You seemed pretty serious to me. A car is a car man... why not compare them if they are close performance and price? (relatively)

 

I'm not comparing the X to the G35, you did, whether you were being sarcastic or not. They don't compare, and they are not even close in performance so your argument makes no sense. I'd say that a car running 13.3 1/4 mile times isn't in the same category as a car that runs a 14.1, so how are these close? Second, when it comes to braking and handling, the gap is even further, so again your argument makes no sense. It's like you comparing a ferrari to a BMW, and then when someone says, "the ferrari will destroy the BMW," you say, "OMG!!! The fact that the BMW is even close in performance is bad news for the ferrari!" That's an interesting debate tactic; compare 2 things and then when someone says, "those don't compare," you come back with, "OMG, the fact that these are even being compared shows how crappy item number 1 is." You should be a politician; that kind of BS would fit in perfectly there. I think OBAMA's campaign team has some openings.

 

the same place u get a X MR for $45000

 

WHY NOT ? because the factories designs and engineer one to be a track-ready borderline super car, while the other a soft plushy soccer-mom transporter

 

well at least we agree on who we are voting for (i think we do).

but as for comparing. here is what i meant: the G35/G37 is trully close in performance. im not making this up, just read car&driver, and Motortrend for the last few months. the fastest i have seen a G35 tested was 5.3sec to 60, and 14.0 1/4mile, and, G37 tested was 5.1sec to 60, and 13.7 1/4mile. slalom #'s were nearly identical. braking from 60 and 70mph is just 4-6 feet better in the X. thats it !!!???
AND some magazines had the X MR as slower to 60 and in 1/4 mile - but being fair, i agree that the X wasnt designed to be a drag racer.
also, as far as the 4mile VIR track goes, they didn't test the Infiniti coupe, but they tested a Z, and the Nissan 350Z ran a full second faster at the track than both the IX and the X... whats up with that ????

u are right that the X wins in pretty much every category, but by such a small margin, that it's worth me saying what i said.
while in reality these two shouldnt even be compared in any possible way. a vehicle like the Evo should be worlds away from anything called infiniti or lexus, or even bmw (M3 notwithstanding)!

so in conclusion, what i originally said was that yes, the X is better in performance in general, but by such a small margin, that u might as well say that its even, cause u should expect much much better numbers from a vehicle called Evolution

 

Evo X and McCain fanboi's ftl Slow cars must attract republicans Couldn't resist myself.

 

where is that?

 

because they didnt do a same with the IX vs G35 , that is why.

 

why you think the IX Mr would run that much faster vs the G37?
Also the GSR wich is manual as the IX MR , runs a tight 1/4 mile with the IX mr against the 200+ lb difference.

a vehicle like the Evo should be worlds away from anything called infiniti or lexus, or even bmw (M3 notwithstanding)!


How much better actually is the IX MR vs the X GSR by numbers i wonder?
since both has the traditional tranny?
Dont forget those test are with the early very bad tune on the X. They released 2 reflash from mitsu and the X runs faster since then.
So the new evo 09 with the bug fixed ecu. could be around 300 hp at least. I wouldn't be surprised at all.
And much smoother ride though the power band too.
If you think the IX SE will be that much faster the X with factory reflash , you might find yourself in the embarrassing situation after all.

 

slow against who?

 

Look at the thread title

 

 

i see u r laughing... keep laughing, as soon as mr. osama, oops, i mean obama, becomes president, and makes this country into the former soviet union where the hard working people make as much as the lazy college drop-outs (but at least we gonna be a nation that cares about our 'poor'), i cant wait to see how many Evo's u gonna be able to afford.

oh ye, "Couldn't resist myself."

 

i think both is bad.
I couldn't resist too

 

Well, I understand where you are coming from but I will say this: the performance of these formerly luxury only sedans has gotten far better in recent years so the gap between them and sports cars has gotten smaller. With that said, the real car to compare is the GSR, not the MR like you keep citing. The GSR is a good bit faster 0-60 and in the 1/4 mile, and it has a stiffer spring/damper setup so it handles better as well. The only thing that the MR has over the GSR is the shift times of that TC SST to help close the gap, but the GSR is the better all around performer. Moving on, the problem with comparing a car like the 350 Z to an EVO, 9 or X alike, is that the lap times aren't really representative of the real differences in potential that these cars have. A 350 Z handles pretty well but nothing like an EVO, especially the X.

However, from a roll where traction isn't an issue the new 350s are pretty quick and on a track with long straights it makes up the deficit in handling. However, if you look at speed carried through the corners, the X will crush it. Give the X a bit more power for the straights and the 350 Z is toast. Then again, on a track with less straights and more corners, things tilt back in favor of the EVO even in stock form. A lot of this stuff is subjective, but all in all the EVO is the better all around performer and on top of that, the steering response and "feel" of an EVO is relatively unmatched by most other sports cars and that is something that no test can attach a tangible number to.

Ewww, a democrat. What is it with democrats and the inability to see the big picture? Sure, tax breaks for the "working class" sounds good in theory, but it's all just to get votes from gullible people who don't see the other end of things. People who OBAMA says will get tax breaks hardly pay any income taxes right now anyway. His borderline socialist solution is to redistribute wealth by buttf#cking anyone who is actually successful so that they can pay for the bums who can't support themselves.

Problem is that many of these successful people are small business owners who cut jobs because they just took a pay cut, which only further raises unemployment rates and increases the number of people sucking on the government teet. On top of all this, the government actually loses money in an attempt to make more because statistically people spend less money when taxes are higher to save money. With less people spending money, there's less money for the government to take in, so it actually has a reverse effect.

I also find it funny that democrats like the kennedys support higher taxes when they themselves don't pay them. They just funnel their money to offshore accounts to avoid paying taxes and then talk about how paying higher taxes is patriotic and that it's great to support your country. Ha! Anyway, this is hardly the place for debating politics so I'll leave it that, but you might want to reconsider which side of the fence you want to be on.