Motor Trend Times EVO 13.08 WTF!!!!!!!?
May 11, 2003, 07:39 PM
#18
Newbie
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
13.08 sounds pretty incredible (glad it's not my clutch/tranny), but 109 mph? I just can't believe that (nor the STi). That's like 9 or 10 mph higher than others are getting with their Evo trap speeds. That would be a HUGE disparity between stock Evos if so.
May 11, 2003, 07:50 PM
#19
Evolved Member
iTrader: (4)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Michigan
Posts: 790
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Hey guys, the mph Motor Trend achieved in the 1/4 mile was 105.12 not 109. The 4.5 0-60mph is correct if they ran a 13.08 ET. My 0-60 mph was calculated at 4.62 based on my 1/8 mile time (13.185 1/4 mile). I'm not saying they did it, I'm just saying the 0-60 mph time coincides with their ET.
Last edited by Silencer; May 11, 2003 at 08:03 PM.
May 11, 2003, 08:02 PM
#20
Evolving Member
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: Tokyo
Posts: 232
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Treading into whether or not the Evo is capable of that is as bad a minefield as any...
But keep in mind, those times were not achieved in a standard comparison test. This was a special test to see which car, many of them rather special cars, was the best in some pretty extreme categories. And not all of the cars were totally stock, either. They mentioned the Mosler came on some pretty non-standard and incredibly sticky tyres. The Mercedes had a change in the ecu to remove the speedlimiter. In other words, they asked each manufacturer to pony up a car for this specific test, and they let them know what they were doing. I think it's reasonable to say that every single one of those cars had a little extra attention paid to them before they got to MT. And IMO, it was necessary - if you didn't do it, you lost out to the others that did.
Cheers,
Paul Hansen
But keep in mind, those times were not achieved in a standard comparison test. This was a special test to see which car, many of them rather special cars, was the best in some pretty extreme categories. And not all of the cars were totally stock, either. They mentioned the Mosler came on some pretty non-standard and incredibly sticky tyres. The Mercedes had a change in the ecu to remove the speedlimiter. In other words, they asked each manufacturer to pony up a car for this specific test, and they let them know what they were doing. I think it's reasonable to say that every single one of those cars had a little extra attention paid to them before they got to MT. And IMO, it was necessary - if you didn't do it, you lost out to the others that did.
Cheers,
Paul Hansen
May 11, 2003, 08:09 PM
#21
Originally posted by 1QWKEVO
My comment about the 6-speed was simplely that the sti has a lower 1st gear so it comming out of the hole is going to be faster then an evo
My comment about the 6-speed was simplely that the sti has a lower 1st gear so it comming out of the hole is going to be faster then an evo
They pulled a 4.5 0-60, and ran the 1/4 mile in 13.08 seconds@ 109 mph
I found these numbers in two separate June MT articles, page 49 and page 90:
June issue of MT on page 49 quoted those EVO times as:
0-60mph = 4.59 sec
1/4 mile = 13.08 @ 105.1
June issue page 90 quoted 0-60 = 4.59, 1/4 mile = 12.08@105.12
Page 49: STi numbers posted by same driver who drove EVO but on different track:
0-60 mph = 4.87sec
1/4 mile = 13.23 @104.6
Note: Article states that they believe the surface used for EVO testing was grippier than that where STi was tested.
Tests from the "Speeding" article where page 90 numbers came from was conducted at the Ford proving grounds in Arizona. You can bet they have a "grippier" surface.
As far as MT drivers being consistently slower that other mags, don't count on it for this test. They brought in Derek Bell to do all the top speed tests on the 5 mile oval. I would not be surprised if they had equally talented drivers for the other test venues.
Finally, who cares about the 0-60 and 1/4 mile times in this test anyway. Read the rest of the article! The EVO rocks! Awesome braking, and slalom performance. Most important was the figure eight performance test where overall driving performance was measured.
60mph - 0 EVO 106', 4th place behind Viper SRT-10, Mosler MT900 Photon. and Z06 Corvette, but ahead of Lamborghini Murcielago, MB CL55 AMG, Ferrari 575 Maranello, SVT Cobra, and Jaguar XKR.
100mph - 0 EVO 292', 4th place again but still ahead of Lamborghini Murcielago, MB CL55 AMG, Ferrari 575 Maranello, SVT Cobra, and Jaguar XKR.
600' Slalom EVO 71.4 MPH 2d place behind Mosler MT900 Photon, but faster than everything previously listed!
Figure Eight Performance Test: EVO 24.9 sec, 5th place behind: Z06 by .1 sec, Lamborghini by .2 sec , Viper by 1 sec, and Mosler by 1.6 sec. Faster than Ferrari, MB CL-55 AMG, SVT Cobra, and Jag XKR.
Give me a break on this 0-60 and 1/4 mile smack.
Last edited by jfh; May 11, 2003 at 08:14 PM.
May 11, 2003, 09:17 PM
#22
Evolved Member
Thread Starter
iTrader: (3)
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Turkey Town (Gobble-Gobble)
Posts: 1,188
Likes: 0
Received 1 Like
on
1 Post
all i want ot know is why is MT the only group of people running 13.0 on a stock evo, I mean there is atleast 2000 evos on the street right now no? All 2000 of those drivers are bad drivers? If maybe 20% of the evos on the street running 13.0 it would be understandable and a resonable time, but when you have 1 car or maybe as many as 5 cars running 13.0 "stock" don't you think thats a bit odd.... I'm sure there was something changed on that evo. It sure would have been beautiful to have motortrend dyno that car they ran. I would have loved to see dyno figures around 230-240 then maybe more then one person would feel the same as i did. I mean look guys people are bolting on minor simple parts and running 12.9 (improving their stock times from mid 13's,) now some how convice me that the motor trend car would gain half a second with those same parts. Doesn't it sound fishy?
As far as MPH go, my friend drives a 4000lb sled called a 3000gt VR4, his trap speed was around 108 or 109 and he is running 12.8/ 12.7 times. Mind you his car has massive wheel spin off the line. I'm jsut really finding it hard to believe that the evo is pulling low 13's on it's stock setup running as rich as it does.
ah i don't know, i still love my evo I just want to know what made their evo so special....
As far as MPH go, my friend drives a 4000lb sled called a 3000gt VR4, his trap speed was around 108 or 109 and he is running 12.8/ 12.7 times. Mind you his car has massive wheel spin off the line. I'm jsut really finding it hard to believe that the evo is pulling low 13's on it's stock setup running as rich as it does.
ah i don't know, i still love my evo I just want to know what made their evo so special....
May 11, 2003, 10:15 PM
#24
Newbie
Join Date: May 2003
Posts: 36
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bingo 1QWKEVO, well stated. Your 1/4 time (13.53) is good, and your trap speed is consistent with other Evo times I've read (98 - 100 mph).
But 13.0x at 105.x??!?! That's a gain of 5-7 MPH! I just have trouble believing that stock Evos have trap speeds ranging from 98 to 105 mph. E.T.s might vary by .5 second or more due to driver skill (or lack of), but trap speeds will usually be fairly close regardless (i.e. within 2-3 mph). 105 mph is a pretty big jump over what most stock Evos are running (i.e. something like a 50 shot of nitrous might provide, or a good ECU program).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the Evo. I'd LOVE for it to consistently run 13.0x times at 105.x mph (cuz I'd sure as heck buy one, wheee!), but it just doesn't sound right for a car weighing 3300 lbs with 271 HP (even with an AWD clutch dump).
But 13.0x at 105.x??!?! That's a gain of 5-7 MPH! I just have trouble believing that stock Evos have trap speeds ranging from 98 to 105 mph. E.T.s might vary by .5 second or more due to driver skill (or lack of), but trap speeds will usually be fairly close regardless (i.e. within 2-3 mph). 105 mph is a pretty big jump over what most stock Evos are running (i.e. something like a 50 shot of nitrous might provide, or a good ECU program).
Don't get me wrong, I'm not bashing the Evo. I'd LOVE for it to consistently run 13.0x times at 105.x mph (cuz I'd sure as heck buy one, wheee!), but it just doesn't sound right for a car weighing 3300 lbs with 271 HP (even with an AWD clutch dump).
May 12, 2003, 03:03 AM
#26
Evolved Member
I'm glad to read mature responses to MT's test results. (When I clicked on this link, I was expecting to read thigns like, "Yeah, we just owned the STi!") But I was just as surprised to find out that the Evo ran a 13.08-second 1/4 mile when most magazines typically pull between 13.3 and 13.8. That puts the de-tuned U.S.-spec Evo nearly head-to-head with its higher-output JDM counterpart!
What people in other forums (about other cars) have said about BMW is that they tend to be biased when certain car manufacturers give them "attention" ($$$). A lot of people have said that BMW has done this with them, so maybe that's why almost every BMW/Mercedes-Benz comparison has ended with the BMW as the winner. Even when the previous-generation M3 (with the 240-hp motor) was put up against far more powerful competitors, the writers always overlooked its lack of power in favor of its handling. Maybe they're doing this with Mitsubishi.
What people in other forums (about other cars) have said about BMW is that they tend to be biased when certain car manufacturers give them "attention" ($$$). A lot of people have said that BMW has done this with them, so maybe that's why almost every BMW/Mercedes-Benz comparison has ended with the BMW as the winner. Even when the previous-generation M3 (with the 240-hp motor) was put up against far more powerful competitors, the writers always overlooked its lack of power in favor of its handling. Maybe they're doing this with Mitsubishi.
May 12, 2003, 09:31 AM
#27
Evolved Member
Join Date: Mar 2003
Location: Sarasota
Posts: 908
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Re: Motor Trend Times EVO 13.08 WTF!!!!!!!?
Originally posted by 1QWKEVO
Hey guys I jsut read in my Motor Trend that they timed several stock vehicles of which one was a 2003 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution ( in red
) They pulled a 4.5 0-60, and ran the 1/4 mile in 13.08 seconds@ 109 mph. Can anyone even begin to explain this time. From what i've seen Motor Trends numbers are usually underestimated, and if my knoledge serves me correct I thought they already timed it at 13.8 seconds a few issues back..... How is this car faster then a 300hp, same weight, and 6-speed trannied STi?
Hey guys I jsut read in my Motor Trend that they timed several stock vehicles of which one was a 2003 Mitsubishi Lancer Evolution ( in red
) They pulled a 4.5 0-60, and ran the 1/4 mile in 13.08 seconds@ 109 mph. Can anyone even begin to explain this time. From what i've seen Motor Trends numbers are usually underestimated, and if my knoledge serves me correct I thought they already timed it at 13.8 seconds a few issues back..... How is this car faster then a 300hp, same weight, and 6-speed trannied STi?
May 12, 2003, 10:04 AM
#28
Newbie
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 84
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
I'm sure MT got that number with their Evo.....the real question is can you duplicate it with yours? Can you even come close.
Supposidly silence did but the overwhelming majority are at least a 1/2 second off of that time. Some Evo owners have trouble even getting under 14 in the 1/4 mile. MT says they test it again, maybe next month....bet they get completely different numbers.
Supposidly silence did but the overwhelming majority are at least a 1/2 second off of that time. Some Evo owners have trouble even getting under 14 in the 1/4 mile. MT says they test it again, maybe next month....bet they get completely different numbers.
May 12, 2003, 11:30 AM
#29
Newbie
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: Miami/Coral Springs, FL
Posts: 37
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
Bro, you are freaking out over nothing. The EVO has been out for hardly any time at all. Already an owner reported he ran a 13.1 ET. If an owner is running a 13.1 ET, surely the magazine can. You bring up all these numbers of them testing cars "underestimating" them, but that is not a truth or norm. Before the S2000 even came out I remember when they got a 13.8 ET out of it. It was a very long time before anyone ran a 13.8(certainly not within a month of the car coming out like silencer did), and even to this day after many years, there are but a handful of 13s timeslips on bonestock s2000s.
I think people are a little too confident in their own driving. Drivers that can extract 100% of cars such as the S2000 and the EVO are few and far between. There is no way that you're going to see a bunch of 13.0 - 13.2 time slips in the EVO, just like you're not going to see a bunch of 13.7 - 13.9 times on the S2000. Is it possible? yes? Is it possible for more than a handful of EVO owners out there? no.
Just because you're .5 off, doesn't mean it's impossible man. I think you need to examine factors other than, "i'm a really good driver, and i'm still .5 off.....gee it must just be impossible if I can't do it."
I think people are a little too confident in their own driving. Drivers that can extract 100% of cars such as the S2000 and the EVO are few and far between. There is no way that you're going to see a bunch of 13.0 - 13.2 time slips in the EVO, just like you're not going to see a bunch of 13.7 - 13.9 times on the S2000. Is it possible? yes? Is it possible for more than a handful of EVO owners out there? no.
Just because you're .5 off, doesn't mean it's impossible man. I think you need to examine factors other than, "i'm a really good driver, and i'm still .5 off.....gee it must just be impossible if I can't do it."
May 12, 2003, 11:40 AM
#30
Evolved Member
iTrader: (2)
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Between the Blue and the Sand
Posts: 2,367
Likes: 0
Received 0 Likes
on
0 Posts
The magazine stated that the surface of the ford Proving grounds was very grippy, and well set up. They speculated that the decrease in 0-60 times were partly attributed to the surface quality difference, and partly due to the fact that the Evo they had was well broken in vs the car they tested a few mos ago.
Someone on this site clocked a 1/4 of 13.1 secs on a stock Evo....so I don't think it's entirely out of the question to think that a magazine could better that number by 2 hundredths of a second....
SC~
Someone on this site clocked a 1/4 of 13.1 secs on a stock Evo....so I don't think it's entirely out of the question to think that a magazine could better that number by 2 hundredths of a second....
SC~