Fatter, not tamer. Other than the curb weight forced upon it from the chassis share (admittedly weight hurts a lot of things) and the slightly slower rack, the U.S. spec X is more aggressive than the U.S. spec IX.

 

Ford is taking the first step to add US flavor to the hot hatch AWD market. Once the RS comes out your going to see the games begin. This being the first release will get all it's orifices checked and then some. So many other manufactures have similar designs on the table and are ready to add product.

Do I think it will shake up the current existing market? Yes. Is it better then a KIA? I am ready to trade!

 

yes, after the 3rd generation of the Evo, all evo made with a same idea. having a little bit more appealing for a general masses. And that helped a lot to be this successful for public. Nothing changed for the Evo X. It was build with a same idea and a same direction for a same purpose. Dont believe for magazines.
Also the Evo X R4 is a same weight as a Evo IX R4. etc.

all evos being build in racing and further tuning in mind, that is a fact.

 

I value your opinion, so I'd like to hear why you feel that way. Being from Canada, since their first car for public consumption was the X, maybe your experience with older Evos are imported cars that weren't as neutered as the US spec CT9A was?

I think a lot of VIII/IX comments were from people who have no experience with the X. A lot of the crap has softened on this forum over the years, with a lot of VIII and IX guys purchasing Xs. Having owned 5 Evos, I can definitely back up my claims. Here's a few pro cases for the Exo X being more aggressive off the top of my head:

-SAYC in the USA finally
-Substantially stiffer chassis
-Manual transmission strengthened due to extra space from not having a dedicated reverse gear
-SST transmission option. The Evo VII GT-A's transmission is a joke in comparison.
-Wider wheels and tires
-Bigger brakes
-Much wider fenders will accommodate 265w tires and 9.5" wheels unmodified
-Mivec adjustable cam gear on exhaust side
-Seats are much more supportive for track driving and not US large-man spec like the CT9A seats were
-4B11 makes more area under the curve and peak power than the 4G63 stock and modded, both with engines unopened.

There isn't an ounce of luxury in any Evolution, and additions of things like bi-xenon and Bluetooth are more a sign of the times in automotive trends than softening of the car. You can still get an Evo with halogens, and post 2010 almost everything had Bluetooth.

The weight flat out sucks, and slows down everything about performance. Lots of cars getting heavier every year, but it doesn't make the X seem soft or detuned compared to the IX to me.

The original Evo I was 2700 lbs. That seems insane to me.

I'm sorry this thread keeps going off topic, and I'm part of the problem. The Focus RS doesn't seem focused enough to be on my short list as a next car. I want an engine that loves to rev.

 

i agree with you.

 

Yes, the first Evos to arrive in Canada were imports. I think we got the Evo I before the X. A very small number, like 6 or so, Evo VIIIs also made it into Canada before the border was closed to the importation of US Evos. They were sold for insane amounts up until the X came about and the importation laws were relaxed. Think $60,000-$80,000 for a GSR insane.

I'm not saying the X didn't come with more go fast kit. Despite what the VIIIers and IXers say, I think the X was the best Evo ever made. It was an evolution of the previous models. Part of that evolution though, included making it more user friendly. My experience with the X suggested the suspension was more refined, and the interior was an improvement. It was also the first model to introduce an automatic, apart from some limited JDM runs. It had more trickery to make it easier to drive fast.

That's the mass appeal move I'm talking about. All of this has a touch of irony to it because I distinctly remember people lashing out against the X before it came out in much the same way people are lashing out against the RS before it has even come out . It's speculation all over the place, and ridiculous statements abound that basically boil down to "it's not the car I drive, therefore it sucks".

 

I agree with almost everything you're saying.

I admit to filling in the blanks some too with the RS. I liked the Fiesta ST I drove a lot. Not so much the Focus ST I drove. I also really didn't like the Ecoboost in the 15 Mustang, even though I wanted to. The Coyote is vicious in comparison and pulls to the limiter with authority. I want an engine with a lot of headroom for fun, and that's the killer for the Focus on paper for me. I hope to be very wrong when it comes out, that it drives nothing like the ST and pulls much longer than the Mustang.

 

This seems to be the root of about 90% of car forum discussions.

 

You're basically making my point for me. What matters is that the rear brakes are sized accordingly. It doesn't matter if they say Brembo or are vented/slotted/whatevered, just that they have enough stopping power and heat capacity to function properly with the fronts. But 70-80% of braking is done by the fronts, so I'd rather Ford overdo the fronts and skimp on the back than vice versa.

 

i am only saying the rear brakes just as important as the fronts. if the rear can keep up the abuse of the front ones, doesn't fade out sooner, then its doesnt matter what brand is that.
And sometimes even if the same brand, the rears do tend to show fatigue sooner, due the under estimated abuse they got.

 

So you're agreeing with him.

 

yes not the brand matters , the quality. if the rears keep up i dont care what brand they are.
but i think mostly the complain here is really about why they didnt used brembos as a brand on a rear too or if the rear as a good as the brembo cront, then why they bothered with them anyway. from the show room floor different brand of brakes and flashy one on the front, just doesn't look right.
can give you a bad impression, like if they cheapen out parts like that visible, where else they do a same what you cant see?

i think that is mainly a complain here.

 

So much of the beauty of ownership is changing what you don't like into something you do like.

Would like to see the flurry of aftermarket availability of items that the Evo market developed. It is probably the most customizable and tuner capable car I have ever owned. The only previous car I owned that held such a broad aftermarket wealth of items and marketing goods was a Chevy.

I doubt too that Ford will be engineer this 2.3L with a Honda type V-tek power curve. Mid-range torque has generally proven to provide the most streetable fun.

 

It's a turbo 4-banger. I'm sure it'll have better torque than a Honda. As for it's tuning potential, I'm sure we'll see plenty of options. Probably not at the level the 4G63 Evo had, but that was also a 10+ year old motor.

 

This is a pretty ironic statement on an Evo forum. Mitsubishi cut a LOT of corners on the Evo in order to put the money where it mattered (to us). How many 10s of thousands of posts are on this forum making excuses for the crappy interior, crappy paint, etc? We're talking $30-40k cars, you can't have it all. We all like the Evo because Mitsubishi basically put the entire budget into the drivetrain/suspension/tires. But Ford doesn't get the same benefit of the doubt?