Lancer Evolution X News, Info, Pics, etc... | [ALL THREADS MERGED]
Evolved Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
From: tsukuba turn 4
also turbo FWD is ghey.
Evolved Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 846
Likes: 0
From: tsukuba turn 4
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.
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2007
Posts: 858
Likes: 0
From: Cybertron
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!
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!
The business of magazine reviews is a major part of advertising, that is true but it's also their part for the Consumer Reports as well. They too are customers.
So their job is to pick at the flaws on the car as well give it praise.
But the positives for this car outweighs the negatives. It just so happens to be just that. And it's the same review from one magazine to the next. It is the same complaint. The steering wheel ratio, whether or not the 4B11 can handle boost, the straight line dash.
What I am seeing overall, is that X is slower on a straight line.
Too me, that is what most of the Evo Fans really are b****ing about.
The looks is subjective and falls on strictly opinons. I really can't understand the 20 page post debate on that, that is ridiculous.
The engineering has made this car more for a broader target of people. Simply that the people who drive this car; the Enthusiasts, which is a VERY SMALL margin of their target sales. And that is not enough to keep
here in the good ole 
My worries (in which I agree with you) is that the car has already hit the 35k-40k price range and that their creature comforts are not.....well....comfortable. You are now leaking over to the BMW's, Audi class. And those cars have a much better interior and their looks are somewhat tasteful for the same price and you can def get one with more HP.
And I am quite surprised that you, as an EVO owner will talk down about the handling of the EVO in where that is where one of keypoints that all EVO's shine on.
That is one of the many reasons why the EVO was capable of beating S-Class and U-Class cars.
Handling is half of a how a car operates, and the other is the power. You can't have one without the other and expect to have a true performance car.
So that I find funny. Its a contradiction on performance car owners.
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.
Rumor is the new SRT-4 will be 300+ hp, don't know for sure that is what is being said. They pledge it will be fastest in class- that means more hp than the Mazda speed 3 I would think at least.
Correction, I just read an update about the SRT-4, 285hp, just a tiny bit shy of the Evo X, but it will be lighter at 2966lbs... Stock Evo's watch out!
Last edited by Dinothegreat; Oct 16, 2007 at 02:10 PM.
They also said the SRT-4 caliber has lost some of its edge that the SRT-4 neon had on the track.
And it will not pwn the evo x in anyways, maybe for top end speed when both cars are modded.
Last edited by jackygor; Oct 16, 2007 at 02:27 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,259
Likes: 0
From: ATLANTA
My worries (in which I agree with you) is that the car has already hit the 35k-40k price range and that their creature comforts are not.....well....comfortable. You are now leaking over to the BMW's, Audi class. And those cars have a much better interior and their looks are somewhat tasteful for the same price and you can def get one with more HP.
Evolved Member
Joined: May 2005
Posts: 1,259
Likes: 0
From: ATLANTA
And that is th problem withm the whole lancer brand image it is percieved as major POS hence whiy peopel are chosing hyundai adn KIA over mitsubishi these days... I remember when the lame 2000 model eclipse came out with lame looks and a lame engine I knew it was the end of mitsubishi's brand image....
Evolving Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
From: the bay, Cali
That's not what the Dodge spec sheet says... but they are most likely lying.
http://www.drivesrt.com/en/dodge_cal...alibersrt4.pdf
http://www.drivesrt.com/en/dodge_cal...alibersrt4.pdf
Evolving Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
From: the bay, Cali
That's not what the Dodge spec sheet says... but they are most likely lying.
http://www.drivesrt.com/en/dodge_cal...alibersrt4.pdf
http://www.drivesrt.com/en/dodge_cal...alibersrt4.pdf
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...ict-page5.html
"Regular readers will recall that the Neon-based SRT4 we tested in April 2004 posted better numbers: 5.3 seconds to 60, the quarter in 13.9 at 103. You’ll also recall that a Mazdaspeed 3 [“Power Toys,” May 2007] ran to 60 mph in 5.4 and through the quarter in 14 flat at 101. We should note here that at 3233 pounds the Caliber is 249 pounds heavier than that Neon-based SRT4 and 48 pounds heavier than the Mazdaspeed. Mass is never a plus for acceleration, nor does it help braking. The SRT4’s brakes don’t fade, but 175-foot stops from 70 mph can’t be called impressive."
Evolved Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,849
Likes: 1
From: USA
That is correct. It actually says 3200, but it is definitely not 2900 like that idiot said. Also, the author basically says that the car sucks, and torque steers worse than almost any car he has ever driven. Dodge builds a good car, but they know not to mess with the market that the evo and sti hold, which is exactly why they always make more entry level sport compacts for the teenagers and the viper for the high end market. A f***ing neon or caliber will never touch an sti or an evo. Period.
Evolved Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,849
Likes: 1
From: USA
so a car that looks better (by most people NOT on this forum), is more luxurious, faster around a track, more powerful, handles better is NOT a better car? ok...
yeah...that target market that didn't buy enough hardcore evos and basically forced mitsu to go upmarket... yeah that market is great...all those elises and atoms i see on the street... real money maker that market is... maybe i should buy stock in those companies.... toyota...eh, boring cars... useless to buy stock in that crappy company...
yeah...that target market that didn't buy enough hardcore evos and basically forced mitsu to go upmarket... yeah that market is great...all those elises and atoms i see on the street... real money maker that market is... maybe i should buy stock in those companies.... toyota...eh, boring cars... useless to buy stock in that crappy company...
hmmm....here is what i read (not calling u a liar, just providing my source)
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...ict-page5.html
"Regular readers will recall that the Neon-based SRT4 we tested in April 2004 posted better numbers: 5.3 seconds to 60, the quarter in 13.9 at 103. You’ll also recall that a Mazdaspeed 3 [“Power Toys,” May 2007] ran to 60 mph in 5.4 and through the quarter in 14 flat at 101. We should note here that at 3233 pounds the Caliber is 249 pounds heavier than that Neon-based SRT4 and 48 pounds heavier than the Mazdaspeed. Mass is never a plus for acceleration, nor does it help braking. The SRT4’s brakes don’t fade, but 175-foot stops from 70 mph can’t be called impressive."
http://www.caranddriver.com/roadtest...ict-page5.html
"Regular readers will recall that the Neon-based SRT4 we tested in April 2004 posted better numbers: 5.3 seconds to 60, the quarter in 13.9 at 103. You’ll also recall that a Mazdaspeed 3 [“Power Toys,” May 2007] ran to 60 mph in 5.4 and through the quarter in 14 flat at 101. We should note here that at 3233 pounds the Caliber is 249 pounds heavier than that Neon-based SRT4 and 48 pounds heavier than the Mazdaspeed. Mass is never a plus for acceleration, nor does it help braking. The SRT4’s brakes don’t fade, but 175-foot stops from 70 mph can’t be called impressive."