This is why I can't take you seriously. How do you make a demonstrably false statement like this? Have you ever heard of Formula 1, NHRA top fuel dragsters or just looked at the range of a Tesla S, which is pathetically the BEST range of a production electric (And cheap at only $95,000!)? Those, right there, are examples why internal combustion technology dominates any category. If electric technology were "the best" we would have seen it dominate in motor racing but we haven't because it's just not as good.

I'm not saying that electrics/hybrids are garbage in general, just that you are clearly wrong in your "they're better in every way". They're not.

[derailing topic warning] The only reason hybrids exist is to save trees. That's it. We can all drive 50MPG Golf to work, a 650HP Shelby as a weekend cruiser and tow it all with a 830 ft/lb 6.7L F-250 right now. You can buy all three brand new for the price of a ONE Signature Tesla S and all will net at least 400 mile and at most 750 mile range, while performing their purpose better than any electric on the planet. And they sound wonderful. And they're lighter. And they handle better. And it takes 3 minutes to "refuel".

But no. We need to save polar bears, panda's, bees and coral reefs because nature created humans yet somehow merits savior from their poisonous evil gasses. A totally tropical earth filled with highways flowing with V12 motor vehicles is the work of Satan. [/derailing topic]

At any rate, I digress.

Fair enough. Minor disagreement there on the least/most competitive the Evo would be and yes, $40k according to me; I'm just speculating that the prices of '08 GT-R's will be there in 12 - 18 months.

Ok, I'll accept the ~$450/KWh and the assumption of 12KWh but where's the rest? And for arguments sake I'll accept that the rest of the $5k will be easy and state subsidized, like I did earlier. I also accept, for the sake of argument, the ~$35k starting point for the car.

My problem is this: You aren't providing economic reasoning for why Mitsubishi will turn the $120k sports car segment on its head by offering people a revolutionary rival for $35k? Mitusbishi would have to be stupid not to make a commercial of the Evo XI saying, "Buy a top of the line GT-R? STOP! Buy an Evo XI, pay it off and SPANK that GT-R on a track while paying NINETY-FIVE THOUSAND DOLLARS LESS!"

"Easily referenced facts" like the claim that electric vehicles are better than single engine combustion vehicles even though todays technology can't produce a single record beater against internal combustion in any category? Not range, not acceleration, not handling, not stopping, nothing. The only thing electrics get praise for is not using gasoline, which is like a man bragging about how little he menstruates. Wow! It's ****ing nothing!

 

I said every way except one, and that is the energy density of the fuel, which makes a pure electric vehicle less than ideal for racing applications. Mating the superior electric drivetrain with an onboard generator and high-density fuel source makes sense, even in a performance environment. If you replaced an F1 car's drivetrain with the Model S drivetrain and were able to source a battery with the same energy density as gasoline, you would have a highly competitive (and possibly ban-worthy) F1 car.

Yes, you did digress. You are assuming that the only reason is to save polar bears. The actuality is that a majority of the expense of owning a car is in the cost of fuel and upkeep. Even a 50% premium paid for an electric vehicle will pay for itself based solely on cost of ownership. While you could get all three vehicles you listed for the same price as a single Tesla Model S, they would be less reliable, cost more to upkeep, and cost far more to fuel. The reasons are economic as well as environmental. Even Conservatives recognize the need for energy independence.

First, I believe it would be $80,000 less, but that really is beside the point. Economic justifications? Economy of scale. Mitsubishi is going to be rolling out hybrid electric platforms across their lineup, and the more electric motors, inverters, and batteries they purchase, the cheaper they all become. CAFE requirements force them to up their fleet average fuel economy in order to even sell cars, and unlike Nissan, they don't have a Leaf to offset the GT-R. Finally, Mitsubishi doesn't have the branding that Nissan does right now. If you remember, when the GT-R was first released, It was selling for significantly cheaper than any other car with equivalent performance. Nissan didn't have the branding at that time, just like Mitsubishi doesn't have the branding now. If they have to sell their flagship at a loss (or break even price), it still makes economic sense. They are establishing a brand.

 

20.00 bet then?

I'm sorry, but I owned 2 Nissan Altimas as well as a 370z. ALL of them had 5x better interior build quality, so I don't know what you mean when you say "Nissan can", the GT-R is obviously an all around better car. The GTI was named best interior for ALL cars 40k and under, and it's 25 grand so what has been Mitsu's excuse for a 30-45k car with a much cheaper build. Now, I've had 2 Evo's and loved both of them and their reliability is actually quite good and I would even say top notch with the abuse that most of them take. Is it worth the extra 5, 10, 20 grand more than say my 2012 WRX? I'll be honest, my WRX is better inside than either of my Evo's, though I still consider it cheap.

It's a simple realization of moving up slowly when it comes to power numbers. The Evo from the time it came to the U.S. has went from 276 (VIII) to 287 (iX) which then made the MASSIVE jump to 291 (X) I don't care about the gentleman's agreement or how much this person's or that person's had on the dyno... these are the advertised numbers. I would ask you an even better question... what makes you think based on that history alone that Mitsu would make a TWO HUNDRED hp jump to 500???

The problem is that if they did this, where would they go next? 505? 510? Have everyone whine and cry about how the power isn't up over 1000 next? You see how they would be shooting themselves in the foot? The next model was already claimed several places I had read to be 350 hp... even that's a big jump over the X and assuming the weight is about the same ... about 1/2 second quicker in the quarter mile (since that's what everyone seems to be hung up on). So you would have an Evo that would run 12.5 or less when even the top performing 470hp/470tq Charger Superbee has run a 12.5 stock with a 6.2L V-8 with 23 mpg or less.

Like I said, i'll bet anyone that 20.00 that there won't be a 500 hp Evo. Now as was mentioned earlier... if they are going to make a VR-4 style car that is going to be pushing those numbers... that might be more believable.

 

Based on the fact that they almost took the Evo off their line-up, I seriously doubt they are willing to just "break even"... what would be the point of that? You don't think if they just made some nice interior changes, or upped the mpg for 2015 that people wouldn't go out and still buy them the same as they are for 2014? Mitsu could do that and still be making profit. They aren't going to almost double the hp just to "establish a brand". That makes zero sense and would be a very stupid business move. The Evo is and has been established for many years.

 

No.

Altima vs. evo? Not really a good comparison is it. I also see discrepancies in comparing the 370 to an evo as well, RWD NA coupe vs AWD turbo sedan? While still a performance orientated car the target markets are quite different. Selling a product is where the money is, so you need to build your product to sell it to your target market. I'll assume the next question is do I think that Mitsubishi built the evo with substandard interior intentionally? Honestly, yes. If you want to complain about substandard interiors in expensive cars, take a look at the Lamborghini Sesto Elemento, that barely has any seats and costs a lot more than an evo.



Nissan seem to be doing fine in improving the GTR. I struggle to find why quarter mile times are relevant. Another less than worthwhile vehicle comparison.

Interesting that you mention the VR4 (assuming you mean the 3000GT and not the galant), have you looked at the images associated with the "500hp evo"? Or the Concept RA?



Does that look like an evo to you? Can you not see Mitsubishi using something that looks like this and using the name "Evolution"?

 

I don't think Nissan were doing particularly great when they were letting their GTRs out the door at 70K a piece, I think they are quite happy with how they are doing now though.

 

well then Nissan must have been doing poor over there. We were buying 2 Altimas and they had to go I think 3 states away to get them because no one had them in stock locally. Nissan was doing just fine at the time.

 

I don't know what the hell that thing looks like... other than ugly.

 

I apologize, I didn't word that as I meant it. To be clearer "I don't think Nissan were making a lot of money with each GTR they sold."

 

That's like saying global warming doesn't exist because it got cold where you live one day

 

But when you make a price comparison you need to take into account where all the money went. So add AWD along with AYC and ACD, (speaking of interior) recaro/momo interior, brembo brakes and bump power up to 291bhp. Where do you think the price difference actually is. As for the 370 comparison. The difference is in the client, I do not want a Nissan 370Z. Why? Because Nissan made it to sell to people who are different to me, that is why the comparison is weak.

Yup, I'll take that bet on the Lambo's paint (it isn't painted) and other things that the Lambo has that the evo doesn't? Nothing except performance and prestige.

Well, yeah, you guys were quite likely gagging for the Skyline. But Nissan did not make a USDM Skyline to sell to you, they made a new car which is quite different called the GTR.

I don't get it, you're saying the GTR's success is because a car that did not perform as well as it was not available stateside? Not because it outperformed a number of vehicles priced much higher? And that if Mitsubishi tried to make a high performing vehicle on a budget they would not be able to sell it?

It's OK, I don't think you are Mitsubishi's target market for this vehicle.

 

Anecdotal evidence is great, isn't it?

I'm really not sure how this digressed into a Nissan does it better than Mitsubishi discussion. The fact is, the GT-R was amazing when it was released, and it is maximizing the potential of a pure internal combustion engine platform. Mitsubishi is now attempting to maximize the potential of the plug-in hybrid electric vehicle platform. Why the assumption that Mitsubishi can't do it? You really think Nissan is that much better? The Nissan cars I've driven haven't impressed me much, and just go to a Nissan Leaf forum to see how well Nissan has been doing with their battery issues.

Obviously, price point and availability are big questions, but Mitsubishi's being able to cram 500 hp into a hybrid EVO platform is very achievable.

 

Admittedly I am constantly flipping cars... now my X I had for about 20k or so miles, but I would have kept it. I myself DID buy a 370z, I also had a 2010 MS3, my Wife had an 09 MS3, I had the 370 after that... and then sold that for my WRX due to being upside down on my Z and the fact that they were performing quite well for a non STI (also for 25k OTD (plus my money on my Z that was still owed).
Your argument that the comparison is "weak" is your own thinking, but plenty of people on this site were quite interested in trading their Evo's for my 370, including AMS... weak you say? I say get off your high horse.

I loved my X, I liked it better than my IX and as far as performance it's been my very favorite car. Are their things that i'd like to see improved? Sure.

I don't care if I am mitsu's "target for this vehicle" since based on all of you all thinking that it's going to be some "GT-R killer" that's going to cost 70k or more... so not many will be their target.

 

still can't let that go huh?

 

Yes I noticed the energy density part along with the incorrect "everything" part. Speculating that a hybrid F1 car would be "highly competitive" is just that; speculation. You are still wrong on your account of the competitiveness of hybrids and electrics and until you cite an electric or plug-in car that goes up Pike's Peak faster, the Nordschleiffe faster, the 1/4 mile faster, or the salt flats faster (or anything else. speed boats, biplanes, whatever) than a good old fashioned lightweight internal combustion vehicle, you're just deliberately countering facts with fiction. In other words, lying.

When all is said and done, the majority of expense in owning ANY car is in market value. Endpoint market value is vital to how we determine the TCO of any vehicle and it is the largest value in the equation. Not "upkeep". So wrong again. I don't contest your claim that electrics are potentially more reliable, though.

The "50% premium pays for itself" is total rubbish unless one keeps the car for 15 years and you know it. Just use google on that one. And yes, the ELECTRIC car uses less fuel since it doesn't operate on it. This is like saying the gasoline car uses less plutonium. Wow! Too bad in every non-strawman category the electric is horrid.

What I do contest is the notion that producing electric vehicles is for economic reasons. No it's not. We've had electric vehicles for over 100 years and they've never caught on. Why? Because it costs way, way more to manufacture an electric (that's aside from the technological inferiority of them).

The reason there's an onslaught of electrics is because governments are a) tightening carbon emissions regulations and b) heavily pissing away working people's money on making corporations rich by funding stuff the public doesn't want. This is causing prices to go down but obviously they're still outrageous. The Chevy Volt is ridiculously expensive even with subsidies. The only reason Tesla is solvent, as opposed to Fisker, is the same reason as GM. The government is shipping pallets of cash to them and writing checks to consumers buying their products. There is no other way to get such an economically hemorrhaging product into people's hands (i'd love to discuss the economic/moral catastrophe this is--from a philosophical standpoint--but we're already way off topic, i think)

And, to get to my point, the reason all of this is happening is because the government thinks that whales, bees and aliens in the coral reef are going to perish and cause an apocalypse if they do. It's a sense of urgency based on the compassion for all life. Totally immoral (not the sense or compassion, but the judgment and action) but again I digress.

Economy of scale? So Mitsubishi is like Steve Jobs when he convinced the record companies that selling individual songs for 99 cents will net them higher profits in the long run?

Do you actually believe this? Have you seen mitsubishi's sales numbers? The scale you're talking about is one that mitsubishi's production capacity could not handle at all unless they stop making all other vehicles and bought 50 more factories. They'd have to make the Corolla and F-150 look rare. That's not gonna happen. Mitsubishi's sales are just going to keep declining and the Evo XI is going to be what it already is: A hesitantly revived idea that was supposed to succeed a technologically lagging, mediocre vehicle that was plummeting in sales. Actually that's everything Mitsubishi makes now .

EDIT: To cite my claim on sales (Mistubishi's website):

Am I reading that wrong or can Mitsubishi absolutely not afford to lose money on the Evo XI? I think so. Its clear why they scrapped the idea in the first place. Economics tells you when you're ****ing up.