Evo X
4th Gear Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,287
From:
RE: Evo X
ORIGINAL: 8cd03gro
the biggest problem is when you go test drive one or even buy one (unless to take it to the track) you will never tell that the x is that much better a performer than the IX, because the IX handles extremely well already. The evo was already only selling to a specialized market, and instead of making it more appealing to the rest of the world they pretty much did the opposite, which is a mistake imo. Who knows though, could end up great.
ORIGINAL: joshafmil
ok we need to clear something up...
the EVO is a track car, not drag, so the first thing everyone needs to do, is stop judging it for the drag, that is not its purpose, im sure it will have no problem kicking a stock mustangs butt on a road course. im also sure that a true road course driver, would give up a few tenths in the 1/4 for the ability to turn harder, faster.
the looks? i like the front, it is simpleand clean, which is what i look for in cars. i hate to see flashy crap, the old evo was ok, im not saying it was bad, i just like this better. i think it looks alot more aggressive too...
the rear, i think the tail lights are a bit on the small side, and it ends up making the *** end look bigger then it is, nothing im a fan of, but i could deal.
these are only my opinions tho.
the interior is more comfy, which is nothing i care about, but im sure it will sell more because of it. most people who buy these things are no different then the majority of the public that buys any sports car. people like auto, comfy, and the ability to say "i own this" its why they make vettes auto, and almost anything else.
ok we need to clear something up...
the EVO is a track car, not drag, so the first thing everyone needs to do, is stop judging it for the drag, that is not its purpose, im sure it will have no problem kicking a stock mustangs butt on a road course. im also sure that a true road course driver, would give up a few tenths in the 1/4 for the ability to turn harder, faster.
the looks? i like the front, it is simpleand clean, which is what i look for in cars. i hate to see flashy crap, the old evo was ok, im not saying it was bad, i just like this better. i think it looks alot more aggressive too...
the rear, i think the tail lights are a bit on the small side, and it ends up making the *** end look bigger then it is, nothing im a fan of, but i could deal.
these are only my opinions tho.
the interior is more comfy, which is nothing i care about, but im sure it will sell more because of it. most people who buy these things are no different then the majority of the public that buys any sports car. people like auto, comfy, and the ability to say "i own this" its why they make vettes auto, and almost anything else.
Thread Starter
4th Gear Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,502
From: Louisville, KY
RE: Evo X
Evo's are defintely not cheap cars to make really fast. My friend has an Evo 8 with close to 8k in performance mods and he would get rolled by and ls1 or termy with 1-2k in mods.
5th Gear Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,095
From: CO
RE: Evo X
ORIGINAL: sw07gt
Evo's are defintely not cheap cars to make really fast. My friend has an Evo 8 with close to 8k in performance mods and he would get rolled by and ls1 or termy with 1-2k in mods.
Evo's are defintely not cheap cars to make really fast. My friend has an Evo 8 with close to 8k in performance mods and he would get rolled by and ls1 or termy with 1-2k in mods.
Thread Starter
4th Gear Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 1,502
From: Louisville, KY
RE: Evo X
A lot of it is handling and brakes but he also has cams. intake, full exhaust stage 3 clutch and flywheel, he has a ton of **** I just can't remember all of it now. My main point about the Evo X was that it was a failure because yes even though it is faster around a track the car was hyped up so much and then turns out to be even slower in a straightline then previous models. The Evo used to be a raw stripped down drivers car. They're turning it into a more refined car with paddle shifters and a bunch of electronic crap.
4th Gear Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,287
From:
RE: Evo X
ORIGINAL: sw07gt
A lot of it is handling and brakes but he also has cams. intake, full exhaust stage 3 clutch and flywheel, he has a ton of **** I just can't remember all of it now. My main point about the Evo X was that it was a failure because yes even though it is faster around a track the car was hyped up so much and then turns out to be even slower in a straightline then previous models. The Evo used to be a raw stripped down drivers car. They're turning it into a more refined car with paddle shifters and a bunch of electronic crap.
A lot of it is handling and brakes but he also has cams. intake, full exhaust stage 3 clutch and flywheel, he has a ton of **** I just can't remember all of it now. My main point about the Evo X was that it was a failure because yes even though it is faster around a track the car was hyped up so much and then turns out to be even slower in a straightline then previous models. The Evo used to be a raw stripped down drivers car. They're turning it into a more refined car with paddle shifters and a bunch of electronic crap.
stop comparing it as if its a drag car, its not, never was ment to be... i thnik this evo brings it closer to its roots (in terms of handling) then any previous.
this is the problem with mustang forums, everything needs to be compaired to a mustang... like i said before, im going to read a review on a jeep wrangler, then say im dissapointed because its 1/4 mile times arent as good as the previous one, totally forgetting that its ment for off road, not the drag.
stock for stock, the evo is 10x better then the stang doing what its built for, even with all the crap inside... and stock for stock the mustang is better then the evo for its function. (if there was a 32-36k mustang) so even that is a crap comparison.
i will say it again, any true road course driver, would give up a few tenths in the 1/4 for the ability to turn better, quarter times mean crap in the twisties...
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Nov 2006
Posts: 346
From: Manchester, UK
RE: Evo X
The EVO is a road going rally car. Think of it as such. There not designed for straight line which is why they are some of the fastest cars around when it comes to the twisty bits.
As I said ours are a bit better here but look at the topgear video of our top of the range one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1ZWJjC648I
As I said ours are a bit better here but look at the topgear video of our top of the range one.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=s1ZWJjC648I
5th Gear Member
Joined: Mar 2006
Posts: 3,095
From: CO
RE: Evo X
ORIGINAL: joshafmil
its SUPPOSE to be a track car, NOT a strip. jebuz... the evo is used in drag, yes because its good, but that is just bonus points. its always been for the road course, and its prime fuction is to turn on not so nice pavement.
stop comparing it as if its a drag car, its not, never was ment to be... i thnik this evo brings it closer to its roots (in terms of handling) then any previous.
this is the problem with mustang forums, everything needs to be compaired to a mustang... like i said before, im going to read a review on a jeep wrangler, then say im dissapointed because its 1/4 mile times arent as good as the previous one, totally forgetting that its ment for off road, not the drag.
stock for stock, the evo is 10x better then the stang doing what its built for, even with all the crap inside... and stock for stock the mustang is better then the evo for its function. (if there was a 32-36k mustang) so even that is a crap comparison.
i will say it again, any true road course driver, would give up a few tenths in the 1/4 for the ability to turn better, quarter times mean crap in the twisties...
ORIGINAL: sw07gt
A lot of it is handling and brakes but he also has cams. intake, full exhaust stage 3 clutch and flywheel, he has a ton of **** I just can't remember all of it now. My main point about the Evo X was that it was a failure because yes even though it is faster around a track the car was hyped up so much and then turns out to be even slower in a straightline then previous models. The Evo used to be a raw stripped down drivers car. They're turning it into a more refined car with paddle shifters and a bunch of electronic crap.
A lot of it is handling and brakes but he also has cams. intake, full exhaust stage 3 clutch and flywheel, he has a ton of **** I just can't remember all of it now. My main point about the Evo X was that it was a failure because yes even though it is faster around a track the car was hyped up so much and then turns out to be even slower in a straightline then previous models. The Evo used to be a raw stripped down drivers car. They're turning it into a more refined car with paddle shifters and a bunch of electronic crap.
stop comparing it as if its a drag car, its not, never was ment to be... i thnik this evo brings it closer to its roots (in terms of handling) then any previous.
this is the problem with mustang forums, everything needs to be compaired to a mustang... like i said before, im going to read a review on a jeep wrangler, then say im dissapointed because its 1/4 mile times arent as good as the previous one, totally forgetting that its ment for off road, not the drag.
stock for stock, the evo is 10x better then the stang doing what its built for, even with all the crap inside... and stock for stock the mustang is better then the evo for its function. (if there was a 32-36k mustang) so even that is a crap comparison.
i will say it again, any true road course driver, would give up a few tenths in the 1/4 for the ability to turn better, quarter times mean crap in the twisties...
you do realize that the mustang was originally made to handle well? Now, do you think if they just had kept improving handling and barely improving performance in every aspect (especially straight line) that the mustang would be one of the best selling cars of all time? very doubtful. The first thing you noticeabout a car when you drive it is usually it's power and who is gonna trade in their evo ix or vii for something just as fast or slower? not very many people.
4th Gear Member
Joined: Jun 2006
Posts: 1,287
From:
RE: Evo X
ORIGINAL: 8cd03gro
once again you fail to realize what our whole point is. When you make a new model of a car, you try to keep ALL aspects of performance at the VERY LEAST at the same level, you want to improve all of it. What are you going to feel when you go test drive an evo x as an AVERAGE DRIVER? you are gonna feel that it is slower. More comfy definately, but slower. The evo IX handles extremely well already and you are not going to notice much of a handling difference at all unless you go absolutely nuts on a test drive, so the point is, mitsubishi will probably not sell more evo's because of this . What is the average evo driver buying an evo to do? Drive it as a street car MAYBE a drag car. Probably 10% maximum will actually use it at a road course more than once.
you do realize that the mustang was originally made to handle well? Now, do you think if they just had kept improving handling and barely improving performance in every aspect (especially straight line) that the mustang would be one of the best selling cars of all time? very doubtful. The first thing you noticeabout a car when you drive it is usually it's power and who is gonna trade in their evo ix or vii for something just as fast or slower? not very many people.
once again you fail to realize what our whole point is. When you make a new model of a car, you try to keep ALL aspects of performance at the VERY LEAST at the same level, you want to improve all of it. What are you going to feel when you go test drive an evo x as an AVERAGE DRIVER? you are gonna feel that it is slower. More comfy definately, but slower. The evo IX handles extremely well already and you are not going to notice much of a handling difference at all unless you go absolutely nuts on a test drive, so the point is, mitsubishi will probably not sell more evo's because of this . What is the average evo driver buying an evo to do? Drive it as a street car MAYBE a drag car. Probably 10% maximum will actually use it at a road course more than once.
you do realize that the mustang was originally made to handle well? Now, do you think if they just had kept improving handling and barely improving performance in every aspect (especially straight line) that the mustang would be one of the best selling cars of all time? very doubtful. The first thing you noticeabout a car when you drive it is usually it's power and who is gonna trade in their evo ix or vii for something just as fast or slower? not very many people.
you have 2 forms of driving, the drag and the road course, both have different ways to optimize the car. the average joe will not notice a difference in the 1/4 mostly because they prolly wont know how to drive it to get those results, and same with the road course, they wont know how far they can take it, and prolly never see its limits. you act as if the average person takes their cars and hammers them through a drag, and when they see that its a few tenths off, they will be like, WTF? and sell it. not everyone knows how to optimize their car on a road course, and that is the SAME for a drag.
as for the mustang, it was originally made to be a better handling, faster car then the rest of fords products, but that doesnt mean it was made FOR handling, it was just made better, the muscle car race happend, and bam, bigger engines, red light racing, and thats how the mustang evolved. if everyone lived in the mountains in the 60s and the mustang came around, im sure it would have had a very different path. japan and europe are small, tighter roads, higher gas prices, which is why you see small maniverable cars, that dont pack v8's
all im saying is, a car has a purpose, and thats what its built for, everything after that is negotiable. mitsu continued with its build of its purpose, and then felt it would be better to make it more livable inside, to sell more, and at the expesnce of a few tenths, im sure they will be right on this. america likes pritty toys, kool gadgets, and blah blah blah, and more will sell with that, plus it makes the hard core road racers happy, with improved handling. 1/4 times? meh oh well...
6th Gear Member
Joined: Sep 2006
Posts: 5,565
From: NC
RE: Evo X
Hey EVO owners are the ones putting themselves out there as stoplight warriors and they do a damn good job of taking down most cars... a few tenths lost in the 1/4 is a loss of bragging rights for the ones that don't actually race their cars on a track (99% of them).
2nd Gear Member
Joined: Jun 2007
Posts: 206
From:
RE: Evo X
I understand that the point of the Evo is different in its other markets.
But this is America. And as you said, the American version has to cater to Americans.
Who, even when buying the Evo are using it as a drag vehicle in many instances. Again, because we are not blessed/cursed with twisty mountain roads in our commutes (most of us).
Therefore, when Mitsubishi designed the American spec Evo, losing some performance in the straight line is not a good thing for the American market.
When I design product, it has to meet or surpass the previous generation in every way. This is typically what successful products do.
One of the best reads in automotive product development is "All Corvettes are Red", documenting the development of the C5. They struggled to make sure that no aspect of that car was worse than the C4. Its mission statement was to do everything at least as good -- if not better than its predecessor.
And in that respect, the new Evo (if the numbers are true) does not meet a typical product development goal. Nor for that matter does the new Caliber SRT-4 (I had the original, miss it). It's a shame.
But this is America. And as you said, the American version has to cater to Americans.
Who, even when buying the Evo are using it as a drag vehicle in many instances. Again, because we are not blessed/cursed with twisty mountain roads in our commutes (most of us).
Therefore, when Mitsubishi designed the American spec Evo, losing some performance in the straight line is not a good thing for the American market.
When I design product, it has to meet or surpass the previous generation in every way. This is typically what successful products do.
One of the best reads in automotive product development is "All Corvettes are Red", documenting the development of the C5. They struggled to make sure that no aspect of that car was worse than the C4. Its mission statement was to do everything at least as good -- if not better than its predecessor.
And in that respect, the new Evo (if the numbers are true) does not meet a typical product development goal. Nor for that matter does the new Caliber SRT-4 (I had the original, miss it). It's a shame.