I don't compare my X to when I first got my VIII. My VIII didn't have too many issues. Yes the transfer case needed to be rebuilt (hence the upgraded diffs) and the transmission needed a 5th gear (wasn't out yet but was going to be) and I had a bad a-arm bushing. That was the only major issues I had to "jump through hoops" for. And many many evo owners go through that. In the end I had a very nice VIII. I put a lot of money into the car and it was immaculate when I was done with it. The engine was great, I pulled great numbers on the dyno. And the best part? I learned that car inside and out. I know that car from a mechanical standpoint better than a lot of people.

The biggest things thing bothered me when I got my VIII when I first got it? The Turbo XS exhaust (POS), and the transfer case having a bad ring gear. I wouldn't necessarily call that jumping through hoops. That has nothing to do with how it was in the end.

Edit: Also you shouldn't assume that is the only CT9A I've driven.

 

That's all fine and dandy, but my point still stands. Yes, many owners of used Evos, who bought cars that were beat to shreds went though a similar ordeal. So what? Let's just say that it's foolish to take any comment on a public forum at its face value, considering what may lie beneath.

 

I think when I say "raw" I mean that the car is more direct and honest, less ambiguous in the driving of the car. I personally am not meaning anything along the lines of less stable, less drivable. When you are referring to the difference in the X, I think you are referring to how planted the car feels. Again feeling is a factor here, in any case, right?

Picture this case - If the STI were unquestionably faster than the Evo (which, it only lags behind the Evo less than a second on any given track, and opposite in Japan) would most of us here have bought the STI over the Evo? I don't think so - I wouldn't anyway. The Evo is way more neutral in behavior, steers better, overall the car feels better to drive hard, compared to the STI.

My main point is that feeling and driving character DO play a role, despite how people are saying it doesn't matter as long as the car is fast..

 

I understand your point about internet comments... but again, I'm not comparing my evo to when I first got it to my X. I'm comparing the car I sold two weeks before I got my X. A very clean, developed car. The VIII with handling upgrades and decent bolt-ons. I don't think what you have pointed out about how I received my car has anything to do with the comparison.

 

I think my comments were clear.

 

Yah I am referring to that. But I don't think it's a feeling that changes from person to person. It is what it is. Perhaps someone prefers a feeling of the old chassis because it doesn't have the "planted feeling" the X does. But some people prefer to drive rwd cars because that is what they are used to. They may prefer them because it takes more driver input. But in the end the advanced AWD cars are "usually" better handling and are able to have the bar pushed a bit more. Again I'm talking from a consumer level here.

For me personally it boils down to a lot more than just handing between the cars. Image, engine type, quality, handling all play a role in this comparison. But in all fairness I haven't driven an STi in spirit. So I can't compare the two fairly.

You're right, but this goes back to what I said about people preferring rwd cars over awd ones. I think the s2000 is a great car, though I haven't seen one keep up with an Evo on a track yet. This boils down to it taking a great driver to do so and the car's handling. But yet some people prefer this car because it takes so much more driver input when racing. But that doesn't mean it's the better car in handling does it?

 

I still don't see what your comments have to do with the argument at hand. But no sense in going on with this grudge you have from previous differences.

My VIII was great in the end, and that is all that matters. To my knowledge all rattles were gone, I upgraded the interior to IX interior, had a great handling VIII, and I learned a lot out of it. I miss that car, but the handling between the two cars doesn't compare. No matter if it was new or old handling is handling if it's been gone through. Again I wish I still had that car, but I'll take a X's handling over the VIII (even upgraded) any day. Sorry if I offended you in a previous post(s).

 

... lets just private message... because I have no idea what your point is here.

 

I think this is a great example of how people differ. I had a WRX, and have driven STIs a lot. I didn't pass on Subarus based of the feel and driving character at all. I passed on them based on the fact I thought they were compromised mechanically in comparison to Evos. I don't like the cost of upgradability, I don't like the technology used.

 

Topic back on track...

kyooch, you seem to admire the VIII and IX handling quite a bit. If the X had that handling and the weight was the same, how would that affect your view then? Is it just the handling that bothers you or is it everything in general about the X?

 

what is untrue?
The X is a characteristic car , big time. And has unique handling and so on. If you say the EVo is not characteristic that is... Maybe you dont like it, but you said that a million times and some reason you always come back with a same argument. Which means the car has a character you dont like

Not me who crying about how the car feels... ohh doesn't feel raw and so on... LOL. I'm fine with it, just as many people or race driver....

"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."

im lost here what are you trying to tell me?

"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. "

Probably you never drove the IX or any evo with SAYC. So form there i cant tell you a difference between a real IX and the X .
If you turn off the S-AWC the X is just as obvious the any other EVo with S-AYC .
Its not obvious for you, because you dont get used to the AYC. As soon as you understand it .It is obvious alright

this is absolute just mocking.
"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."

Why?
Mitsubishi made a consumer car... yes called it Lancer, then they made a special editon Ralliart, then they made a race version called Evolution.
Yes drove the car how you feel it... i never thought of that.
Only reason why these arguments are BS. because its not for a good sake/// Its just nothing but bashing a car. the only reason next to the weight of the car , an average guy can bring up. Like they are nothing but raw car drivers.... And then an other post they complaining about stiff suspension - rattling cockpit - notchy transmission and i can go on.

It is a bad mouth argument from day one. And i have not see one person out all of them in personally who really drive raw. What ever it means to you
these type of raw argument reminds me the which car color you like...


ROb

 

Nothing bothers me about the X - I think it's a great car, great handling etc. I am kind of iffy on the sayc, but it doesn't really bother me cuz I don't own one.

If the handling/driving and weight of the X were the same as the IX, yet still retained its safety and all its features, I think it would be hands down a better car. I would liken it to a 370z compared to the old 350. The olny thing I would like for it to have would be that direct driving "feel" of the IX. I don't know how to describe it except to say that the X feels slightly subdued, almost slightly muted.

I was never a big fan of the looks but that's completely subjective. But yea, overall the X is fantastic. I guess my only "wish" would have been 1, less weight, and 2, the driving feel of the car would have been more like the older gens.

 

No one's crying about anything Rob. The untrue part was your statement that it's a car made strictly for race/rally. Mitsu pulled out of the WRC, the X is a consumer car that consumers may or may not use to pursue their motorsport interests. The X is not a race car - it can be made into one, but it isn't one.

I can't quite understand what you're saying after that.

:: im not sure what you're saying about taking away sawc etc etc.. If you're saying the X without SAWC is just like an old Evo IX, both cars with SAYC - I never preferred SAYC. A mechanical diff is a lot more consistent, reliable, etc. An additional upshot is that the system is lighter. s-awc is just a system that manages a bunch of the evo's 4wd components, so I don't see how it could be "turned off". It manages all of the parts to work in conjunction with each other.. It uses the same sensors the ACD does - braking, steering angle, throttle, etc. The ACD system uses the info to determine the lock, and the s-awc uses the data to further manage the other programs.. The past awc systems have been a management of the ayc and acd functions anyway, something we never had. Will that management function be better compared to a car with ACD and a rear mechanical lsd that functions independently? Sure, maybe like 5% better in exchange of the aforementioned disadvantages...

My only point was that driving feel matters. "raw" is just a stupid word that got attached to the older evos when comparing it to the x.

Yes, the argument of driving feel or the car being "raw" is like picking what color you want for you car (though it's a lot more important). Like we've been saying, it's a matter of preference.

If you read carefully - no one has been bashing the car... Some owners from the thread were expressing their preference of how the old car feels.. You said it doesn't matter, which I thought was ridiculous and I was pointing out that it does matter, that's all.

 

My only slight gripe with my X is weight. So i'm there with you. I wish it was a little lighter. I still don't get what you felt about the old car that had better driving feel? What about it (without using the word raw) was what you liked?

This is the best description comparing the two I have ever read. Jeremy Clarkson...

As far as the X not being a race car from the show room floor, I just don't know. A few interesting points come to mind.

Yes mitsubishi pulled out of WRC series, but that doesn't change anything. A lot of other manufacturers pulled out of the series as well. The series has been dying a slow death since the last 90s. I don't think it's valid to use that as a point of it being less of a race car. HOWEVER, I do believe changed direction with the X... namely I think their main concentration is Road Course now. It's more popular for end consumers, and much much cheaper than Rally. With minimal changes to the car you have a very nice race car. So I guess I don't see how it's any less of a race car. It's just not as much of a rally car any more. Though I will argue it makes a fantastic rally car. Tanner Foust did great with his X and JCP tore up the north american rally series in his X. Of course they were modified but what rally car isn't? Can you explain why it's less of a race car without quoting in saying they wanted to attract a broader audience (that is why there are more higher end models) and without using the word "raw"?

 

Very wrong sorry.
"No one's crying about anything Rob. The untrue part was your statement that it's a car made strictly for race/rally. Mitsu pulled out of the WRC, the X is a consumer car that consumers may or may not use to pursue their motorsport interests. The X is not a race car - it can be made into one, but it isn't one."

The Evolution is made for race. Every part is comply with the FIA regulations , which is very strict. SO when you tell me i said untrue thing ... Well you being very untrue here and for a purpose.
Here is the homologation document for you to see how detailed is. Also how much you have to pay attention to be in the rules . The Evolution is made for race. But out of the RS line /which is basically a gruppe N car/, equipped some or more comfortable equipment.
Because the Mitsubishi pulled out of WRC what does it means? NOTHING.
Fact the WRC is only 2 manufaturers ...
Mitsubishi in the IRC as it should, Besides even when they runned WRC more grupe N car runned a same event then the factory
So who cares?
as today many and counting X runs grupe N and open class or grupe A.

Everything you sell in the market is a consumer car.
Just what you said there show how much you dont know about the EVo. Sorry i had to say that, but it is true.

The Evo was and still a race car from the factory, detuned for a street and not a way around.
The X RS or any RS model even limited to 120 mph- no brembos - lancer GTS breaks - wheels and intrerior and so on... so they are even less race cars?

The Evo is designed and build for race period, What you do with the car, that is your own thing. But doesnt change a fact , why and how its made.

It is really sad, i have to even say these things in the Evo forum.

here is the homologation document. Please read it through and then come back its not a race car , but you can make one out if it... Like a mazda miata or the VW GTI - r32 ... or so. If the Evo X is not build for race out from factory then i dont know what it is.


http://www.ralliart.co.jp/GRN/homolo...ancerEvo10.pdf

longer more detailed version

http://www.ralliart.co.jp/GRN/homolo...ancerEvo10.pdf