Evo X vs. Evo VIII and IX
So for that comparision the 4G63 T had a worst tranny yet. That makes it a not true Evo??
I really don't agree with the comment above yours but I am not aware of an automatic evo unless you are counting DSM's with a 4G63.
Evolving Member
Joined: Jul 2007
Posts: 455
Likes: 0
From: the bay, Cali
http://www.evo.co.uk/carreviews/evoc...bishi_evo.html
no i m not counting any other car in the Evo category.
Last edited by Robevo RS; Oct 16, 2008 at 03:53 PM.
Of course, I do realize that the majority of people on this forum are obsessed with dyno numbers and drag times and the 4G63 has a plethora of aftermarket and a chunky closed-deck iron block so I get that but that really isn't what the Evo was ever intended for nor how I would ever personally use it. To each his own, I guess.
If you want to talk about regulation, look at the fact that Congress turned down Bush's proposal for more regulation of fannie and freddie. Guess which party controls Congress? Democrats. We wouldn't be in this mess in the first place if it weren't for the democrats. This all started with the democrats passing the "community reinvestment act" that forced fannie mae and freddy mac to lower their lending standards so that a bunch of bums with low income and terrible credit could buy homes; what a great idea this was. 
At the time, the banks didn't care that much; hell they actually liked it because the housing market was booming and they knew that when these bums defaulted on their loans that they could just repossess the house and sell it for profit (assuming it appreciated between the time of purchase and foreclosure).
Problem is that when the housing market took a crap they were left with a bunch of forclosures that they couldn't sell. Meanwhile, they kept selling these loans off to wall street, who then sold them off to investors all around the world and lied, calling them AAA secured loans so they could sell more of them. Then we're all left with a big f#cking mess that is our economy now... and it all could've been prevented. Anyway, the bailout was about a lot more then just wall street, it was about bailing out the banks to free up the credit freeze so that the banks could extend credit lines again.
Without this, people couldn't get loans to buy houses, cars, etc, and it would be even more detrimental to our economy. On top of that, people have already lost their 401ks because of what has happened with the stock market, so the last thing they need to be worried about is losing their savings if their bank goes under. This bailout was the lesser of two evils, and was absolutely necessary. I assure you that things would be even worse right now if it hadn't gotten passed, so who cares if the wall street fat cats still get to buy their "houses in the hamptons?" At least life on main street can start recoving.
It's not worth punishing yourself to punish them. Besides, the new revision to the bill had changes made to it, one of them being reduced bonuses for a lot of these guys, so at least they took a small hit for being greedy a-holes and helping get us in this mess. But again, this wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the democrats in the first place so who should you really be angry with? Ask yourself that. Anyway, let's try to get back on topic since this is a car forum, afterall.
At the time, the banks didn't care that much; hell they actually liked it because the housing market was booming and they knew that when these bums defaulted on their loans that they could just repossess the house and sell it for profit (assuming it appreciated between the time of purchase and foreclosure).
Problem is that when the housing market took a crap they were left with a bunch of forclosures that they couldn't sell. Meanwhile, they kept selling these loans off to wall street, who then sold them off to investors all around the world and lied, calling them AAA secured loans so they could sell more of them. Then we're all left with a big f#cking mess that is our economy now... and it all could've been prevented. Anyway, the bailout was about a lot more then just wall street, it was about bailing out the banks to free up the credit freeze so that the banks could extend credit lines again.
Without this, people couldn't get loans to buy houses, cars, etc, and it would be even more detrimental to our economy. On top of that, people have already lost their 401ks because of what has happened with the stock market, so the last thing they need to be worried about is losing their savings if their bank goes under. This bailout was the lesser of two evils, and was absolutely necessary. I assure you that things would be even worse right now if it hadn't gotten passed, so who cares if the wall street fat cats still get to buy their "houses in the hamptons?" At least life on main street can start recoving.
It's not worth punishing yourself to punish them. Besides, the new revision to the bill had changes made to it, one of them being reduced bonuses for a lot of these guys, so at least they took a small hit for being greedy a-holes and helping get us in this mess. But again, this wouldn't have happened if it weren't for the democrats in the first place so who should you really be angry with? Ask yourself that. Anyway, let's try to get back on topic since this is a car forum, afterall.
I think X's are overall better. But I still think Mitsubishi swayed from the evolution image (which they admitted to doing). Who wouldn't have rather picked a X that was lighter, etc. etc.?
I'll never understand the hang-up on an engine code, especially when the 4B11 is clearly the superior motor. It runs cooler, smoother, revs easier, and has a better oiling system.
Of course, I do realize that the majority of people on this forum are obsessed with dyno numbers and drag times and the 4G63 has a plethora of aftermarket and a chunky closed-deck iron block so I get that but that really isn't what the Evo was ever intended for nor how I would ever personally use it. To each his own, I guess.
Of course, I do realize that the majority of people on this forum are obsessed with dyno numbers and drag times and the 4G63 has a plethora of aftermarket and a chunky closed-deck iron block so I get that but that really isn't what the Evo was ever intended for nor how I would ever personally use it. To each his own, I guess.
But then again this argument applies for every major change in the evo lineup, 4 and 7 i think
Evolved Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,849
Likes: 1
From: USA
Well, I think that the decision to make the EVO X a more high end car was a good move even if it means deviating from the rally car image a little bit. However, I think the MR went too far. I honestly don't have an issue with the TC SST, although I think a stick is more fitting for an EVO. My real issue with the MR is the fact that the suspension is softer to give a more comfortable ride at the expense of handling, no doubt to appeal more to prospective BMW and AUDI buyers who are considering the MR, and this to me is unacceptable.
This deviates TOO much from what an EVO is supposed to be all about. Every magazine has confirmed this to be true, and the skidpad and slalom tests show it as well. The GSR pulls an average of .99 Gs while the MR pulls an average of .96 Gs. Slalom speed is also noticeably faster in the GSR as well. I personally am disappointed in the MR, as it has gone too far from it's roots and doesn't accurately represent what an evo should be and what the GSR thankfully still is.
The problem is that mitsu pushes it more than the GSR because they want to recoup on the development costs of the TC SST, so all the magazines use it in the comparison tests and it underwhelms where the GSR would shine. Mitsu needs to realize that they will never compete with AUDI and BMW and that making a cushy, compromised EVO is a recipe for failure. Hell, just look at sales figures of the GSR compared to the MR as proof enough.
This deviates TOO much from what an EVO is supposed to be all about. Every magazine has confirmed this to be true, and the skidpad and slalom tests show it as well. The GSR pulls an average of .99 Gs while the MR pulls an average of .96 Gs. Slalom speed is also noticeably faster in the GSR as well. I personally am disappointed in the MR, as it has gone too far from it's roots and doesn't accurately represent what an evo should be and what the GSR thankfully still is.
The problem is that mitsu pushes it more than the GSR because they want to recoup on the development costs of the TC SST, so all the magazines use it in the comparison tests and it underwhelms where the GSR would shine. Mitsu needs to realize that they will never compete with AUDI and BMW and that making a cushy, compromised EVO is a recipe for failure. Hell, just look at sales figures of the GSR compared to the MR as proof enough.
Last edited by STi2EvoX; Oct 17, 2008 at 06:11 PM.
Evolved Member
Joined: Oct 2007
Posts: 1,849
Likes: 1
From: USA
In previous years, this was the case with the MR but in the case of the X mitsu took a different direction and made the spring and damper rates softer to give a better quality ride more fitting of the luxury image that is being pushed with the new MR. Again, the problem with this is that it comes at the price of reduced handling performance and this goes against what an EVO stands for. What makes the EVO so special, above all else, is the handling performance and when you compromise that, you've compromised the image of the car.
Whadaya mean? The MR has always had softer springs. Look it up