the srt-4's not out yet, and i think you'd have a hard time confusing it with anything SVT, since that's ford the new neons have a different front however. (since this thread is already way off track)

-bd

 

track??? oh yeah......uhhhhhhh race (rice is different)

 

Everytime I read a review of the Lancer, the article usually takes the first few paragraphs to explain that this car is not an Evolution, and thus "not the real thing." That to me is a cop out because I think a true journalist should be objective and evaluate the car for what it truly is, instead of picking on it for what it isn't. The Lancer is a solidly built, safe (great crash rating), and economical and comfortable car. Kiplinger's voted it best car under 16K, beating out its Honda, Toyota and all other small car competitors. Now, the question at hand is rally or rice. To me, using the Edmunds.com review to answer this question is pointless, since they didn't say "Rally or rice, six cars under 20K", they said, "Econosport sedans, six cars under 20K" which the Lancer beat the Neon - if anything RMR's succes at Rallying a modified Lancer is better proof of answering the question "Rally or rice." So it wears an OZ Rally badge, how many cars wear a "GT" badge and aren't any where close to being Grand Tourers?
I laugh when I see stuff like this, cause the same people who slam the new body Eclipse for not being a sports car, but laud the RSX and the Celica (in Type-S and GTS forms of course) say how much better they are, but the sales figures prove that all out performance isn't what mainstream America wants, as the Eclipse outsells both. That's why we have the aftermarket for the rest of us, and I think the Lancer will benefit from its numbers and gain much higher potential from this market.

 

That's what it was in response to, Butt Dyno.

 

cool, just checking. i just cringe when someone calls the wheels on the o-z rally "rally wheels", and i think i'm justified in that cringe

-bd

 

well, since this thread's officially hijacked...

edmunds did evaluate it for what it was... thus the ratings at the end of the comparison.

i'd like to see this, just out of curiosity (not saying it doesn't exist, just that i haven't read it.. got a url?)

yeah well, those cars are misbadged too, does that make it any more of a good idea? and as far as sales figures go, the 2nd gen dsm's still had a very, very solid aftermarket, even though most of the eclipses and talons sold were non-turbo non-awd. yes, most people don't care what's under the hoods - that's why most of the mustangs sold are v6 automatics. i don't get the point? if you want a 17K car with a huge aftermarket, there are plenty... if you're trying to be "different" you will have a harder time finding parts...

-bd

 

I think most of us do.

I doubt the SRT-4's will be selling within even a couple thousand of an OZ.

 

That's the ES btw. I was given 2 copies of a packet with that comparison in it when I was at the dealership. Unfortunately I can't find drivers for my antiquated scanner. If anyone really wants it that badly I'll mail it to him/her.

 

yeah, MSRP 20K i think. allegedly only 5000 built, so probably some dealer bend-over gouging too. but the 3-4K difference buys you a lot of speed. not to mention you can get factory, *warrantied* upgrades, rumored to be in 25 HP increments...

(but no awd, so no thanks)

-bd

 

It's the limited numbers that I think will make it cost so much more. Personally I think it's a cool as hell car aside from the air dam (which could be fixed). Don't hate FWD. Just cuz we can't drift doesn't mean we ain't fast. Once we grip we're gone. Uh...the fast ones are anyway.

 

i don't hate it - but i could either spend 20k for a fwd, no LSD car, or spend the extra 4/5K and get a wrx, or spend an extra-extra 5K and (hopefully) have a shot at an evo or a wrx sti. soo.. that's the plan. but yeah, it'll be neat...

-bd

 

No. AAMOF, Edmunds _chose_ to evaluate it as an econosport. I've never seen Mitsubishi advertise it as such, nor claim it was. I think if you're going to use an Edmunds review to criticize it, then perhaps one of the other two might be more fitting.
Here's one that nicely refutes your crash rating claim.
I believe this one is the one you're asking about, though. BTW, congrats on trying to bring one of Sjöberg's law to fruition.

 

The consumer reports for 2002 rated the Lancer very good on crash testing too....Unibody construction contributing to that no doubt

 

Just for the record, I made the comment about the bad crash test rating. I remeber hearing about it on the news, I think there was a thread too...
Anywho, an 2.5 RS is a better car than the Lancer OZ, the 2-3k cost diffrence is damn well worth it.
Edmunds didnt bash the Lancer for not being an EVO, they rated it farily against the compitition.
This entire thread is about the Lancer as an 'econosport'.

 

It wasn't a bad rating if I'm thinking about the same report. It was that low mph rear impacts are expensive to replace because the whole bumper has to be replaced. It's made to absorb energy though so that's pretty much expected (though some of the quotes they gave were up to $3,000 )

EDIT: Ain't much sporty about it cept its lines and tuning possibilities thanks to our backers. That's like saying a Civic is an econosport. It just h'ain't.