Which would you track: Evo IX or X?
Sep 19, 2012, 05:38 PM
#16
Any updates for 2012 guys? Do we really need a surge tank for the X? Has the AYC been tamed?
I'm 90% sure I want to get another IX 5spd but I saw an X recently with fat tires 275+ and really gave it a second thought.... After nearly 3 years I'm curious if everyone feels the same way.
I'm 90% sure I want to get another IX 5spd but I saw an X recently with fat tires 275+ and really gave it a second thought.... After nearly 3 years I'm curious if everyone feels the same way.
Sep 19, 2012, 08:03 PM
#17
Don't know if the RA's have the same fuel tank as the X, but my friend's RA would cut out on the front straight after a long long, slow left hander before he even got to half a tank of fuel remaining. Now he has a surge tank so doesn't have that problem anymore.
Meanwhile, I've run down to below 1/4 tank in my IX and never had a problem in that same corner.
Meanwhile, I've run down to below 1/4 tank in my IX and never had a problem in that same corner.
Sep 20, 2012, 06:44 AM
#18
Don't know if the RA's have the same fuel tank as the X, but my friend's RA would cut out on the front straight after a long long, slow left hander before he even got to half a tank of fuel remaining. Now he has a surge tank so doesn't have that problem anymore.
Meanwhile, I've run down to below 1/4 tank in my IX and never had a problem in that same corner.
Meanwhile, I've run down to below 1/4 tank in my IX and never had a problem in that same corner.
On the same token, the CT9A suffers from oil starvation on long corners as well, which is why AMS sells an upgraded oil pan.
http://www.amsperformance.com/cart/A...p-Oil-Pan.html
Sep 20, 2012, 08:19 AM
#19
Evolved Member
iTrader: (6)
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Houston, TX
Posts: 676
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
since the topic is for enjoyment, not competitiveness, then I would say just pick which you enjoy driving more
the weight difference doesn't matter at a non-competitive level
the reliability difference doesn't matter at a non-competitive level (they're both reliable enough for what you're looking for)
the biggest thing is the X MR drives so much differently, especially with the AYC and the SST. if you enjoy those technology features enough, then pick the X imo. there's no compelling financial or sensible reason to pick one over the other in a non-competitive setting, but they do drive quite differently
my first few ride alongs with VIII/IX's at autox (experienced national drivers), my jaw dropped at how different they drove/handled
the weight difference doesn't matter at a non-competitive level
the reliability difference doesn't matter at a non-competitive level (they're both reliable enough for what you're looking for)
the biggest thing is the X MR drives so much differently, especially with the AYC and the SST. if you enjoy those technology features enough, then pick the X imo. there's no compelling financial or sensible reason to pick one over the other in a non-competitive setting, but they do drive quite differently
my first few ride alongs with VIII/IX's at autox (experienced national drivers), my jaw dropped at how different they drove/handled
Sep 20, 2012, 12:30 PM
#20
I have 275's on my IX with a very mild roll in the rear only. At +35 I had to add a 5mm spacer to clear front the coilovers, but I think a slightly different offset would of allowed no spacer at all.
After doing months of reasearch, I learned there's a lot of arm chair quarterbacks when it comes to wheel/tire sizes on IX's, and a **** ton of bad information, even on these forums. Don't buy the hype!
After doing months of reasearch, I learned there's a lot of arm chair quarterbacks when it comes to wheel/tire sizes on IX's, and a **** ton of bad information, even on these forums. Don't buy the hype!
Sep 21, 2012, 07:27 AM
#21
I have 275's on my IX with a very mild roll in the rear only. At +35 I had to add a 5mm spacer to clear front the coilovers, but I think a slightly different offset would of allowed no spacer at all.
After doing months of reasearch, I learned there's a lot of arm chair quarterbacks when it comes to wheel/tire sizes on IX's, and a **** ton of bad information, even on these forums. Don't buy the hype!
After doing months of reasearch, I learned there's a lot of arm chair quarterbacks when it comes to wheel/tire sizes on IX's, and a **** ton of bad information, even on these forums. Don't buy the hype!
Sep 21, 2012, 08:21 AM
#22
I'm not exactly positive on which way offsets go, but I'd bet a +30 (if that's +5 moving the wheel out) would clear up front without issue. Rear fenders would require more of a roll than what I got away with though. Mind you this is with slicks, not DD driving, so I don't know what it's like at full wheel lock/parking lot driving. You also need coilovers for the smaller spring size to fit.
Oct 28, 2013, 05:40 PM
#23
Newbie
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 6
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
First of all, a little background. I'm an instructor with various track orgs (PCA, BMWCCA, etc.), so I'm not a track newbie. Tracked cars like the S2000 and E36 M3 before I discovered the Evo, and realized that the Evo was what I was looking for all along.
I currently have an Evo X MR, and I just acquired a very mint Evo IX MR SE, low miles, never been modded.
Note that I am not a big "modder". I like to do just enough to my cars to make them fun on the track (brakes, suspension, etc.), but keeping reliability is very important. I'm not going to fool with making big power, because that usually just creates problems. Plus, these cars have plenty of power as they are.
So, with all of that, here's the question: which would you take on track? Pros and cons. I'm just having trouble deciding.
Pros/cons to tracking the X, in no particular order:
1. Lose warranty on high-$ parts like that TC-SST transmission
2. Overheating problems with the TC-SST
3. AYC creates neutral to slight oversteer handling feel, which is very fun
4. Slightly bigger stock brakes (larger rotors)
5. Weight: 300 lbs heavier than the IX
6. TC-SST will be a ton of fun on the track
7. Would need to do suspension work to lower high CG (prob do with the Vorshlag guys did with AST coilovers)
8. Reliability concerns with the 4B11 engine (just because it's new & unproven)
Pros/cons to tracking the IX, in no particular order:
1. Low-mile, unmodded IX cars hold their value, which will be killed if I start tracking it
2. Reliability of the MR 6-speed transmission when tracked
3. 300 lbs lighter than the X (big pro!)
4. Proven reliable 4G63 engine
5. Proven track platform, lots of people have years of experience with the older Evo
One last thing: I don't want this to turn into a general IX vs. X debate. I want to specifically compare and contrast the IX and X as to their suitability for a road course track car.
I currently have an Evo X MR, and I just acquired a very mint Evo IX MR SE, low miles, never been modded.
Note that I am not a big "modder". I like to do just enough to my cars to make them fun on the track (brakes, suspension, etc.), but keeping reliability is very important. I'm not going to fool with making big power, because that usually just creates problems. Plus, these cars have plenty of power as they are.
So, with all of that, here's the question: which would you take on track? Pros and cons. I'm just having trouble deciding.
Pros/cons to tracking the X, in no particular order:
1. Lose warranty on high-$ parts like that TC-SST transmission
2. Overheating problems with the TC-SST
3. AYC creates neutral to slight oversteer handling feel, which is very fun
4. Slightly bigger stock brakes (larger rotors)
5. Weight: 300 lbs heavier than the IX
6. TC-SST will be a ton of fun on the track
7. Would need to do suspension work to lower high CG (prob do with the Vorshlag guys did with AST coilovers)
8. Reliability concerns with the 4B11 engine (just because it's new & unproven)
Pros/cons to tracking the IX, in no particular order:
1. Low-mile, unmodded IX cars hold their value, which will be killed if I start tracking it
2. Reliability of the MR 6-speed transmission when tracked
3. 300 lbs lighter than the X (big pro!)
4. Proven reliable 4G63 engine
5. Proven track platform, lots of people have years of experience with the older Evo
One last thing: I don't want this to turn into a general IX vs. X debate. I want to specifically compare and contrast the IX and X as to their suitability for a road course track car.
If you look at the top time attack cars, they are pretty much rebuilding the engine after each event. Sure all that high awhp is nice on the dyno, but theses 4cyl engines can't handle it for roadcourse. the engine will blow. Ever notice you don't see Evo's in high hp circuit racing - GT1 or GT2. They may produce the same hp as the v8's but they don't hold up the same.
Thread
Thread Starter
Forum
Replies
Last Post
SmurfZilla
Mitsubishi TC-SST Discussion
13
Oct 6, 2012 01:29 PM
Fatalwishes
Mitsubishi TC-SST Discussion
4
Apr 20, 2010 11:32 AM
