ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

OK, by that cord, the VIII and IX are watered down compared to the VI TME.

kaj

iTrader: (60)

I agree. If I could own one, I would. I also hear the VII was sharper than the VIII. But the TME has always been my ultimate Evo...

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

i would direct you the link where the IX vs X being discussed 1000 pages.
watered down version... its just laughable. the X superior any race segment what is made and designed for vs the IX its a proven fact.
Maybe two place is where bit better, like drag or autox. both is very very far from why the Evo made for. i dont know those.

just because they have bits and add ons which are more up dated for DD. ( like cruise control for an example or S-AWC) that doesnt mean the core of the car is.

look up the X RS and tell me how much more watered down version is that vs the IX RS.... And that is the base or core version at the dealers you can buy. Doesnt matter if you cant by it in the states. The fact is a fact, that is a base car which build up with OPTIONS, deppends on tbe market place.
if anything ever was watered down that is the USA market VIII and IX evo.... and the GT version, sorry if i burts anybody bubble.

silly argument.

also i remember this is a Ford RS thread, should be the subject here.. hypocrats lol

nemsin

iTrader: (19)

I would agree with that statement and yes I have driven both.


IX > X in World Time Attack and Shift Sector type roll racing as well.

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

shift sector is not a type of drag racing?

in circuit i told you already.

nemsin

iTrader: (19)

I think there is a significant difference between roll racing and things like the Texas mile vs. traditional "drag racing". For instance, the vehicle's aero seems to play a greater role.

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

oh I think I know, those 200+ mph runs on airports. ok
I don't follow does, not since I have an EVo. Maybe if I would have a P1 or Lambo
but even then , for me those are boring sorry.

ambystom01

iTrader: (7)

It's spelled hypocrites. I have no idea what the **** you're trying to say here.

kaj

iTrader: (60)

Maybe, maybe not. But it's the general consensus and I think ambystom hit the nail on the head on why people think that way.
I mentioned here (off topic) because I thought it was interesting, but I'm not going to start a new thread to say so.

Lastly, I live in the U.S., so I can only speak for cars sold here. In general, we got watered down versions of everything.

LetsGetThisDone

iTrader: (1)

I don't think English is Rob's first language, and he clearly hasn't quite mastered it as his second. He's from Eastern or Northern Europe, can't remember where. Give him some slack, he's a racecar driver, not a Fortune 500 businessman...lol

Noize

iTrader: (24)

Perspective. Which is 99% of the reason this thread won't kick the bucket.

I like GTIs and Rs. Front wheel drive and boost is definitely a pain in the GTI's case. But from my vantage point, the Golf's money is in the cabin. The fit and finish and quality of materials aren't quite BMW nice, but they smash anything in their price segment to me. As a commuter, they're fun. But I'm talking mainly being stuck on the interstate in bad rush hour traffic.

Tennessee has lots of corners and elevation changes. Those twisty back roads seldom have other cars on them, and visibility is good. The opportunity to stretch a car's legs has gone way up for me with a career change and odd hours. Having a car with higher limits is easy to quantify even on the street.

To the sanity and protection against fanboy drunken stupor psychosis for the community at large, MAKE IT STOP!! What civility and amenities does the X have? Bluetooth? TPMS? If the CT9A continued a couple more years, both would've been standard. That's a fact of technology and time.

Let's talk "watered down" for a second- Neutered of its SAYC? Steel roof standard on most models? Fat man spec seats? Viscous center and open front differential the first two years? Yes to all. I'm looking at every USA spec CT9A!

The lead designer and engineer of the Lancer Evolution set out to improve the car's performance in every iteration. By his own words, he benchmarked the Evo X against one car only: The Evo IX. And not the dumbed down USA version.

RazorLab

iTrader: (8)

I'd like to add an interesting real world data point, but this is NOT to start a CT9A vs CZ4A argument.

My 2014 Evo 10 is now putting down basically the same lap times, at almost the same mod level that I had in my 2005 Evo 8 MR at the same track. To me, this is impressive since the car is heavier, has slightly less tire and is making less power than my 8 was. Also, my 10 has leather, heated seats and a steel roof. Another point to note is I am using the same coilovers in my 10 that I did in my 8 (but obviously platform centric)

This is a track I have countless miles on, and I have been driving it for over 12 years now, I can literally draw the track map from memory.

I hated my Evo 10 at first (mainly because of the weight) but the data is hard to ignore.

I recently purchased NT01's so we'll see if I can match my Evo 8 R-compound tire lap times as well.

kaj

iTrader: (60)

I'm just passing along info as I hear it and read it here and correlating it to people's preferences.

alpinaturbo

iTrader: (5)

Regarding CZ4A Vs CT9A, Vs CP9A TME

Lap times will always improve over time, because tire technology is improving. Comparing 2009 lap times to 2015 lap times, there is 1 second at least in tire technology. Maybe more.
In addition, driver ability at the level of track-days continues to improve, so you are better driver(s) 5 years later than you were.
And tracks get repaved, with grippier tarmac, as well.

So to compare, lets see what happens in tightly controlled highly contested really rich rally competition, where multiple competitors have equally developed and equalized cars: European, Middle East, and World Rally Championships:

Group R4/N Evo IX beats Evo X way more often than not!
That is what happens.

Furthermore, just short ago- Evo IX Group N in WRC beat all all R5 competitors, in addition to all R4 and Group N.

Evo IX is giant killer in Rally, tarmac and gravel. Evo X has theoretically stiffer chassis OEM, better AYC diff, but AYC diff is not used, and once the chassis is caged the difference is none.

Weight is same for both Evo X and Evo IX, its homologated.

If you don't believe it, check it for yourself: you can check results and verify that Evo IX consistently continues to dominate. Evo X is quiet competitive, but not faster.

Now on subject of TME Vs CT9A: owning both, stock to stock TME is much more neutral and quicker with same power but less weight. Its also more nimble, and has better visibility.
Modified, the trend continues.
The additional chassis stiffness of later chassis is not felt frankly except when driving on freeways and such. When pressing on, you do not feel the difference.

The longer wheelbase and more prominent A pillar of CT9A makes it more challenging to drive all out on backroads.

ON track the longer wheel base of CT9A is theoretically an advantage: how much its hard to say, in UK early Evo is super competitive in TA, so it seems its not a clear cut advantage.

I'd say that indeed the later Evo is slightly watered down in terms of sport purposes compared to TME. But that is not to say its inferior, its just a shift in some aspects of design parameters.

Today I went on usual aggressive backroad drive, followed by 991 RS, and have been driving with 997.2 GT3 RS for while, the TME with HKS7460 on decent suspension and on my narrower tire (245/40x17 vs 325 & 255 for 997 RS) is literally a match. That is how good this chassis is. I dare say the RS drivers are better drivers, one is winning race driver with E46 M3 in GT3S NASA class.

Robevo RS

iTrader: (16)

wrong, but this is explained demonstrated already by wrc erc etc results etc. But this is belong to the other thread. you can read it through. IX is not dominte the X, unless you talking about entree numbers lol

also the VI is not better then a IX. Besides the VI has a weaker shell also.