sure.. now what is the evolution "made for"? an expanding market, according to mitsu. there's enough argument that i don't need to say further except that this thread shouldn't have been merged.

if you're suggesting the evo has been designed only with speed in mind (and not driver feel, anything else related to being a consumer autombile etc).. the existence of the X and the direction it's taken disproves that (with all its amenities, features, even automatic transmission and a hybrid coming in the future)

 

I am really with Robevo on all of this.

That is kind of illogical. The Evo has gotten heavier, longer wheelbase, less raw since Evo II. They have gained power and integrated technology that has prevented them from getting slower. But it sounds like what you want is the opposite of "evolution", and want to go back in time.

I am sure people that really valued their VI for what it was hated the CT9A chassis, and maybe still do. There is mandated safety stuff, I'm sure you know this. There is no way Mitsu could build a sub 3000 pound AWD car in this day and age.

[quote]

look at what the past few pages of owners who have converted to X's have said.. you can't call them children for enjoying the old brutality of the ct9a cars. /[quote]

There are things I like much better about the IX, and other things better about the X.

I can see a IX or a even a VI, but no way a VII or VIII! Pre-Mivec and no area under the curve in a 3300 pound car? Not me. And a US spec VIII, like an 03? Man, I'd never go back to that P0300 code throwing, non Mivec, viscous diff mobile!

[quote]And, so do many people who have switched from a X, apparently/QUOTE]

That number is few. Lots more have gone forward and are happy than not. The ones that hate the X would never have considered it in the first place.

 

I don't see anything wrong with the expansion of the model range. The "features and amenities" aren't mandated (like so many other cars) and you're able to order an optionless GSR that has fewer "features and amenities" than a 2003 VIII.

But you can also order an MR Touring with a sequential manual, rain sensing wipers, leather, heated seats, and a sunroof that would make a great daily driver for just about anyone from a comfort perspective.

I don't see how anyone can be upset by having a broad model range that can appeal to different demographics within one niche car.

 

[QUOTE=Noize;7772909]I am really with Robevo on all of this.



That is kind of illogical. The Evo has gotten heavier, longer wheelbase, less raw since Evo II. They have gained power and integrated technology that has prevented them from getting slower. But it sounds like what you want is the opposite of "evolution", and want to go back in time.

I am sure people that really valued their VI for what it was hated the CT9A chassis, and maybe still do. There is mandated safety stuff, I'm sure you know this. There is no way Mitsu could build a sub 3000 pound AWD car in this day and age.

[quote]

look at what the past few pages of owners who have converted to X's have said.. you can't call them children for enjoying the old brutality of the ct9a cars. /[quote]

There are things I like much better about the IX, and other things better about the X.



I can see a IX or a even a VI, but no way a VII or VIII! Pre-Mivec and no area under the curve in a 3300 pound car? Not me. And a US spec VIII, like an 03? Man, I'd never go back to that P0300 code throwing, non Mivec, viscous diff mobile!

good point about the 7's and 8's.
however, a matter of evolution depends on what people are looking for in their cars..

when most people say the evo X has "evolved" they are referring to its features and amenities, and overall updates as a newer car, without losing any of the performance.. it has become a broader market car.

when i referred to "evolution" and mentioned the six, i was referring to the car becoming more focused and single purposed.

anyway.. as the original thread before merging was about the OP keeping a 4600 mi evo IX MR SE or getting a new Evo X.. both of the cars would be a garage queen anyway.. I don't see a point getting an Evo X when new cars of this chassis will be continually produced, while the IX is finished.. Not only that, he has the rarest of the IXs with an incredibly low amount of mileage.. shrug

 

i don't think anyone is upset about that.. it's just a matter of preference, and some people are expressing their preference of the old car and it's driving character, which DOES matter, despite what the evo was "made for"

 

I don't see the driving character as vastly changed. It's still easy to drive fast, especially near the limit, still has the peaky powerband and quirky, short gearing, still has great brakes, still has a subpar interior, still can embarrass much more expensive cars at your average track day.

People that want to nitpick things like steering rack rates or feel are either missing the point or are simply not using the car to its available abilities.

 

the Evolution made for rally and race. Period.
But when they started to sell them to being homologated, turned out to be a good business too.
Now from that point they did separate line up. Like different RS and so.

As the year passed the regulations and requirements are more strict .
So to be a road legal /to sell the car/ they need to pass those requirements and so.
There for the car weight grows.

Today to sell a car is requires many comfy features. Like 90% of this community complaining... Weird doesn't it?
Im talking about Cruise control , radio etc.

Hybrid rallycar is already running in rally so there is nothing new in there, or going away from racing. So as diesel cars.
The transmission what the evo have is a just as race as the OEM manual.

The homologation for the EVo is been done before they where selling it in the market. Its a fact.
So the main concern were to being able to run in the rally and then whos going to buy it on the market.
Expending the market is every car manufacturer mind... its called business.

Nothing wrong with that. The main reason is still a same . The evo made for race, and nothing else.
The car you buy and others are the toned down version for the race cars. Be happy with that. And that is same in the Evo X. Just look the X RS and simular versions.

Rob

 

I agree with this 10x over. There is no way I would give up a 4600 mile clean IX MR SE for an X. Shoot, I wish I had that car!

 

OP put it up for sale in another thread!

https://www.evolutionm.net/forums/sa...-mr-se-tb.html

 

yes its a same here. If you do 4600 mils in 3 + years , then is no reason for the trade

 

The price is not bad for what it is, but it is substantially out of what a bank would loan on the car. That one will go to someone that really wants it and doesn't mind a big cash down (or a collector). But without question, dude needs the right wheels for that to happen.

 

... Wheels & tail lights. There is no sense in having a collectors car if you're going to be putting aftermarket parts on it imo.

 

actually this is untrue, starting with the X - not that that really matters.
The big issue about people saying stuff about the "rawness" of the car and whatever and whatever is all about the character of the car they drive. This isn't something that owners should be surprised about.. It's been talked about since the beginning - it is not a BS argument at all.

If you wanna say that how the car feels doesnt matter and that it's all about speed, eventually the car will have a "perfect" 4wd system that will basically be a traction control where you can literally just floor it through every corner and the sawc will limit and increase the power in every wheel based on tires, steering angle, etc etc etc. Car won't come in anything but a dual clutch auto, etc.

That's not what people are looking for in their cars. It's absolutely ridiculous that you can even mock people's preference in how their car feels. You think a car should just drive itself if its computer can attain the fastest lap? A silly argument, since many people have already spoken their piece and expressed their preference. The new M3 (after the current one) will be an inline 6 twin turbo. I don't care how quick it is - I'll still be getting the N/A e92 M car.

A similar situation with the X - the motor is way better, chassis is fantastic, just a heavy car - advanced 4wd system... One that I've never enjoyed the feeling of cornering (from auto-x). the IX behaves more honestly.

Mitsubishi made a consumer car. Why does everyone say to drive the car before you buy it? to see how it FEELS. Not, 'oh just understand that the car is much better now'. Point is, it's not BS when people say the car is more "raw" - they're looking at the character of the car.

 

I disagree about the raw argument...

Neither of us have been in an f1 car (I assume you haven't), but lets use them as an example. Compare an f1 car from 1990 to today's f1 car.





Arguably the 1990 car was much much more raw. Sound, handling, acceleration, etc. This is important to note to modern cars, because the new cars can push the limits much more. They run more consistent laps in a group, they push speed further than two decades ago.

The point is pushing the bar. I feel much more safe in my X at 150mph than I did with my VIII. I feel I can take any corner much quicker, shift quicker, and get out of sticky situations easier. That means I can push the car harder than the previous VIII I had. BTW I had an upgraded rear diff and LSD front diff in my VIII. It wasn't a slouch of a car. The two just didn't compare when it came down to consistent laps and overall time. I loved my VIII, I almost wish I kept it so I could have made it a pure time attack car. But in the end my X smokes it with less mods. Was the VIII more "raw"? Yah, but it didn't help me at my local track.

There are some people that prefer to drive 1955 chevys to todays car. Those cars are the definition of "raw", but in general they handled horribly and didn't have anywhere near the technology today's cars do. Sometimes you need to compare extremes to get a perspective. "Raw" is pretense and in the eye of the beholder.

 

You've referred to your CT9A before and made similar comparisons. I vividly recall your comments addressed to your truly, presented as if you had a car similar to mine. Imagine my surprise when I saw your account of buying a used VIII that was beat to a pulp and jumping through hoops to make it work. As such, I can't help wondering how your opinion would sit if you had a CT9A that wasn't screwed-up by its previous owner(s). Please don't misunderstand my point. All Evo aren't equal. Some of us drive pristine, well-sorted, reliable to a fault, lacking buzzes and rattles examples of the breed and others base their opinions on cars that were greatly compromised.