^ Hence my statement of "better minds than me will have to figure out if the combination of direct-acting valves and no balance shafts will allow the new engine to ultimately rev higher, easier". To my amateur eyes, the 4B11 seems like it should ultimately make better topend power.

IMO, making topend power with the 4G is an exercise in brute force. There is nothing about the outgoing engine that was designed for topend, other than it could hold a ton of boost.

l8r)

 

A lot of guys need to go drive the Evo X before they make statements about what it can or cant do. Or what it will and will not do. Listen to the engine and feel how smooth it really is. It does seem as if its more eager to rev, probably due to the bumped up compression and overall mechanical improvements in the engine. Visual differences make more sense when you can match them to first hand experience.

Disregarding the top end power and just getting a feel for the total package is whats important to me. I love the vibes from the engine in my IX and the rally whine of the transmission. It just seems more raw and even though it is a year and a half old, it still gives me goosebumps when I drive it. The X didnt do that for me. Neither did the 335i. I dont know if it ever will unless I'm on a track stretching its legs. It's a great everyday car but seems as if its lost that special feeling.

 

Do not forget what Subaru did to the 07 STis. They purposely threw in a garbage map to keep the car restrained. People were running around claiming the 06s were better. Then tuners reflashed them and revealed a monster. You're currently driving a car with a garbage tune and all kinds of bottlenecks. Its been physically handicapped for Mitsus unknown purposes, so making a powerband comment this early is unfair.

Again this is due to a garbage factory tune. Just wait until tuners gain control over both MIVEC cams. The Mivec map adjustments made HUGE improvements on the IX. I wouldnt be surpised if that turbo spools at approx 23-2500 rpm once the car is tuned with the Mivec maps optimized.

Yup, I agree with that one. Unfortunately for the X, in handicapped stock form, it is no match for the better stock tuned IX in straight line performance. In the AMS exhaust video on the street, I heard detonation and inconsistent timing throughout the entire video. Other people were just commenting on how good the exhaust sounds and how deep it was. I was trying to figure out if I was the only one that could hear how sick the poor X is. It was as clear as day. So in this case, I would say apples to apples is a bit unfair.

 

Since this is a comparison between stock setups, I think all the statements are reasonable. Well, in my mind this is all I am comparing at least.

We cant compare the tuning performance since we dont have the ability to modify the stock maps. I also dont believe the stock ECU maps are as "garbage" as you might think. If they were truly "garbage" there wouldnt be any knock what so ever. The other thing I find interesting about this ECU is it automatically advances timing for whatever fuel you have in, including race fuel. This gives indication that the ECU is most likely more advanced then you would think.

You have to remember, this is not the simpleton ECU that was on the VIII and IX. Its using a whole new system now, that is tracking alot more variables then before. Obviously, we cant say for sure how complex it is, or if its using multiple 3d tables for the maps, has backup map tables, etc. But I am sure we will all soon know. At that point, then we can make comments about the ECU, but right now we dont have enough data to determine that it is a "garbage" ECU.

 

Understood as far as comparisons between stock setups go.
And as far as automatically advancing timing for fuel, could it be just retarding timing for fuel. After driving the car and compiling all the information given here from tuners, seems to me like an aggressive tune which I guess it could have and a relaxed tune which the 07 STi had are both garbage if they are not closer to optimum. When driving other high performance vehicles (previous Evos, Z06, 335), I dont quite remember those cars choking and suffering from similar symptoms. I would consider the X's tune garbage by comparison. The IX Ecu is till being probed exploited so I will not put anything past the complexity of the X ECU. Overall, I agree with you. But I still believe the factory tune is purposely lacking.

 

i think stock vs stock the IX is better.
Why?
Because it is more development - refinment behind it. The X is basicly brand new car from a-z. They will adjust the car year by year ot even moth to month.
Now the IX had over 6 years behind it. / CT9A / The engine in the IX is legendary . And the development + hystory is more then 15 years old. The first evolution raced in 1992 with the 4G63T .
that is why.
they will make the 4b11T great too. And the knowlidge they have now, it will be a great engine soon + the chassie. But i think they need at least a year on the road and the track to to do so.

 

After driving both, I think the X is better. But is does not "Rattle me Bones" like the IX does. This is sotck for stock. Drive a X and understand what you are looking for before you make claims as to why the IX is better. If you have driven it already, I guess I just flat out disagree with you.

 

yep i driven one. but i think you missed or i didn't explain my self well enough. The IX is a more "refined" car vs the X. the refined is what i mean more bug fixing behind it.

 

The IX was a test platform for MIVEC, and built on the VIII body and frame. So I wouldnt agree that it has a lot of research on it. It was the first MIVEC motor on the Evo series in the US, and it still ran slower then the VI. The problem for me, and this is just my opinion based on what I want out of a car, the IX is too noisy, doesnt ride smooth, and makes my bones hurt. I also didnt like the fact that the interior wasnt improved on at all over the VIII, and definitely did NOT warrant the additional money. The VIII was worth every penny under 30k, but the IX did not warrant its price tag at all. This is where the X supersedes the IX in every way. Now you have an interior thats upgraded, NAV system, better sound system, better sound deadening, and a much smoother ride with no sacrifice to handling. In fact, the handling is better. The IX cant even compare to the upgrades given over the previous generation with the increased price tag.

 

the IX 4G63T mivec is one thing , the 4B11T whole new engine is an other.
The IX is faster then VI. But i thought we over this.

"The VIII was worth every penny under 30k, but the IX did not warrant its price tag at all."
"The IX cant even compare to the upgrades given over the previous generation with the increased price tag."


I dont get this one. PLS explain to me how what did i wrong to pay $26.500 for a brand new /7 miles in it/ Evo 06 IX RS?

 

i dont want to explain this more so do your search next time. The mivec engine is exist long before the IX ,so the IX is not a test for the MIVEC engine. US or not the whole world get a same engine in the evo.
THe VII - VIII - IX is a same frame /CT9A/

interior is was improved over the VIII , so the tranny, so the turbo etc....

 

that is where priceless or classic comes into mind.

 

Yes Robevo, we all knew this already. Since you seem to know so much. Please provide some data for me. Since you are questioning my research, what was the other EVO Mivec Motor before the IX? That was the statement I made, so since you are disagreeing with it, tell me what your counter argument is. Also, what was the interior improvements in the IX? The ACD Button? Does that even count? Please enlighten me on this, as I did not see any differences, other then cheaper seats, in the interior.

Now I am not saying that Mitsu didnt do any research when making the IX, but I really felt they focused on increasing the horsepower to be competitive with the STi. If I recall correctly, the IX lost out to the STi in road tests and definitely did not win the Car of the Year awards that the VIII got.

 

http://www.edmunds.com/insideline/do...ticleId=109126

 

http://www.roadandtrack.com/article....&page_number=2