ok you have all this bull**** done to your car and made so little power i have an x and i have ams ,intake, FMIC, IC pipes, greedy turbo back and a manual boost controller no flash, no fuel pump, no cams , stock manifolds and i made
340 whp and 360 ft-lbs so the piece of crap aluminum block makes more power with less things. why the x its better

stock block holds more than 600hp stock internals
transmision its a lot better
transfer case better than the 8&9
handels better
brings navigation

 

600hp on the stock block? Hmmmm...what kind of chronic are you smoking, cuz u need to hook me up son!

 

---

 

we already know the engine is more sophisticated. That's technology. It doesn't make the engine stronger, nor does it make the car better. Trust me. And no flash? well... lol.
no one said the aluminum block is a piece of crap. well maybe some idiot did. good for you; you made decent figures with decent mods. but extra power doesn't offset weight. it is a better daily driver and a better overall car though.

 

i agree, if I could get 600 whp on the stock block id order the parts tomorrow!

 

"we already know the engine is more sophisticated. That's technology. It doesn't make the engine stronger, nor does it make the car better. Trust me."

So what makes the engine better?

 

Yes it does to a good degree.

 

I think the unfair conparison here is the fact that the brand new X is being compared to the approx. 7 year old CT9A platform and the dinosaur 4G63 motor. Mitsu has had sooo much time perfecting the chasis and motor of those two and brought it all together in it's finests form as the evo IX. Let's not forget the major improvements Mitsu did from the VII to the IX. I'm sure Mitsu intends to keep the XI and maybe XII based on the CZ4A so I'm sure it will be much improved as well. Once the CZ4A and 4B11 have reached their apex, then the comparison can begin. Until then, I'd say the only fair comparison is between first year models, Evo VII and Evo X.

 

^Good point.

 

This is BS they need new drivers or something. I ran a 13.50 at 103mph (stock) at 3800ft above sea level (first time at the track). So at sea level this should be easly a 13.2x car. And i have heard of other people running the same.

 

I never said it was a better engine.
IMO, what makes an engine a better engine is not just the engine's ability to make power. There are so many other factors. Revving capabilities, strength, the car its use on, the application of the engine (i.e., drag racing, autox'ing, track). For example, you can't say the 4g63 is a better engine than the ej25 when what you want for your car is a lot of low end torque

 

Only in the straight line. Just going with the laws of physics, more weight is never a good thing, and throwing on more power doesn't change all of the other characteristics that extra weight brings. Frankly, it is a ridiculous argument if you're going to try to say that.

 

From the Evo VI to the Evo IX a gain of 280 lbs was seen. From Evo IX to X an almost identical gain of weight was seen. The IX did just fine with the added weight. Also, it's been said about 1,000 times already. Look at the new GTR. It's a moose at about 3800 lbs and it's smoking everything on the track. Power obviously does offset weight to some degree.

 

I agree.

 

With less weight it will be better in all aspects in performance.