History of the EVO
#16
Evolving Member
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: Portland, OR
Posts: 113
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by avengerhed
I've always acknowledged the lancer history in the EVO and have frequently given the "thumbs up" to other lancer owners but I dont think the current iteration of the EVO can really be regarded as a lancer anymore.
- the vehicles are built in 2 different plants, on opposite sides of the world
- the body, though similar in style, shares NO similar panels or lighting assemblies
- frames are set up differently / extra welds on the EVO
- no similar sunning components
in my mind, and maybe this is naive, i see the evo being built seperately, from the ground up as an EVO... while you have something like a Cobra or SRT-4 or even STi that are built as their sister cars with upgrades... maye i'm wrong on this...i dont know
i know however, that you can make a cobra out of a mustang and an STi out of a WRX fairly easily where you just can't do that with a lancer and an evo ....
even "lookslikeanevo" 's car is really nice looking but to me really doesnt look like an evo.... and that still is ignoring the AWD turbo aspect of things
just my $0.02
- the vehicles are built in 2 different plants, on opposite sides of the world
- the body, though similar in style, shares NO similar panels or lighting assemblies
- frames are set up differently / extra welds on the EVO
- no similar sunning components
in my mind, and maybe this is naive, i see the evo being built seperately, from the ground up as an EVO... while you have something like a Cobra or SRT-4 or even STi that are built as their sister cars with upgrades... maye i'm wrong on this...i dont know
i know however, that you can make a cobra out of a mustang and an STi out of a WRX fairly easily where you just can't do that with a lancer and an evo ....
even "lookslikeanevo" 's car is really nice looking but to me really doesnt look like an evo.... and that still is ignoring the AWD turbo aspect of things
just my $0.02
#17
Evolved Member
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Cherry Hill, N.J.
Posts: 896
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by avengerhed
I've always acknowledged the lancer history in the EVO and have frequently given the "thumbs up" to other lancer owners but I dont think the current iteration of the EVO can really be regarded as a lancer anymore.
- the vehicles are built in 2 different plants, on opposite sides of the world
- the body, though similar in style, shares NO similar panels or lighting assemblies
- frames are set up differently / extra welds on the EVO
- no similar sunning components
in my mind, and maybe this is naive, i see the evo being built seperately, from the ground up as an EVO... while you have something like a Cobra or SRT-4 or even STi that are built as their sister cars with upgrades... maye i'm wrong on this...i dont know
i know however, that you can make a cobra out of a mustang and an STi out of a WRX fairly easily where you just can't do that with a lancer and an evo ....
even "lookslikeanevo" 's car is really nice looking but to me really doesnt look like an evo.... and that still is ignoring the AWD turbo aspect of things
just my $0.02
- the vehicles are built in 2 different plants, on opposite sides of the world
- the body, though similar in style, shares NO similar panels or lighting assemblies
- frames are set up differently / extra welds on the EVO
- no similar sunning components
in my mind, and maybe this is naive, i see the evo being built seperately, from the ground up as an EVO... while you have something like a Cobra or SRT-4 or even STi that are built as their sister cars with upgrades... maye i'm wrong on this...i dont know
i know however, that you can make a cobra out of a mustang and an STi out of a WRX fairly easily where you just can't do that with a lancer and an evo ....
even "lookslikeanevo" 's car is really nice looking but to me really doesnt look like an evo.... and that still is ignoring the AWD turbo aspect of things
just my $0.02
#18
There is something you must know though. The WRX is actually an upgrade to the Impreza. The STI is not built off of a WRX chassis. It is built of the impreza chassis. Which is in the the same class as the lancer (2.5rs = Ralliart). The WRX is just an uprade to the 2.5 RS. Which is the lowest form of Impreza at this current time.
#20
Evolving Member
iTrader: (9)
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Dripping Springs, TX
Posts: 155
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
If you go to lancerregister.com, they have a pdf file you can download called the "Evolution Buyer's Guide v3.1". Among other things, it has a complete history of the Evolution model. It's a British website, so they misspell stuff like "tyres" and "tonnes" but you'll get the idea.
http://www.lancerregister.com/art_evobuyersguide.php
You can also get the old sales brochures and technical information about the older models.
Also, http://www.lancer-evo.net has some of the same information, broken down by model, starting with the Evo I. Just go to the Technical Information page.
http://www.lancerregister.com/art_evobuyersguide.php
You can also get the old sales brochures and technical information about the older models.
Also, http://www.lancer-evo.net has some of the same information, broken down by model, starting with the Evo I. Just go to the Technical Information page.
#21
Evolved Member
iTrader: (25)
Originally Posted by loj68
ok, this is continued from a thread in OT about another car and about 2 pages of responses were deleted by mods so wanted to continue here. There seems to be an element here that thinks the EVO came first and the base Lancer was made from it. I'm not sure why someone would think that a car company would build a high-performing AWD rally car and then reverse engineer it into an econobox but there's no way such a thing would happen. Even if you go back to the original Lancer rally car, the turbo EX2000 it was still based on a 1973 Lancer which was their new compact car at the time with a base 1200cc engine. None of this does anything to take away from what a fantastic car an EVO is (I'm a huge EVO fan which is why I've been on this board so long) but it seems to be a sore spot with some as they try to distance the EVO from other performance cars that have econobox roots. Anyways, just wanted to start the discussion again and see what people's thoughts were on this.
"A t the beginning of the 1970's, Mitsubishi mobilized all its forces and aimed its motorsports program at the very highest level."--japan's mitsu site
Back at the time, Mitsubishi was primarily concerned with their winning racing heritage, when they designed the first batch of Lancers, from the 1200cc model to the 1600cc model, the 1600cc being the 1600GSR that they used to rally race with. With this new car design move, after many racing successes with the Colt and Galant, they wanted to make sure the rally version would also have a consumer version, because official rally rules said that rally cars must also have a variety that they sold to the consumers. Therefore, it was the racing idea that the Lancers were built off of, not the "econobox-roots" idea. Point being, Lancer is not a term that refers to "econobox." It is only in the US that some people tend to have this connection, since we got the regular Lancers before the Evo. Lancer in other countries, especially Japan refer to the racing heritage that it was based upon.
The first Lancer, 1600GSR:
The Lancer EX2000 Turbo:
Here's the whole history of the Evo:
https://www.evolutionm.net/features/article/lanevo/20
Last edited by Thoe99; Jan 8, 2005 at 10:42 AM.
#23
yes, true...about the "econobox" idea. But, mitsubishi decided to use the lancer chassis as its "econobox" car. So the chassis for the Evo is derived from a plain lancer chassis, probably for homologation purposes. It doesn't matter what angle you look at the Evo/Lancer comparison at, the chassis used for the lancer is used for Evo too. And human nature makes us begin with simpilest form to most complex.
#24
Evolved Member
iTrader: (25)
Originally Posted by favre95
yes, true...about the "econobox" idea. But, mitsubishi decided to use the lancer chassis as its "econobox" car. So the chassis for the Evo is derived from a plain lancer chassis, probably for homologation purposes. It doesn't matter what angle you look at the Evo/Lancer comparison at, the chassis used for the lancer is used for Evo too. And human nature makes us begin with simpilest form to most complex.
#25
Evolving Member
iTrader: (1)
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: America's Finest City
Posts: 227
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Just because of the extra welds and thicker sheet metal, doesn't make it a completely different chassis. You gotta support all that extra hardware somehow... They all start out on the same assembly line.
#26
Evolved Member
There are "econobox" FWD cheap Subaru Imprezas. They used to sell them here and they probably still do somewhere in the world, so it doesn't necessarily cheapen the Lancer heritage just because their exists a 14-15K version of it as opposed to the higher priced Subrau 2.5RS.
For every Cobra R or supercharged Cobra there's probably 20-100 V6 base Stangs.
For every Lightning there's a XL V6 work truck.
The same goes for Neon---SRT4 and all the other cars mentioned in this thread.
For every Cobra R or supercharged Cobra there's probably 20-100 V6 base Stangs.
For every Lightning there's a XL V6 work truck.
The same goes for Neon---SRT4 and all the other cars mentioned in this thread.
#27
The lancer and the Evo share interior bits and the front doors, trunk and glass. That is about it.
The body stamping is different, it is wider. It made with several different assembly techniques MASH welding for instance. Many of the body reinforcements are welded in place by hand. The reinforcements are added not to stiffen a base lancer chassis but because of the limits of sheet metal forming technology.
The commonality is at the most basic platform sharing level.
The Audi TT, A3 and Golf, Jetta, New beetle, several Seats and several Skodas have much more in common amongst themselves than do the Lancer and Evo. The only thing keeping the lancer name on the USDM Evo is a trademark issue. An Evo looks like a lancer but could easily not if Mitsubishi was more interested in fashion.
I would not be insulted by the Evo being an extension of the basic lancer at all. The base lancer is a well built technologically advanced car. I would hold no shame at all to be based off of one. It is more advanced than the new Mustang for one. The fact that it is relatively cheap just added to the charm and the achievement of the lancer engineering team.
When the latest lancer came out in Japan. Mr. Fuji (the real Mr. Evo) said that extensive feedback from the Evo team was incorporated into the base lancer to improve the overall platform for the VII.
The body stamping is different, it is wider. It made with several different assembly techniques MASH welding for instance. Many of the body reinforcements are welded in place by hand. The reinforcements are added not to stiffen a base lancer chassis but because of the limits of sheet metal forming technology.
The commonality is at the most basic platform sharing level.
The Audi TT, A3 and Golf, Jetta, New beetle, several Seats and several Skodas have much more in common amongst themselves than do the Lancer and Evo. The only thing keeping the lancer name on the USDM Evo is a trademark issue. An Evo looks like a lancer but could easily not if Mitsubishi was more interested in fashion.
I would not be insulted by the Evo being an extension of the basic lancer at all. The base lancer is a well built technologically advanced car. I would hold no shame at all to be based off of one. It is more advanced than the new Mustang for one. The fact that it is relatively cheap just added to the charm and the achievement of the lancer engineering team.
When the latest lancer came out in Japan. Mr. Fuji (the real Mr. Evo) said that extensive feedback from the Evo team was incorporated into the base lancer to improve the overall platform for the VII.
#28
Evolved Member
Originally Posted by erikgj
The lancer and the Evo share interior bits and the front doors, trunk and glass. That is about it.
The commonality is at the most basic platform sharing level.
The commonality is at the most basic platform sharing level.
I would not be insulted by the Evo being an extension of the basic lancer at all. The base lancer is a well built technologically advanced car.
#29
Originally Posted by GPTourer
I agree with this, but I would go on to say that the overall shape of the car, including its greenhouse does bind the two together as close siblings.
And that is the basis of this whole discussion. You (in general) are never going to convince someone in a Cobra or Z06 that has no respect for your car that the Evo isn't "based on some econobox" car. So it doesn't really matter. That is until you beat them.
And that is the basis of this whole discussion. You (in general) are never going to convince someone in a Cobra or Z06 that has no respect for your car that the Evo isn't "based on some econobox" car. So it doesn't really matter. That is until you beat them.
I respect Z06 because they perform. It is the engineer in me.
#30
Evolved Member
iTrader: (25)
Do you guys not see what I said earlier?? The original argument was that some people thought word Lancer had ties with "econobox." It was never that. The original Lancers were built upon the rally racing ideas. I don't care if it shares the same this or that. Lancer has a history of genuine racing heritage.