Death of the EVO
Apr 2, 2006, 11:30 AM
#31
Once the EVO goes out of production I guess you can just buy the Ralliart Eclipse AWD Turbo if you want something with a similar drivetrain. It is coming. Soon. But if you want a 4-door I guess you will have to German or wait for the EVO X.
EVOlutionary
EVOlutionary
Apr 2, 2006, 07:31 PM
#32
Originally Posted by GPTourer
The Evo is the performance flagship, they don't have anything else as far as halo cars go. They are talking about adding more Evo qualities to the line up, which is why the Ralliart Galant is on the way, and possibly either a Ralliart or GSX Eclipse for 2008/9. They don't make the Diamante anymore.
at least one dictionaries says:
fladship: top-of-the-line, topline, premium, prime, leading, champion, best, top
And for my purposes the Evo is all that and more, as far as a Mits goes.
But I'm pretty sure I seen it used to refer to a Company's anticipated marketshare money maker
googled for a few examples
ex:
Mitsubishi's answer to Toyota's Celsior (Lexus LS400) and Nissan's President is called Proudia, the name signifying the company's proud mien for its new flagship and its traditional triple-diamond insignia.
And:
Mitsubishi's New Eclipse Design Is Introduced
Mitsubishi Motors showed off a new design for its flagship vehicle on Wednesday morning.
Developers, town of Normal officials and plant workers all applauded the 2006 Mitsubishi Eclipse.
http://www.dexigner.com/product/news-g3958.html
****(Sorry The big letters are their emphasis not mine)*****
1.5 turbo czt colt hatchback from mitsubishi
The new flagship turbocharged 150 bhp Colt CZT was built for customers who want dynamic performance, with affordability.
So without going back to who said what and in what way about the Evo being the flagship, and not refuting the point you were making:
I'm simply quoting yours because is was well reasoned and not as emotionally charged as a few of the others.
I think that Mits just might be looking to make the X it flagship or a flagship of sorts,
but..... I seriously doubt it will be received by tuners or shophisticated enthusiasts.
Sure, maybe I'm wrong, time will tell, but based on what I've watched over the years, I'll believe it when I see it.
Now I'm off to answer a few of the more of the more pointed replys.
Funny, I would think that in a thread titled "The Death of the Evo" a few edgy or dark opinions might be expected - .... debated ... sure ... but no surprise!
Apr 2, 2006, 07:33 PM
#33
Originally Posted by trevor
Yeah, it is pretty sad how Mitsu can take a good thing and turn it bad. As mentioned previously, the nice AWD turbo setup they had with the Eclipse GSX that tuners and many other people loved turned into a bigger, heavier, less powerful NA FWD car... which, in my mind, makes it worse in every way. Talk about SUCK 
So they kind of have a history of taking something good and turning it bad. It's hard to believe they would be that stupid - look at their current lineup of cars. Which ones do people really want and are often forced into paying over MSRP for. I haven't heard of anybody having to dish out extra cash to get into a Montero or a Galant
, it's pretty obvious the Evo is their only car they are doing well with. If something is working well, why get rid of it or change it drastically?? *sigh*...
So they kind of have a history of taking something good and turning it bad. It's hard to believe they would be that stupid - look at their current lineup of cars. Which ones do people really want and are often forced into paying over MSRP for. I haven't heard of anybody having to dish out extra cash to get into a Montero or a Galant
, it's pretty obvious the Evo is their only car they are doing well with. If something is working well, why get rid of it or change it drastically?? *sigh*...
Apr 2, 2006, 07:46 PM
#34
Evolved Member
Originally Posted by nirvevo
I think that Mits just might be looking to make the X it flagship or a flagship of sorts,
When those guys were talking about that Colt, I think they meant flagship of the Colt lineup, the turbo CZT - not of Mitsubishi. The MR is the flagship amongst Evos, for instance. The GTS is the flagship Galant, until the RA comes out.
Acura might say the NSX is its flagship, and/or halo car. But then the RL is the luxury flagship or just flagship too. To me halo implies a car that doesn't sell very well, but is built out of pride regardless to make buyers feel confident about the rest of the brand. Mitsubishi intends to make money off of Evos and will build as many as the market will bear. Not like the Viper, NSX, GT, etc.
I really hope Mitsu will start building more and more technologically advanced vehicles, instead of trying to be ho-hum appliance like Honda and Toyota. Maybe more and more turbos and AWD cars will come around, but the evo will remain the top dog.
Last edited by GPTourer; Apr 2, 2006 at 07:51 PM.
Apr 2, 2006, 07:49 PM
#35
Originally Posted by yellowEVO21
Because you have taken 3 posts to completely miscontrue how i used the term "flagship", i'm going to take a min out of my day and respond to your argument that because the evo hasn't been advertised a lot (or at all), it's not important enough to be the flagship of Mitsubishi in the US.
1.
Where did I ever say that it's the flagship because of how much its advertised? That's great reasoning you brought up. In fact, I think you should tell that to Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bentley and a couple of other no-name brands that have outrageous price-tags, because i don't see them advertised much. According to you, they must have horrible marketing strategy.
conphuzed brought up an excellent point, you hardly see the corvette being advertised. actually come to think of it, i can't remember the last time i saw a corvette commercial and i think the corvette is pretty much the chevy flagship....even from a symbolism perspective.
2. I can't say for sure, esp from a marketing perspective, what Mits should do to revive their other car lines. However, from a marketing and common sense perspective, The EVO is the best thing Mits has going for them in the US. I personally believe it'd take a lot to screw up the X (maybe not too much from an aesthetic viewpoint, but certainly from a performance perspective). But even that aside, they're not going to sink their most popular (and best) Car by doing it halfass. Do you honestly think that the X won't perform as well as or even better than the 8 or 9? Please don't transfer your disdain for the Galant over to the EVo X
And as for your argument about the most spent on advertising = flagship status, see my point (and conphuzed's) above.
3. um actually a lot of enthusiasts would probably agree with that.
4. once again, refer to above. I see a lot more ads for the Mits Raider truck than I've ever seen for the EVo. so according to you, more advertising = most important Mits vehicle? riiiiight....
Maybe, although with all of the flapships that we are floating now, may be it's just the "Truck that makes other trucks **** them selves" flagship ... I dunno
So in short, I used the word "flagship" to describe the accolades and overall brand recognition of the EVO in the US for mitsubishi.
Considering how you refer to the fact that you like how mits doesn't advertise the evo, do you think that's just because they forgot to include the Evo in their marketing budget? They do it cause it's had a following before it even came to the US and they need to advertise other cars MUCH more (such as the galant or raider) because they're doing worse and don't have the brand recognition or the awards the EVO has.
So please stop trying to argue that the amount of money spent advertising a car is connected to it's status in a brand line, you're wrong. Tell us the next time you see a McClarren F1 being advertised next to the same ad you saw for a Subie Forrester.
1.
Where did I ever say that it's the flagship because of how much its advertised? That's great reasoning you brought up. In fact, I think you should tell that to Ferrari, Lamborghini, Bentley and a couple of other no-name brands that have outrageous price-tags, because i don't see them advertised much. According to you, they must have horrible marketing strategy.
conphuzed brought up an excellent point, you hardly see the corvette being advertised. actually come to think of it, i can't remember the last time i saw a corvette commercial and i think the corvette is pretty much the chevy flagship....even from a symbolism perspective.
2. I can't say for sure, esp from a marketing perspective, what Mits should do to revive their other car lines. However, from a marketing and common sense perspective, The EVO is the best thing Mits has going for them in the US. I personally believe it'd take a lot to screw up the X (maybe not too much from an aesthetic viewpoint, but certainly from a performance perspective). But even that aside, they're not going to sink their most popular (and best) Car by doing it halfass. Do you honestly think that the X won't perform as well as or even better than the 8 or 9? Please don't transfer your disdain for the Galant over to the EVo X
And as for your argument about the most spent on advertising = flagship status, see my point (and conphuzed's) above.
3. um actually a lot of enthusiasts would probably agree with that.
4. once again, refer to above. I see a lot more ads for the Mits Raider truck than I've ever seen for the EVo. so according to you, more advertising = most important Mits vehicle? riiiiight....
Maybe, although with all of the flapships that we are floating now, may be it's just the "Truck that makes other trucks **** them selves" flagship ... I dunno
So in short, I used the word "flagship" to describe the accolades and overall brand recognition of the EVO in the US for mitsubishi.
Considering how you refer to the fact that you like how mits doesn't advertise the evo, do you think that's just because they forgot to include the Evo in their marketing budget? They do it cause it's had a following before it even came to the US and they need to advertise other cars MUCH more (such as the galant or raider) because they're doing worse and don't have the brand recognition or the awards the EVO has.
So please stop trying to argue that the amount of money spent advertising a car is connected to it's status in a brand line, you're wrong. Tell us the next time you see a McClarren F1 being advertised next to the same ad you saw for a Subie Forrester.
Geeze Dude, what's wrong?
... well, I'll refer you to a previous post I just made about flagships, won't argue the point, but the one thing that you say above:
"So in short, I used the word "flagship" to describe the accolades and overall brand recognition of the EVO in the US for mitsubishi."
Man if that doesn't describe the how Mits wants the Eclipse received, I don;t know what does, but it ain't the Evo .... (don't get me wrong I LOVE THE EVO) it's the only Mits I'd own (not saying there aren't other good Mits, just my personal thing)
In any event I don't feel my comments were out of line on a thread titled "The Death of the Evo" nor do I think that I was thread jacking, just offering different opinions in a public forum.
True they may be too edgy or dark (? ... don't know just allowing for it)
I'm cool with the fact you disagree ... doesn't change my outlook on the whole thing though.
Hope I didn't hack the quote up too much for you to pick out my comments and make sense out of what I am trying to convey I tried to add a line in italics in your quote but it didn't show up very good, it's under your point #4
Last edited by nirvevo; Apr 2, 2006 at 08:01 PM.
Apr 2, 2006, 08:03 PM
#37
Evolved Member
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
hmm the points i addressed before had to do with someone thinking that flagship status went hand-in-hand with advertising. i wanted to show that point wasn't true. i think i accomplished that.
i think the evo is the best and, lack of navi and cruise control notwithstanding, the most advanced in the mits lineup. but i've flogged this particular dead horse enough, so i'm done mentioning that.
but, i digress to the spirit of the thread - does the lack of evo 9 in 2007 and the drastic changes in the X constitute the "death of the evo"? nah, i don't think so.
how do i know? I don't. I just don't think it will go the route of the eclipse gsx. and if you ask me why i think that, i'll just say "well, i just HOPE it doesn't."
my .10 cents.
i think the evo is the best and, lack of navi and cruise control notwithstanding, the most advanced in the mits lineup. but i've flogged this particular dead horse enough, so i'm done mentioning that.
but, i digress to the spirit of the thread - does the lack of evo 9 in 2007 and the drastic changes in the X constitute the "death of the evo"? nah, i don't think so.
how do i know? I don't. I just don't think it will go the route of the eclipse gsx. and if you ask me why i think that, i'll just say "well, i just HOPE it doesn't."
my .10 cents.
Apr 2, 2006, 08:04 PM
#38
Originally Posted by Turbolover
GET A HONDA!
Is that like a general statement to everyone on the thread or did you just like click on the wrong link on a Honda Forum?
Apr 2, 2006, 08:10 PM
#39
Evolved Member
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
haha, i don't think you jacked the thread at all. if anything you were just responding to my post.
I just disagreed with the way you interpreted my use of the term and your argument over advertising, and i wanted to clear up any misconceptions, which i'm sure people are sick of reading my explanations by now.
I just disagreed with the way you interpreted my use of the term and your argument over advertising, and i wanted to clear up any misconceptions, which i'm sure people are sick of reading my explanations by now.
Apr 2, 2006, 08:16 PM
#40
Originally Posted by yellowEVO21
hmm the points i addressed before had to do with someone thinking that flagship status went hand-in-hand with advertising. i wanted to show that point wasn't true. i think i accomplished that.
i think the evo is the best and, lack of navi and cruise control notwithstanding, the most advanced in the mits lineup. but i've flogged this particular dead horse enough, so i'm done mentioning that.
but, i digress to the spirit of the thread - does the lack of evo 9 in 2007 and the drastic changes in the X constitute the "death of the evo"? nah, i don't think so.
how do i know? I don't. I just don't think it will go the route of the eclipse gsx. and if you ask me why i think that, i'll just say "well, i just HOPE it doesn't."
my .10 cents.
i think the evo is the best and, lack of navi and cruise control notwithstanding, the most advanced in the mits lineup. but i've flogged this particular dead horse enough, so i'm done mentioning that.
but, i digress to the spirit of the thread - does the lack of evo 9 in 2007 and the drastic changes in the X constitute the "death of the evo"? nah, i don't think so.
how do i know? I don't. I just don't think it will go the route of the eclipse gsx. and if you ask me why i think that, i'll just say "well, i just HOPE it doesn't."
my .10 cents.
And in the context of "Mits won't endanger their flagship" My point last night was and continues to be, that's a faint hope -
Including all of the Mits quotes I placed, I was referring to the present Evo
(I agree that the X might be Mits attemp - again I say Attempt - at a new perfomance - halo - luxury - sportscar - looks like an Audi form the front and a Mazda from the rear FLAGSHIP ... to be more succinct ... (or actually less :-)
One thing for sure - Flagship is a bit broader than hot car that I happen to like and think is the Shiz
Apr 2, 2006, 08:20 PM
#41
nothin wrong with wanting to be understood :-)
meant to quote this:
"I just disagreed with the way you interpreted my use of the term and your argument over advertising, and i wanted to clear up any misconceptions, which i'm sure people are sick of reading my explanations by now."
meant to quote this:
"I just disagreed with the way you interpreted my use of the term and your argument over advertising, and i wanted to clear up any misconceptions, which i'm sure people are sick of reading my explanations by now."
Last edited by nirvevo; Apr 2, 2006 at 08:22 PM.
Apr 2, 2006, 08:23 PM
#42
Evolved Member
iTrader: (24)
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Central NJ
Posts: 1,353
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Originally Posted by nirvevo
One thing for sure - Flagship is a bit broader than hot car that I happen to like and think is the Shiz
maybe i'm just bias against the "popular" eclipse, but i just dont think the eclipse cuts it as the flagship.
god, this thread has really made me hate that word now. even if the evo does "die", we still got our cars now and we'll sell them for a buttload of money later!
Last edited by yellowEVO21; Apr 2, 2006 at 08:26 PM.