Please let me know where you are seeing this? I looked again but can't find anything stating the RS we tested didn't have A/C.

If that information is there, it's wrong.

 

They all lifted an inside wheel...

 

you just said earlier, but I'll see if I can't scan it tonight or atleast type in the page number.

 

nice. for some reason i was thinking the MR wouldn't. Did you guys notice any less ridgity in the RS or MR with both having the aluminum roof? That really was a good write up you guys had

 

No scans please, just tell me where this is, since I must be missing it.

In previous articles we did state that the RS was coming sans A/C,, but in between the press drives and the cars arriving Mitsubishi changed that and A/C became standard. It's listed in the 2004 Evo RS press kit as not having A/C and Mitsubishi never sent a correction letting us now that they'd dropped the Urban Jungle package and added A/C. I discovered it when reviewing the first shipment of RS's that hit the U.S. Unfortunately, people still use that original press kit for RS information and that's why articles still get out there with the incorrect information.

I proof-read this article to make sure it wasn't incorrectly listed again, so I'll be feeling pretty stupid if it's there. Of course it won't be the first time I've felt stupid...

 

Link to the dyno numbers:

http://motortrend.com/roadtests/seda...shi_evos_dyno/

 

I followed the link and could only view the straight VIII dyno chart. Are there dynos for the RS and MR that were tested too?

276 crank hp = 228 whp. That's a 17% drivetrain loss.

 

When Sport Compact Car chose the VIII as the car of the year over the RS and MR, they made the same mistake, stating that a reason not to buy the RS is that it doesn't have an air conditioner. Mine does, and so do all RS sold in the USA.

 

Click on the graph and it shows all three. The RS put down 235.

 

Click on the dyno chart and you'll see all three dyno runs.

 

Thanks, that works. The RS had a slightly stronger engine than the other two cars. The strange thing is that the VIII made peak hp at only 5050 rpm, while the RS and MR made peak at 6300 - 6450; the higher rpms seem right to me. I wouldn't want the engine from the VIII they tested.

The RS had 3% more power than the VIII, so it stands to reason that it would accelerate 3% faster. Since the RS did 0 - 60 mph in 4.3 seconds compared to 4.7 secs for the VIII and MR, which is an 8.5% shorter time, the difference in acceleration is accounted for by more than just power. Since the rule of thumb is that 100 lb. weight reduction will reduce (I think it is quarter mile time, not 0 - 60) by 1/10 of a second, something else besides power and weight are at work.

Or else I'm just BSing because I don't feel like working.

 

What a gimp...

 

I'd like to see it myself...especially having owned an RS and having read the article. But hey, this guy may see something others have not...and may be privy to secret
production that I missed

 

does anyone have the MR gear ratios. much appreciated.

 

Trying searching...I know someone posted a fancy graph comparing the ratios...