inferred this based on some common leading indicators...Let's see if we can come to the same conclusion based on what we already know.
Now, what do we know?
Weight
General consensus is that it will be heavier by ~200 lbs or so (which I personally find difficult to believe, but that's what's generally said so we'll leave that be).
Since current Evo IX weighs in at:
- 3,219 lbs (EVO IX RS)
- 3,263 lbs (EV0 IX)
- 3,285 lbs (EVO IX MR)
- 3,419 lbs (EVO X RS) (+6.2%)
- 3,463 lbs (EVO X) (+6.1%)
- 3,485 lbs (EVO X MR) (+6.0%)
Power
Peak horsepower
Nobody knows for sure, but I've not seen many (if any) figures that weren't somewhere between 300 and 320hp. The current Evo IX is rated at 286hp. So that's an increase of between 4.9% and 11.9% peak horsepower. So, let's say it will be at least an even 5% more powerful, which leaves us with a 1.1% power-to-weight deficit it would seem.
Peak torque
Since this topic is rarely discussed (or possibly rarely read by me), we can just assume torque increases at the same rate as horsepower, and for what it's worth, probably a slightly higher number than the peak horsepower since that's how the current Evo is.
Power under-the-curve
A couple things not really brought up much are exactly how much the additional MIVEC cam and direct injection will help make more power under-the-curve, as did the addition of a single MIVEC cam on the IX. Count on more power down low, less turbo lag, and possibly nearly doubling the increases seen on the Evo IX. For example, if MIVEC puts a certain amount of extra power under the curve in the IX, I would guess at least 80% of that amount again will be present in the 4B11 with dual MIVEC and direct injection. And since the IXs are such beasts compared to the VIII's, I'd imagine it will be significant enough as not to be excluded from the power-to-weight and acceleration equation of the Evo X. Maybe good for another 0.1 to 0.2 seconds off a 1/4 mile time?
Drivetrain
The estimate was almost certainly taking into consideration the new Mitsubishi Sequential Shift Transmission (SST), which should shave at least 0.1 seconds per shift, and on a 1/4 mile blast, shifting 4 or 5 times, that shaves nearly half a second off the 1/4 mile time. That is fairly significant...
1/4 mile time
So, the magazine in question tested the Evo IX to run 13.5 in a quarter mile. We all know they can do better than that stock, but that's the number this magazine is probably basing their estimates on. So, let's see how fast it will probably be based on what we know:
We can even the playing field by using a 1/4 mile calculator (http://www.jcalculator.com/?c=1_4_mile_calculator). So, assuming the average driver weighs 175 lbs, the actual curb weight of the average Evo IX and the average Evo X would be 3438 lbs, and 3638 lbs, respectively. According to JCalculator, that would be good for 1/4 mile times of 13.34 and 13.38, respectively. So, it would appear the 1/4 mile time calculated only from peak power-to-weight ratio would be nearly identical, even with the additional weight. Shave off 0.4 to 0.5 seconds for the SST gearbox, maybe 0.2 seconds from some extra power under the curve, and you are looking at a theoretical 1/4 mile between 12.98 and 13.08. Not too shabby. However, if you factor in the fudge of this magazine running the test, adding about 0.2 to the time, we might expect the X to actually run between 13.18 and 13.28 in their test, which is very much slower than their 12.5 estimates. But...maybe they learned that an actual IX is capable of hitting 12.9 stock even though they only tested it to run 13.5. If you factor that in, the difference between the JCalculator 1/4 mile estimate and the actual Evo IX fastest stock time is 0.44 seconds faster. If you take that into account for the X, a more true estimate for the X is probably somewhere between 12.54 and 12.64...which is somewhere around the Road and Track estimate. Maybe they actually did mean to say what an Evo X is capable of rather than what they are going to run, since they may know they are slow...so, yeah I think a 12.5 1/4 mile with only 300 horsepower, even with the additional 200 lbs, is not outside the realm of possibility.
Mods
I would guess based on how easy it is to make substantial gains with the IX, it will be even easier (once the ECU is cracked) to make even more substantial initial gains with the X given the same types of mods (exhaust, boost controller, reflash, meth, etc.). It is well known you can extract 330 whp from a few bolt-ons on the IX without much difficulty because of the MIVEC and larger turbo. Since the X will have even more MIVEC to play with, plus direct injection, I would hazard a guess that 360 whp would be fairly easily attainable with a similar approach. However, I expect the limitations of the aluminum closed-deck block to come into play after that, making huge horsepower gains on a stock bottom end more difficult than a VIII or IX. For me, that's fine. I'm not on a quest for that much power. But for the hardcore, maybe they should stick to the old 4G63.
Last edited by machron1; Jun 19, 2007 at 01:55 AM. Reason: bad speeeelerz
Evolved Member
Joined: Feb 2006
Posts: 583
Likes: 0
From: Dirty Jersey
And yet another article about Evo X...
Hey guys,
Just found another article about Evolution X tha I don't think was posted yet: http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/06/20...subishi-evo-x/ and full article can be found at: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/au...bishi_evo.html
Looks like the new transmission for the Evo X will be something. Also for those currency challanged, don't look at the prices in british pounds and just convert them to US dollars, cars in Europe are always a lot more expensive than in US due to high as f... taxes. And they are also saying that the Ralliart model will have about 260HP which sounds really good, and last but not least, Europe will get a Lancer hatchback and I wonder if our market will get it or as always be left behind.
Just found another article about Evolution X tha I don't think was posted yet: http://www.egmcartech.com/2007/06/20...subishi-evo-x/ and full article can be found at: http://www.autoexpress.co.uk/news/au...bishi_evo.html
Looks like the new transmission for the Evo X will be something. Also for those currency challanged, don't look at the prices in british pounds and just convert them to US dollars, cars in Europe are always a lot more expensive than in US due to high as f... taxes. And they are also saying that the Ralliart model will have about 260HP which sounds really good, and last but not least, Europe will get a Lancer hatchback and I wonder if our market will get it or as always be left behind.
Last edited by blitzkrieg79; Jun 20, 2007 at 06:27 AM.
Evolving Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 230
Likes: 0
From: 805
Agh. I forgot to post when I read this one article about the Evo X... It was this month's edition, and it was saying that the car was 300 lbs less than the IX...
Can anyone back this up? So if it were to be 300 lbs LESS, and MORE HP, that means it will be faster than 13 sec range (stock) like we've all been thinking.
Can anyone back this up? So if it were to be 300 lbs LESS, and MORE HP, that means it will be faster than 13 sec range (stock) like we've all been thinking.
Evolving Member
Joined: Apr 2007
Posts: 400
Likes: 0
From: OH
Agh. I forgot to post when I read this one article about the Evo X... It was this month's edition, and it was saying that the car was 300 lbs less than the IX...
Can anyone back this up? So if it were to be 300 lbs LESS, and MORE HP, that means it will be faster than 13 sec range (stock) like we've all been thinking.
Can anyone back this up? So if it were to be 300 lbs LESS, and MORE HP, that means it will be faster than 13 sec range (stock) like we've all been thinking.
Can't be. The heaviest IX is the MR at 3285. So 300 less would be 2985. Problem is, the lightest '08 lancer is the DE at 2999. I find it hard to believe that Mitsu can shave more weight than they add for the X.
My money's on 3350 for the X
