OMG, why is this thread still going on? The 8 is the 8, the 9 is the 9, and the 10 is the 10. Shut up already.

 

I want to trade or sell my Evo ix ($16000 cash) for a evo x, .....

 

Best decision I ever made.

 

Ty! Lol. They all have their own pro's and con's.

 

Evo X looks too much like the other non evo's, can't stand the the front of it especially looking from the side.

 

It's funny that you mention that because I think the 8's, 9's, & 10's look pretty similar from the angle your describing. You just sound foolish to me, all that counts is that I have an evo and I love it to death.

 

I would like to pose a question actually; not picking a fight, but I was looking through some old bookmarks I had and this was one of them

http://www.autoblog.com/2007/12/05/e...uba-lap-times/

And the question is: The Evo X is praised here in the states for its solid chassis and sayc/sawc, giving it it's handling advantage.. but where is this advantage cropping up in these times? First, compared to the STIs, not known for being the fastest here in the states. Of course these are the JDM STIs, which are faster than the USDM STIs for sure (I believe). Of more relevance are the times of the prior Evos.. Now before you say these older evos have ayc, a test of the Evo IX RS (no ayc, mechanical rear diff) on Tsukuba turned out a time 1.05.528... im just saying.. where's the advantage? feel of the rear end coming out? slip angle?

 

Without any data logging or other relevant track data, you're asking a question that can only be answered with conjecture.

 

The JDM IX RS has more difference then only that...
Different turbo. different ECU map, if i'm right even different valve size etc. not to mention the different weight. Also the IX RS is comes with Lancer LS interior, no brembos , and 15 inch lancer wheels with the proper lance LS tires....
Also they are limited to 110 mph...

So when you see them racing on the Tsukuba , then you no they ECU is re writed- breaks changed , so as tires etc. In short they are not the untouched original cars.

Or we talking about the IX MR RS, which even have different valve sizes in the engine etc....Can you imagine if they even would have the AYC?
The reason they do not have it , because the RS made for race purpose only. So a racer who has a self respect will immediately change
-breaks-tires- ecu map- also because they will pump up the engine power etc. they are upgrading the OEM AYC or put a mechanical in them. Not because they are useless...

the Evo X is a first EVo is basically a same all around the world. The main weight difference comes basically from Japan or EU , those countries have basically empty trunk, with no spare tires and tools, and so... Also they have different tune also.
/less power full/
So now they actually running the closest version to the US version without crazy crash beams and almost empty trunks. And different Ecu tune.

 

I apologize, yes I believe it was the IX MR RS. These are the test results of production cars, stock. Anyway, my point wasn't about the IXs.. It was about all of the X's aforementioned advantages coming into play, I would expect it to overtake the current gen STI by at least a second, even the JDM one. Well, given that the current STI, stock, is about one second slower than the USDM X I guess it makes sense? I dunno seriously from all the X about the X's sawc and sayc and chassis I get the impression it would dominate all cars in the range. Some other cars running similar times include 370z (1.06.669), the 2.5L STI (1.06.557), etc.. Times are just not THAT different given the X's goodies, yet people talk like it's the end all here

 

Track times alone tell next to no story about how a car handles a track. I'm not sure how you could possibly draw any conclusions by this data.

 

i think the S-AWC is a great display for the technology in the X, to success fully over come, on the disadvantage it gets from the weight - power - shape - size etc.

In the bigger picture , i think it makes it even more valuable. The fact an average Joe can drive the car competitive , let say vs. the 370Z.
Which is a big deal if you think about it.

The S-AWC benefits will be even more vivid when you actually start shaving weight and gain WHP.

The S-AWC will not drive the car for you , but certainly will help. The true driver car is in my definition:
when you dont have to fight with the car, you can smoothly work with it.

 

I take it you haven't looked through this entire thread. A) there have been plenty of Evo X vs STi tests. This is the first one where the STi beat the Evo X on the track. So that's a head scratcher to me. B) This isn't an Evo X vs STi thread. C) I'll point it out again that you're ******* the X? What's up man? Do you have a bone to pick with the X? Are you just trying to be controversial? Or are you actually trying to do genuine research?

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=126453 -- Beats STi
http://www.spike.com/video/top-gear-evo-x-vs/3077798 -- Top Gear hates on STi vs Evo X
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BZPB4aSyq40 -- 5th Gear hates on MR transmission for ebraking, but praises X on a track vs the STi

Your article has no explanation, no driver profiles, and no specifics on the cars.

 

don't be so defensive. this is not a shootout - i'm comparing the times here. the sti, known for being an understeering so and so on the track, manages to average times very close to the Evo X (in all tests), despite its superior chassis, sayc/sawc, grippier tires? Interesting

 

I'm not talking about how the car handles on the track. I'm asking where it's advantages are cropping up and adding to it's times.