lol

 

OK, let's summarize the Nov. R/T points:

Sam Mitani traveled to Hokkaido to test the new X out in person. Here are quotes from the story:

"...the new Evo is about 300 lb. heavier than the outgoing model..."

"It reached 60 mph in 5.2 seconds and dashed through the quarter in 13.8 sec." (R/T pg. 155, same issue has an 06 RS tested at 4.4 and 13.0 seconds, respectively)

" the new evo registered... .96G around the skidpad, and ran through the slalom at a brisk 67.2 mph, a step slower than the Evo IX, partially due to a slower steering ratio." (Comment: the skidpad is better than the IX, but I suspect the slalom difference had more to do with the extra weight and overall lack of "tautness" in the suspension.)

""The Evo X is a nicer car, but the IX is edgier and quicker.""

"The IX clocked in at 1 minute 55.20 sec." "The (X) crossed the line in 1:54:18." (1.02 sec)

So, there you have it. Active handling technology (also explained in the article) and better rubber yielded a slower feeling car that was 1.02 sec faster on a two-minute road course. I can make a 1 second difference at VIR if I sneeze going down the back straight.

Bottom line: totally different car, lost much of its character. Some may like the new car better. But I think they're straining at a gnat with the one second track thing. Both articles are warning that the EVO faithful may not like this car, and this one doesn't. I will, to be fair, test drive one as soon as possible. But it doesn't look like it's going to be the replacement for my IX someday.

 

good, someone that understands finally.
I'm not going to argue the point anymore. the old model FEELS edgier but is slower around a track due to a less advanced awd system. the evo HAS kept with the tradition of what makes the car what it is, it's just gone upmarket to compete with audi and bmw in terms of luxury and refinement, but will still outhandle an m3 anyday of the week, and even an evo 9. the old car being edgier is a mute point, because the new car is superior. now i'm not saying that the old model isn't still badass, it is, but it's also an econo box thats f***ing ugly and commands no respect from anyone who isn't in their twenties. at least the new model can be looked at and respected by bmw and audi drivers, because the car handles better than ever and actually looks good and has respectable levels of refinement. for most people, a car that has scorching performance but looks like a 16 yr olds wet dream from the fast and the furious isn't appealing or respectable. however, a car that delivers better than ever performance and is styled appropriately for a more mature crowd is something to be envied. if you didn't own an evo 9, you'd agree with me. but, rest assured, you'll be eating your words after the car hits the streets and companies start modifying it. then you'll end up with a car that is not only better looking and handles better, but is also faster. then your precious evo 9 will have nothing to brag about. now again, i'm not saying that the 9 is not still an amazing car, but it looks like a 16 yr old spic's car. I have an sti, so i'm in the same boat, but as i've gotten older, i want the performance but can't cope with the styling, or lack thereof, anymore. don't worry, you'll get there too someday.

 

well, the car and driver and edmunds inside line said it was 2 seconds faster. you cant really pick one article and hold that as the absolute truth

 

Thanks, you are correct about the tire size. Still, I think the profile difference alone is enough to account for most of that second. Tires make a huge difference on a road course. Agree, the weight gain would even things out, but then the X is supposed to have more power under the curve.

Anyway, all this is just bench racing until we can get our hands on a car.

 

I agree on tires making a big difference. I think you would need to change tire type though to see a second difference rather than just a 10mm width increase. I think we will have to agree to disagree on that point.

The extra power under the curve is going to be nice for driving around on the street. For on a track I don't think it's going to make as big of a difference though because you will be spending most of your time in the 5500-7000rpm range depending on gearing.

But you are right, this is all just bench racing.

 

Here is something funny. I got the road and track issue that reviewed the X because of the review.

After reading on here about people saying no 4g63 = no evo, wingless evo's aren't evo's, stock evo's aren't evo's, softer looks = not an evo, and any other imaginable modification to a current evo or change in the new evo that makes it no longer an evo anymore. I just think to myself eh, it's change, it's still an evo. None of those things make an evo an evo. I was cool with all these changes, the new motor, the SST trans, the extra weight, softer looks, more traditional instrument cluster. I was cool with all of that. But when I read the comment about the X having a slower steering ratio than the IX I kinda went 'awwwwww that's very un-evo like'.

 

you took things out of context in that article and manipulated it to make your point. the actual comment by the author was that the evo x is the nicer car, but that the 9 is edgier and quicker. mr evo then responds by saying, it only feels quicker, but that the x is faster, he's sure of it. after the r&d driver drove the car, he said that the new car feels much more stable in the turns and that it IS, LET ME SAY AGAIN, IS...THE SUPERIOR CAR. don't take things out of context and leave out important details to make your point sound more credible. that's stupid. also, the suspension is the exact same as before with improved geometry. the reason that the slalom speed is slower is due to the steering ratio being slightly slower. that's also stated in the article that you so conveniently left out. so stop trying to make the new car sound soft. it's not. now again, I like the current model, I have an sti and a friend of mine has an 06 evo 9 mr. I understand you wanting to feel like your car is better because you want to feel good about the fact that your current, and ugly, no offense, car is edgier. but that doesn't make it a better car. sorry. look at the big picture. the new model does so much more.

 

dang, straight owned

 

Dood, read the whole article and quote what you want to. Everything I quoted was in the article. If you like the X, buy it. I don't, and won't. At least not until it shows itself to be a better car. You have to realize magazines are not in the business of talking down the latest model cars - they're in the business to sell advertising. Road and Track and Car and Driver both practically came out and said Evo owners were going to hate the X, then threw in the mumbo-jumbo about the 1 second miraculous track time (but it felt slow!) and the more BMW-like solidity and weight to sway the faithful. (Doc, I'm missing the feeling of my old car! But, you're going one second faster!!) But, the faithful ain't swayed. Most of the X cheerleaders on this thread don't even own and kind of EVO at all, pretty funny actually.

You want to accuse me of taking things out of context, that's horse****. I quoted exact, pertinent phrases to the points under discussion. If we want to talk handling nannies, body stiffness, etc., then let's go to the M3 forum, where we'll also find cars that are slower straight line than a IX. It's clear you don't want to argue these points straight up though; the fact is Mitsy appears to have kind of laid an egg with this thing, and they will learn that when they see the market for scaled-down slow-boat M3s with AWD with a Mit logo is pretty limited. What made the EVO great has been, by and large, taken out of the mix. Cry, scream, beg, plead, and pretend - it ain't gonna change that, and the marketplace is not going to reward this move, in my estimation. Especially when most of the dealers are going to be hawking base models at 35K and MRs at 40 plus. Mitsy has lost site of their target market.

But we'll have to wait and see, won't we?


And, ps, I happen to think the IX MR looks a lot better than the X. And I wouldn't give up its turn-in and crisp handling for a second on a two-minute lap, lol!

 

So it's all a mute point, since the new SRT-4 will have a 2.4 version of the same motor with more horsepower and probably less weight. Kind of intersting to see what happens there.

The problem is that the X looks a little retarded and will still never be taken seriously by ant BMW or Audi fanboys. It will lose it's hardcore fanbase if it indeed turns out to be soft. It's trying too hard to be a muscle car, like they want to compete with the mustang/new camaro but those buyers will never like an import no matter how good it is... I might get one as a grocery getter or something.

 

I disagree... I think the trapezoidal shape of the evo's grill creates a much greater feeling of power versus the upside-down trapezoid of the S4. It's basically an architectural/design philosophy that has been implemented since 3200 BC by Egyptians to create the exact same feeling with buildings. If you put the S4 and EVOX side-by-side, the S4 looks like a beat pu$$y in comparison.

 

^Lol

 

the srt 4 will never have a stronger motor with more power than the evo. the global 4 alliance between daimler, chrysler, mitsu, and hyundai will not allow it. there are agreements between all the manufacturers, and you will not see a 20,000 pos like a neon have more power than the evo at 40,000. it wouldn't make good business sense and I assure you that it won't happen. and as far as the style of the new evo x, who wouldn't like it? it truly is a vast improvement in styling over the current car. to quote road and track, yet again, the author states that the current model, although a great performer, is not a looker. the overall profile is awkward, and looks more like an aarp rental car from the econo class than a sport sedan. now, to be perfectly clear, i'm not badmouthing the current lancer. I'm a huge fan of it really. it has amazing performance, and really is a blast to drive. I personally own an sti, and the two are very closely matched, with the evo being a slightly better performer in all categories. no denying it. but, the sti has a much more attractive roof line and is an overall better looking car, which isn't saying much. both of these cars have always had that "boy racer" look and although I have loved my car for a long time, I have gotten older and want something more mature. the new evo x has been designed to still deliver world class performance, but looks more acceptable for a person in their early 30s. as you get older, you will start to see my point.

 

this whole tire size argument is complete BS. the 2 cars don't even have the same tires! what exactly are you guys comparing? i can run 245s and go super SLOW because they happen to be snow tires.

with differences in compound, tread, probably air pressures, etc. this argument is utterly stupid.

on the flip side, if you think running 245 A046s will net 2 secs on a course...you're crazy...